Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

A new visitation paradigm for protected areas

David B. Weaver*, Laura J. Lawton
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management Griffith University e Gold Coast Campus, 4222 Southport, Queensland, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

 Three generations of protected area visitor management paradigms proposed.

 Limitations of current (second generation) model identified.
 Third generation model augments current model with motivation and mobilisation.
 Third generation model fills visitor gap in people-focused park management approach.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Current “second generation” approaches to visitation in higher order protected areas are based on
Received 20 June 2016 biocentric management and monitoring that positions visitors as an inherent threat. The result is sub-
Received in revised form optimal sustainability outcomes of coexistence and possibly increased conflict in an era of escalating
21 November 2016
demand, reduced public funding and growing threats to global and local biodiversity. A “third genera-
Accepted 25 November 2016
tion” model is therefore required that repositions visitors as an inherent opportunity, and augments
management and monitoring accordingly with visitor motivation and mobilisation for mass participation
in on-site park enhancement activities. Strategies and issues for implementation - including the model's
Keywords:
Protected areas
dialectical underpinnings and its relationship to a broader context of people-focused park management
Park visitation -are considered, toward achieving optimal sustainability outcomes of park/visitation symbiosis.
National Parks © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainable tourism
Resolution-based dialectics
Enlightened mass tourism

1. Introduction protected areas grow in importance as oases of biodiversity,

Contemporary protected area systems are experiencing a
deepening crisis associated with four converging factors. First,
relatively undisturbed natural habitats around the world continue
to be degraded and converted to other uses as human populations
expand, become more prosperous, and consume more natural re-
sources (Balmford, Green, & Jenkins, 2003). Most of what remains
as relatively natural habitat, accordingly, is accounted for by pro-
tected areas, and the latter may be expected to account for almost
all remaining relatively undisturbed habitat within the next few
decades as unprotected habitat succumbs to development. An
added risk is the de-listing, downgrading or illegal degradation of
some parks to enable exploitative access to more resources
(Watson, Dudley, Segan, & Hockings, 2014). Second, even while
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: d.weaver@griffith.edu.au (D.B. Weaver), laura.lawton@griffith.
edu.au (L.J. Lawton).
reduced government funding world-wide erodes their capacity to
fulfil critical ecological functions and mandates (Eagles, 2003;
Watson et al., 2014). This chronic underfunding leads, thirdly, to
increased operational reliance on visitor-based revenue despite the
potential of increased visitation to further undermine the vital
ecological functions of protected areas (Eagles, 2003). Much of this
revenue, as a result, is allocated to the management and satisfaction
of visitors rather than environmental stewardship. These three
supply-side considerations, combined with the fourth factor -
parallel growth in demand for rural outdoor and nature-based
recreation from increasingly urbanised societies (Frost, Laing, &
Beeton, 2014; Tribe, 2016) - suggest that visitation pressures will
intensify, particularly in protected areas close to major population
centres, transportation corridors and hubs, and/or areas of
concentrated tourist activity.
Confronted with this reality of large-scale and increasing visi-
tation e estimated at over eight billion visits per year for all
terrestrial protected areas (Balmford et al., 2015) e we argue that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.018
0261-5177/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D.B. Weaver, L.J. Lawton / Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146
current approaches to visitation in protected areas, constituting a
“second generation” model focused on management and monitoring
of visitors and their environmental impacts, are suboptimal. We
then contend the need for a “third generation” model in which the
inherent strengths of such management and monitoring are
retained but augmented and modified by considerations of visitor
motivation and mobilisation to inspire and realise satisfying mass
participation in activities which enhance protected area biodiver-
sity and foster place loyalty. “Visitors” are defined here as tourists
and local residents temporarily visiting the protected area for rec-
reational and educational purposes. While residents within parks,
those present for other purposes (legal or illegal), and non-visiting
local residents are not included in our current framework, we
acknowledge that all such stakeholder groups must be accommo-
dated in any subsequent ‘macro-framework’ for park planning and
management. The term “protected area” (or “park”) embraces
highly diverse entities ranging under the nomenclature of the In-
ternational Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-
sources (Dudley, 2003; IUCN, 2016) from highly restrictive Strict
Nature Reserves (Category Ia) and Wilderness Areas (Ib) to highly
modified Protected Landscapes/Seascapes (V) and Protected areas
with sustainable use of natural resources (VI). Our present working
emphasis is on National Parks (II) and Natural Monuments or
Features (III), which are characterised by high value natural eco-
systems and sites as well as dual mandates to safeguard these as-
sets while accommodating “complementary” recreational and
educational activity. We focus, moreover, on those numerous
Category II and III parks which owing to sufficient accessibility and
amenity attract high levels of visitation. Lamington National Park,
in the hinterland of Australia's Gold Coast, and Shenandoah Na-
tional Park, in the US state of Virginia, exemplify such entities.
2. Historical first generation: parks for visitors
Protected areas, understood in their modern Western sense, had
their genesis in the late 19th century as entities focused on meeting
diverse human wants and needs. A US protected area official stated
in 1915 that the three main purposes of the incipient American
National Park system were to stimulate patriotism, advance
knowledge and health, and attract tourists, all of which depend on
the physical presence of visitors (Gunn, 2004). More overtly com-
mercial were the motivations that accompanied the creation of
National Parks in the Canadian Rockies and other parts of Canada,
where revenue from tourists was sought by corporate syndicates to
reduce the heavy debt loads and high operational costs associated
with the construction of the cross-country railway system (Bella,
1987; Eagles & McCool, 2002; Hart, 1983). Consequently, iconic
parks such as Banff and Jasper began as foci of economic devel-
opment rather than respites therefrom (Bella, 1987), embodied in
the construction of obtrusive resort and town complexes and their
associated infrastructure. Accompanying manipulations of the
natural environment, inspired by urban park design (Gunn, 2004),
aspired to create beautiful scenery that suited visitor sensibilities
and provided enjoyment even while inadvertently disrupting the
local ecology through widespread but now discredited practices
such as fire suppression, introductions of exotic vegetation, and
predator eradication (Parsons, Graber, Agee, & Van Wagtendonk,
1986; Ripple & Larsen, 2000). A variant of this “harnessing na-
ture” or “parks for visitors” approach is found in Sub-Saharan Af-
rican entities established and managed during the colonial era
primarily to accommodate big game hunters, with similarly scant
consideration of any broader attendant ecological implications
(Akama, 1996; MacKenzie, 1988).
In a classic paper, Budowski (1976) describes the three basic
relationships of conflict, coexistence and symbiosis that can transpire
141
between protected areas and their visitors, which coincide
sequentially with our proposed three generations. This early or
“first generation” model reflects the least desirable scenario of
conflict, whereby the presence of visitors induces direct and indi-
rect environmental degradation. An important qualifier, however,
was that it was only members of the wealthier “high yield, low
volume” and presumably well-behaved elite who were initially
regarded as the most appropriate visitor type. Accordingly, degra-
dation was often subtle and deceptively disguised within aesthet-
ically pleasing settings populated by abundant charismatic
megafauna but relatively small visitor numbers (Bella, 1987; Hart,
1983). As increased accessibility and demand inevitably gave way
to higher visitation from a broader array of social classes, conflict
became more overt. According to Gunn (2004, p. 26), “the envi-
ronmental mess that tourists were creating was beginning to be
recognized as early as 1916 in Grand Canyon National Park [by]
when the ugly sounds, sites, and odors of trash, steam engines,
mules, and offal had become offensive.”
3. Contemporary second generation: parks with visitors
Since generational shifts tend to be gradual and subtle, and
negative effects as described above unevenly distributed and dis-
cerned, it would not be appropriate to designate a specific date on
which the first mode of thinking gave way to the second mode. In
our protected area narrative, the first generation model of parks for
visitors was still discernible as an approach in the 1960s with the
continued dominance of entrepreneurs and resort developers in
countries such as Canada (Bella, 1987). Growing support for a more
biocentric approach, however, was also evident in response to the
growing localised evidence of degradation caused by increased
visitor numbers (Hammitt & Cole, 1998), and parallel realisations
that relatively undisturbed habitat was becoming increasingly
scarce beyond protected area boundaries. Temperate broadleaf
forests and Mediterranean ecosystems have been especially
implicated in this regard (Hannah, Carr, & Lankerani, 1995). By the
1970s ecologists and environmentalists, abetted by the articulation
of ecology and environmentalism as reputable fields of scientific
study, were becoming more prevalent and influential within pro-
tected area management regimes. One important result for higher
order protected areas was the elevation of the ecological or biodi-
versity mandate over the recreational mandate. In Canada,
amendments to the National Parks Act in 1988 gave precedence to
preservation over usage, with the scope for recreation becoming
more restricted as the principle of leaving such areas “unimpaired”
for future generations became established (Dearden & Berg, 1993;
Eagles, 1993, pp. 57e74). By the early 1990s, McNamee (1993, pp.
17e44) would tellingly describe Canadian National Parks as
venues for conservation rather than recreation.
That McNamee's contention exaggerates is borne out by
continued increases in visitation to protected areas in Canada, USA,
Australia and elsewhere during the late twentieth century, sug-
gesting the persistence of important anthropocentric tendencies.
What is clearer, however, is that the relationship between park
managers and these visitors was indeed becoming more ambiva-
lent as the potential for serious environmental damage within
parks increased in tandem with growing demand and assorted
external non-visitation pressures. Positioned as an inherent threat
but a necessary evil given growing reliance on user fees and public
demands for park access, an ethos of strict supervision became
increasingly prevalent, embodied in the application of scientific
management and monitoring principles and practices which have
become cornerstones of the visitor-park relationship. Authoritative
statements on their primacy include Worboys, Lockwood, and De
Lacy (2001) who state that “visitor management is vitally linked
142 D.B. Weaver, L.J. Lawton / Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146
to the sustainability of protected areas” (p. 272) and Eagles and
McCool (2002) who contend that “the management of park visi-
tation is a fundamental component of park management. The size
and scale of the impacts are such that sophisticated management
systems are required (p. 43) … park tourism should not just
happen, but should be explicitly managed, directed and controlled
(p. 72)”. The semantics of the major international biennial confer-
ence Monitoring and Management of Visitors in Recreational and
Protected Areas (MMV) further reinforce this implicit sense of
ambivalence and caution regarding the accommodation of visitors,
if not their reduction or removal.
The second generation model, still dominant, addresses the
ample evidence of negative visitor-related biophysical impacts in
parks (Hammitt & Cole, 1998; Liddle, 1997) through internal zoning,
policing and other strategies that emphasise visitor containment,
control and deterrence. Associated frameworks such as ROS (Rec-
reational Opportunity Spectrum), LAC (Limits of Acceptable
Change), TOMM (Tourism Optimisation Management Model) and
VAMP (Visitor Activities Management Planning) assume that hu-
man use causes environmental damage, and therefore require
consideration of how much damage (change) is acceptable in
specific locations as well as what behavioural and structural con-
trols are subsequently appropriate to limit impacts accordingly
(Eagles & McCool, 2002; Stankey, Cole, & Lucas, 1985). Particularly
noteworthy is the parallel Leave No Trace philosophy and its seven
principles, initially formulated to control impacts in American
wilderness locations but now widely applied to a diverse array of
protected areas. While no doubt motivated by good intentions to
preserve relatively undisturbed spaces in the face of growing
exploitation, and generally effective in doing so according to Simon
and Alagona (2009), the attendant assumption is that the visitor's
presence in these spaces is inherently destructive and must be
erased (Turner, 2002), a sentiment echoed in the outdoor recrea-
tion cliche about taking only photos and leaving only footprints.
Although at least some advertent or inadvertent negative
environmental effect likely occurs as a consequence of any park
visitation (Weaver, 2006), the second generation of scientifically-
informed management and monitoring appears capable of mini-
mising these effects and fostering what in today's rhetoric would be
characterised as a “sustainable” relationship between protected
areas and their visitors if applied judiciously. This suggests
concordance with Budowski’s (1976) second relational scenario of
coexistence, preferable to conflict, where essentially there are no
net ecological costs or benefits arising from park visitation. We
situate this as a neutral “parks with visitors” scenario that recog-
nises and accommodates the reality and inevitability, if not the
intrinsic merit, of the human recreational presence in higher order
protected areas.
4. Aspirational third generation: parks and visitors
We applaud the effectiveness of the second generation
management-monitoring model in fostering coexistence between
protected areas and their visitors throughout much of the world.
However, we also recognise that coexistence, fundamentally, is a
suboptimal outcome. Symbiosis is presented by Budowski as the
third and most meritorious relationship, wherein protected areas
and their visitors derive mutual benefits from their interaction; that
is, ecosystems are not just protected from but also enriched by
visitor actions, while visitors in return obtain physical, spiritual and
emotional benefits through constructive engagement with those
ecosystems. If coexistence can be associated with “status quo sus-
tainability” that seeks to maintain current conditions, then sym-
biosis affiliates with “enhancement sustainability” that entails the
improvement and expansion of ecological systems (Weaver, 2006).
The latter is clearly preferable given the need to judiciously reha-
bilitate and restore seriously degraded natural ecosystems (Hobbs
& Harris, 2001). It is because visitors in this scenario are exhorted
to leave a constructive imprint on parks that the Leave No Trace
symbolism of no imprint at all is inadvertently so insidious. The
partnership implicated in symbiosis, where visitors are reposi-
tioned philosophically and strategically from inherent threat to
inherent opportunity, is embodied in the idea of “parks and visitors”
and enabled by augmenting appropriate second generation visitor
management and monitoring with third generation visitor moti-
vation and mobilisation on a large scale, as discussed below.
But before interrogating this aspirational “positive anthropo-
centrism” model further, consideration must also be given to the
capacity of conventional coexistence-focused approaches,
notwithstanding their apparent current adequacy, to contend with
anticipated visitation increases and other human-related stresses.
Park managers are trained mainly in biodiversity management
rather than visitor management, and therefore often lack exposure
to or understanding of critical visitor-related issues such as lin-
guistic and cultural variability, social marketing, and socio-
psychological aspects of recreational behaviour. With (usually
declining) budgets set in advance by third parties, management is
not well prepared to deal with the exigencies of unexpectedly high
visitation levels over which they also often exercise little control
(Eagles, 2003). Habitual or instinctive responses of accelerated
containment and restriction, in addition, betray the intimate and
vital connections and interdependencies that people have with the
natural environment and further exacerbate the unhealthy
disconnect between people and nature that pervades contempo-
rary Western society (Beery, 2014; Cachelin, Rose, Dustin, &
Shooter, 2011). Ironically, this disconnect was less evident in the
first-generation model to the extent that it encouraged the practice
of woodcraft by wilderness visitors (Turner, 2002). Coexistence,
accordingly, remains problematic due to the real threat of reversion
to conflict states instigated by failure to cope with increasing visi-
tation or changing visitor characteristics. Unfolding discourses
about anthropogenic climate change are an additional concern in-
sofar as some of these further criticise tourists, including park
visitors and long-haul visitors to remote and vulnerable destina-
tions such as Antarctica, for their expanding transit-related carbon
footprint, regardless of their actual in situ behaviour (Peeters &
Dubois, 2010).
4.1. Motivation
Of the utmost importance for achieving symbiosis through mass
visitor participation in park enhancement is motivation, a critical
factor underlying all tourist and visitor behaviour, and the driving
force for all action (Pearce & Lee, 2005). “Push” factors such as
addressing feelings of disconnection and “pull” factors such as
experiencing nature have been identified as important motivators
for participation in outdoor recreation (Hassell, Moore, & Macbeth,
2015), as have been expectations of diverse benefits (Crilley, Weber,
& Taplin, 2012; Driver, 2008; Moyle & Weiler, 2016). However,
there is not yet any common conceptual framework for under-
standing motivations or to inform implementation of any attendant
strategy to stimulate participation. In part this is because motiva-
tions tend to be covert and elusive, reflecting needs and wants that
may be opaque even to the individual (Gee, Choy, & Makens, 1984).
It is likely, moreover, that actions are informed not by a single
motivation or perceived benefit but an amalgam of them that re-
flects a complex “state of mind” (Dann, 1981). A first step in over-
coming these obstacles is to appreciate that symbiosis on a limited
scale already exists in many parks through the actions of dedicated
individuals from “friends of the park”-type organisations such as
 D.B. Weaver, L.J. Lawton / Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146
the Lamington Natural History Association whose motivation is
clearly demonstrated by their participation (Eagles, 2009; Worboys
et al., 2001). While acknowledgement of the potential for
conservation-visitation symbiosis by academic authorities such as
Eagles and McCool (2002) may derive in part from their recognition
of this embodied motivational hard core, we contend that the issue
of volume is critical; meaningful symbiosis must potentially involve
all visitors (and also non-visitors) and especially the motivational
“soft core” that is not currently engaged in any type of park
enhancement but overwhelmingly dominates protected area visi-
tation throughout the world and is more transparent perhaps about
expecting personal benefits from such visits.
Insight into understanding the motivations for potential
involvement in park enhancement among current non-
participating visitors is gained from Weaver (2014a), who sur-
veyed 804 domestic visitors to Lamington and Springbrook Na-
tional Parks in the Gold Coast hinterland of Australia, a classic
context of highly endangered remnant ecosystems in proximity to
rapidly growing urban and tourism conurbations (Brisbane and the
Gold Coast). The factors “altruism” and “personal wellbeing” (i.e.
self-interest) were both revealed as important motivations for
potentially becoming involved in site enhancement among all re-
spondents. However, altruism (as expected) was the stronger factor
among those displaying interest in “hard core” focused activities
such as vegetation restoration, while personal well-being was
stronger among those displaying high willingness only for “inci-
dental” activism such as picking up litter or making note of unusual
changes to habitat e both activities opportunistically practised
during bushwalks that would have occurred in any case. Accord-
ingly, a promotional emphasis on having fun, getting exercise,
socialising and simply enjoying nature e explicitly beneficial per-
sonal motivations that commonly underlie non-activist recrea-
tional visits to parks in any case e will probably be as essential in
recruitment strategies as appeals to help the environment. A par-
allel implication is the need to begin with “soft symbiosis” rather
than hard core activities requiring skill, strength, etc. (e.g., induc-
tion into the removal of litter instead of exotic plants).
This paradox of dual altruism and self-interest motivation
clusters is encountered widely in tourism and elsewhere, as for
particular example in volunteer tourism (Grimm & Needham, 2012;
Pearce & Coghlan, 2008; Wearing & McGehee, 2013), in the broader
construct of “serious leisure” (Stebbins, 2001), and in the notion
that people should be situated as citizens with accompanying
rights as well as responsibilities to achieve sustainable community
outcomes (Cachelin et al., 2011). This in turn invokes the idea of
citizenry as necessarily tied to particular spaces, and the contention
that people will feel a heightened sense of motivation in relation to
their own home environment. Weaver and Lawton (2008), for
example, revealed that residents of greater Columbia, South Car-
olina, strongly agreed that they have “a special responsibility” of
ensuring that the integrity of nearby Congaree National Park is
protected, and that the park is an “asset” for the region that requires
stewardship and loyalty from those residents. In this and many
other cases, individuals are probably unaware of their needs and
wants in relation to protected areas, and “discover” these only upon
interrogation in a survey. Such “latent motivations” can also be
activated through transformational interpretation, or deliberate
intermediation between visitor and attraction that ultimately in-
tends to induce pro-environmental and/or pro-social changes in
the former's perceptions, intentions and behaviour, often through a
combination of appropriate education and entertainment that
generates satisfaction (Jacobs & Harms, 2014; Poudel & Nyaupane,
2013; Weiler & Davis, 1993). Research by Orams (1997) at the
dolphin attraction of Tangalooma in Australia is often cited as ev-
idence of the potential for converting “mass tourists” into
143
environmentally conscientious consumers by relating issues such
as climate change and over-fishing to the welfare of featured
charismatic fauna, while Madin and Fenton (2004) found that
extant environmental education at Australia's Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park was effective in elevating the attendant environmental
understanding of those so exposed (cognitive response), their
resultant emotions (affective response) and presumably motiva-
tions to subsequently engage in suitable behaviour (conative
response). Place attachment and loyalty, moreover, have been
identified in such contexts as a significant motivator for pro-
environmental behavioural intentions (Moore, Rodger, & Taplin,
2015; Ramkissoon, Smith, & Weiler, 2013; Tonge, Ryan, Moore, &
Beckley, 2015).
4.2. Mobilisation
Stimulation of extant or latent visitor motivations to participate
in park enhancement is irrelevant if this cannot be translated into
large-scale mobilisation. Indeed, the latter already exists in
“obligatory” manifestations through the fees recreational visitors in
most countries must pay to use parks, assuming that these are
subsequently employed for purposes of park enhancement or
expansion. Resultant indirect “non-motivational symbiosis” has
merit but is precarious unless risks of capricious revenue diversion
are eliminated through stronger legislation. A further safeguard is
to link user fees to positive motivations through strategies that
educate visitors as to how their payments are being used to
enhance park ecology and consequent visitor experiences. Where
fees are not currently levied (e.g. the Australian state of Queens-
land), such education may also provide a basis for their introduc-
tion e visitors to Lamington and Springbrook National Parks
sampled by Weaver (2014a) yielded a mean of 2.98 out of five on
the statement “I would pay an entry fee if I knew the money would
be used to help the park”, with 38% definitely willing or willing, and
26% unsure. There is scope for increase where they are already
levied, with Thur (2010) finding that 94% of divers at a Bonaire
marine park were willing to pay at least twice the current user fee if
they were assured that the money was utilised to improve the
environmental quality of diving sites. Strong willingness to pay was
also revealed at a high profile Nepalese protected area (Pandit,
Dhakal, & Polyakov, 2015).
Beyond these obligatory fee-related opportunities, the scope for
non-obligatory direct mobilisation as such can be clarified by
examining the evidence for “affiliated mobilisation”, that is,
participation in voluntary pro-environmental activities outside of
parks that are similar to those that could potentially be carried out
within parks. Given the status of bird and other wildlife and
vegetation surveys as meritorious activities, it is affirming to note
that 70 million Americans (one-third of all adults) were identified
in 2001 as “birders”, defined by Cordell and Herbert (2002) as those
who deliberately observed birds at home or elsewhere at least once
in the previous 12-month period. The proliferation of birding-
related festivals, moreover, provides a basis for participant orga-
nisation, acquisition of skills, and recruitment (Lawton & Weaver,
2010; Lawton, 2009). Large-scale studies of natural systems are
required to better understand unfolding ecological trends, and this
mass participation in dispersed or concentrated casual birding
provides a robust foundation for the rapidly growing practice of
amateur backyard “citizen science” that entails observations about
bird numbers, first day of leafing/flowering or fruiting, and other
natural processes. Online platforms such as eBird, moreover, pro-
vide accessible and efficient tools that facilitate mass participation,
especially among younger adults for whom such technology is
normative (Sullivan et al., 2009). Yet, unless effectively motivated,
much of the potential for visitor activism in parks may be spurious
144 D.B. Weaver, L.J. Lawton / Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146
if the numerous citizen-scientists e or more generally the millions
of individuals participating in, for example, the 160,000 voluntary
organisations in the UK (Keen, 2015) e are content to confine their
participation to those existing commitments or because of time or
money are unable to extend it further (Zanon, Doucouliagos, Hall, &
Lockstone-Binney, 2013). While this indicates the importance of
understanding demotivators as negative antecedents to mobi-
lisation of park visitors, it is promising to note that protected area
settings are one of the strongest factors predicting participation in
volunteering birding surveys in Western Australia, along with
diverse habitats and foci on threatened species (Tulloch, Mustin,
Possingham, Szabo, & Wilson, 2013).
Among protected area visitors themselves, Weaver (2013) found
that 8% of the 804 surveyed domestic National Park visitors in the
Gold Coast hinterland were “enthused” to become involved in
focused or hard core park activism but were not currently involved.
Extrapolated to all visitors, the potential for order-of-magnitude
increases beyond current participation among members of
Friends organisations is indicated, especially among females and
residents of southeast Queensland. However, residence distance
from the park, other volunteering commitments (see above) and
especially lack of time were all cited as salient barriers that need to
be addressed for this potential to be realised (Weaver, 2014a).
Although no empirical studies on the topic could be identified,
there is also anecdotal evidence from the open-ended component
of Weaver (2014a) and from casual author conversations with
participants that many do not know about existing Friends orga-
nisations, or find them intimidating, elitist and/or unwelcoming.
Intriguing, therefore, is the parallel survey finding that about two-
thirds of respondents were enthusiastic or at least open to
participating in incidental activism such as picking up litter, which
does not require an interface with elite volunteer groups, special
skills, or major distraction from recreational park activities in which
the individual is already engaged (e.g. going on a bushwalk). While
it is conceded that this embodies a relatively weak form of sym-
biosis, its main merit may be the repositioning of such visitors to-
ward a higher level of amenability for future recruitment into
higher levels of park enhancement activity, through identity
transformation and other affiliated processes. Recruitment models
such as those proposed by McAdam (1986) indicate structurally
how such elevation might be enabled through appropriate induc-
tion and participation in progressively higher stages of activism.
Fennell and Weaver (2005) have proposed the concept of the
“ecotourium” as a mechanism for enabling mass mobilisation of
visitors in protected areas. The term is a neologism that combines
Active
e.g. planting native vegetation near
trailhead
Participation
e.g. picking up litter near trailhead
(Softer-core activism)
Passive
Near
Fig. 1. Basic Ecotourium Configuration.
the words ecotourist and auditorium to capture the idea of pro-
tected areas as venues for the performance of activities that
embody “comprehensive” ecotourism principles of deep visitor
involvement in environmental enhancement (Weaver, 2005). It is
intended as a concurrent formal designation for existing protected
areas to recognise situations where strategies for involving all types
of visitors in environmental enhancement are accepted by man-
agement as integral components of the park's planning and man-
agement regime. As such, it appends principles of visitor
motivation and mobilisation potentially to any of the eight widely
adopted park management models outlined by Eagles (2009),
which array along a public to for-profit continuum. Operationally,
the intention is to provide diverse opportunities to stimulate
motivation and mobilisation along concurrent passive-to-active
and near-to-far continuums (Fig. 1). “Near” areas are site-
hardened, serviced, trailhead, and gateway spaces that accommo-
date most visitation, as per Lawton’s (2001) 95/5 contention that
the vast majority of visitors (e.g. 95%) confines their presence to a
very small portion (e.g. 5%) of the park. “Passive-near opportu-
nities”, for example, are therefore those which focus on achieving
symbiosis through low-risk mass mobilisation. It is critical in all
such contexts and activities that visitor satisfaction is attained to
foster place loyalty and subsequent future participation in higher
forms of activism.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The title's reference to a “new visitation paradigm” invites dis-
cussion of paradigm shift, wherein it is essential to distinguish
between conflict- and resolution-based interactions between
competing paradigms (Carr, 2000). A conflict-based model posi-
tions the paradigms as uncompromising opposites, one of which
ultimately prevails. Resolution-based dialectics assume a more
open and congenial mutual engagement from which emerges a
synthesis of the most efficacious elements of each. We adopt this
latter perspective and reiterate that the introduction of visitor
motivation and mobilisation entails an accommodating enhance-
ment of management and monitoring based on the fundamental
repositioning of park visitation as opportunity rather than threat;
the third generation model, accordingly, complements and builds
on the ample merit of the second generation model. Monitoring
thus remains as essential in the former as it is in the latter (Eagles &
McCool, 2002), but augments the retained focus on measuring the
environmental impacts of recreation with evaluative consideration
of the characteristics and consequences of visitor mobilisation.
(Harder-core activism)
e.g. removing weeds along long-
distance trails
e.g. casual bird surveying during long-
distance bushwalks
Far
Location
 D.B. Weaver, L.J. Lawton / Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146
Constructive dialectic interplay is evident elsewhere in the frame-
work, for example at the micro level in the paradoxical need to
accommodate motivations of altruism as well as self-interest. The
parallel accommodation of both hard core and soft core visitors is in
accordance at the macro level with the concept of enlightened mass
tourism. As articulated by Weaver (2014b), this advocates the
amalgamation, through resolution-based dialectics, of the best
qualities of mass tourism (e.g. economies of scale, openness to
innovation) and alternative tourism (e.g. ethical imperative, sense
of place, compassion).
Another issue for this adumbrated visitation framework is its
logical affinity with broader “people-focused” park management
frameworks, which Wilshusen, Brechin, Fortwangler, and West
(2002) characterise as a new approach that has attracted broad
support. Any iteration of the former cannot exist and flourish
independently of the latter due to the co-existence of multiple
stakeholders, but the opposite does not appear to similarly pertain,
since existing people-focused approaches effectively ignore tour-
ists. The UNESCO-sponsored Man and the Biosphere Programme
(MAB), for instance, clearly evidences a paradigm shift where
humans are accepted as an integral part of protected area man-
agement (Phillips, 2003), but only in reference to local residents
using park resources and not additionally to the tourists who also
use these resources, provide valuable revenue and employment
opportunities for local residents, and underwrite the very existence
of many parks through entry and other user fees. We emphasise
therefore the need to incorporate our visitor-centric framework
into these people-focused frameworks, to hoped-for mutual benefit
and especially given calls in some quarters for a return to a more
authoritarian expert-based approach allegedly necessitated by
escalating deterioration of global biodiversity (Wilshusen et al.,
2002). Indeed, should our third generation visitor framework
eventually gain traction, it is likely to attract criticism from the
same quarters for its advocacy of “excessive” visitation, naivety of
alleged visitor transformation effects, diversion of scarce park
management resources, riskiness of radical innovation in the face of
imminent ecological crisis, and uncertainty of outcomes given the
lack of real world prototypes. It may be dismissed by many as a
form of “greenwashing” and indeed could be misused as such by
those with ulterior commercial motives.
Consideration must also be given to spatial context. People-
focused frameworks mostly implicate parks and communities
within the economically less developed world where local resi-
dents and recreational park visitors usually constitute mutually
exclusive and often antithetical stakeholder groups. Our focus in
this initial paper, however, has been on higher order protected
areas proximate to urban and tourism concentrations within the
economically more developed world. Here, the blurred line be-
tween “local residents” and visitors provides a potential bridge
between the two frameworks. The logic of a broader “visitation”
construct is also thereby suggested whereby our framework
(eventually if not immediately) could embrace “virtual visitors”, i.e.
those interacting with the parks only through the burgeoning
technology of virtual reality (Guttentag, 2010); “former visitors”, i.e.
those with past visitation but minimal prospects for future visits;
“non-visitors”, i.e. those who have never visited and intend no
future visits, and “potential visitors”, i.e. those who have never
visited but might. Such opportunistic incorporations into the eco-
tourium potentially elevates mass mobilisation e and park/visita-
tion symbiosis e into a whole new realm of donations, bequests,
political support, sponsorships and other ex situ enhancement ac-
tivities. The promise is indicated by evidence from South Carolina,
USA, that many local residents who have never visited a nearby
National Park still harbour strong feelings of ownership and stew-
ardship toward that entity (Weaver & Lawton, 2008). Research from
145
south-eastern Queensland, moreover, reveals that such feelings
among regular as well as casual visitors can extend to those residing
more than an hour's drive from the park (Weaver & Lawton, 2004),
suggesting extended “park community” parameters.
Ultimately, our framework can be positioned as a universal
imperative, wherein the actual configurations arising from the in-
teractions between motivation, mobilisation, management and
monitoring will be dynamic and adaptive over time and space, and
give rise to a global constellation of inclusive people-focused third
generation park visitation models that can yield mass symbiosis in
the contentious park-visitor relationship. We do recognise that the
model is embryonic and aspirational; like any idea that challenges
convention, awareness and subsequent implementation are
therefore long-term prospects that will encounter numerous
challenges. The narrative, however, is a compelling one that ac-
knowledges the inevitability of increased visitation levels and
embraces the opportunities that are inherent within every actual or
potential park visitor.
References
Akama, J. (1996). Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in
Kenya. Tourism Management, 17, 567e574.
Balmford, A., Green, J., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., et al. (2015).
Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected
areas. PLoS Biology, 13(2), e1002074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.1992074.
Balmford, A., Green, R., & Jenkins, M. (2003). Measuring the changing state of na-
ture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 326e330.
Beery, T. (2014). People in nature: Relational discourse for outdoor educators.
Research in Outdoor Education, 12, 1e14.
Bella, L. (1987). Parks for profit. Montreal: Harvest House.
Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict, coexis-
tence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation, 31, 27e31.
Cachelin, A., Rose, J., Dustin, D., & Shooter, W. (2011). Sustainability in outdoor
education: Rethinking root metaphors. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2
(online).
Carr, A. (2000). Critical theory and the management of change in organizations.
Journal of Organizational Change, 13, 208e220.
Cordell, H., & Herbert, N. (2002). The popularity of birding is still growing. Birding,
34, 54e61.
Crilley, G., Weber, D., & Taplin, R. (2012). Predicting visitor satisfaction in parks:
Comparing the value of personal benefit attainment and service levels in
Kakadu National Park, Australia. Visitor Studies, 15, 217e237.
Dann, G. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8,
187e219.
Dearden, P., & Berg, L. (1993). Canada's national parks: A model of administrative
penetration. Canadian Geographer, 37, 194e211.
Driver, B. (2008). Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Dudley, N. (Ed.). (2003). Guidelines for applying protected area management cate-
gories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Eagles, P. (1993). Parks legislation in Canada. In P. Dearden, & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks
and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management. Toronto: Oxford
University Press.
Eagles, P. (2003). International trends in park tourism: The emerging role of finance.
The George Wright Forum, 20, 25e57.
Eagles, P. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and
protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 231e248.
Eagles, P., & McCool, S. (2002). Tourism in national parks and protected areas: Plan-
ning and management. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Fennell, D., & Weaver, D. (2005). The ecotourium concept and tourism-conservation
symbiosis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13, 373e390.
Frost, W., Laing, J., & Beeton, S. (2014). The future of nature-based tourism in the
Asia-Pacific region. Journal of Travel Research, 53, 721e732.
Gee, C., Choy, D., & Makens, C. (1984). The travel industry. CN: AVI: Westport.
Grimm, K., & Needham, M. (2012). Moving beyond the “I” in motivation: Attributes
and perceptions of conservation volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 51,
488e501.
Gunn, C. (2004). Western tourism: Can paradise be reclaimed? New York: Cognizant.
Guttentag, D. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism.
Tourism Management, 31, 637e651.
Hammitt, W., & Cole, D. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management (2nd
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hannah, L., Carr, J., & Lankerani, A. (1995). Human disturbance and natural habitat:
A biome level of a global data set. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4, 128e155.
Hart, E. (1983). The selling of Canada: The CPR and the beginnings of Canadian tourism.
Banff, Canada: Altitude Publishing.
146 D.B. Weaver, L.J. Lawton / Tourism Management 60 (2017) 140e146
Hassell, S., Moore, S., & Macbeth, J. (2015). Exploring the motivations, experiences
and meanings of camping in National Parks. Leisure Sciences, 37, 269e287.
Hobbs, R., & Harris, J. (2001). Restoration ecology: Repairing the earth's ecosystems
in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology, 9, 239e246.
IUCN. (2016). About IUCN (Accessed 28 January 2016) http://www.iucn.org/about/.
Jacobs, M., & Harms, M. (2014). Influence of interpretation on conservation in-
tentions of whale tourists. Tourism Management, 42, 123e131.
Keen, R. (2015). Charities and the voluntary sector: Statistics (Accessed 30 September
2016). http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05428/
SN05428.pdf.
Lawton, L. (2001). Public protected areas. In D. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
ecotourism (pp. 287e302). Wallingford: CABI.
Lawton, L. (2009). Birding festivals, sustainability, and ecotourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 48, 259e267.
Lawton, L., & Weaver, D. (2010). Normative and innovative sustainable resource
management at birding festivals. Tourism Management, 31, 527e536.
Liddle, M. (1997). Recreation ecology. London: Chapman and Hall.
MacKenzie, J. (1988). The empire of nature: Hunting, conservation and British impe-
rialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Madin, E., & Fenton, D. (2004). Environmental interpretation in the Great barrier
Reef marine Park: An assessment of programme effectiveness. Journal of Sus-
tainable Tourism, 12, 121e137.
McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of Freedom Sum-
mer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64e90.
McNamee, K. (1993). From wild places to endangered spaces: A history of Canada's
National Parks. In P. Dearden, & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in
Canada: Planning and management. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Moore, S., Rodger, K., & Taplin, R. (2015). Moving beyond visitor satisfaction to
loyalty in nature-based tourism: A review and research agenda. Current Issues in
Tourism, 18, 667e683.
Moyle, B., & Weiler, B. (2016). Revisiting the importance of visitation: Public per-
ceptions of park benefits. Tourism and Hospitality Research. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/1467358416638918.
Orams, M. (1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn
tourists into ‘greenies’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 295e306.
Pandit, R., Dhakal, M., & Polyakov, M. (2015). Valuing access to protected areas in
Nepal: The case of Chitwan National Park. Tourism Management, 50, 1e12.
Parsons, D., Graber, D., Agee, J., & Van Wagtendonk, J. (1986). Natural fire man-
agement in national parks. Environmental Management, 10, 21e24.
Pearce, P., & Coghlan, A. (2008). The dynamics behind volunteer tourism. In
K. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: Inter-
national case study perspectives (pp. 130e143). Wallingford: CABI.
Pearce, P., & Lee, U.-I. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist
motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 226e237.
Peeters, P., & Dubois, G. (2010). Tourism travel under climate change mitigation
constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 447e457.
Phillips, A. (2003). Turning ideas on their heads: The new paradigm for protected
areas. The George Wright Forum, 20(2), 8e32.
Poudel, S., & Nyaupane, G. (2013). The role of interpretive tour guiding in sus-
tainable destination management: A comparison between guided and non-
guided tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 52, 659e672.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L., & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the dimensionality of place
attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental
behaviours: A structure equation modelling approach. Tourism Management, 36,
552e566.
Ripple, W., & Larsen, E. (2000). Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in
northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biological Conservation, 95, 361e370.
Simon, G., & Alagona, P. (2009). Beyond leave No Trace. Ethics, Place & Environment,
12, 17e34.
Stankey, G., Cole, D., & Lucas, R. (1985). The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system
for wilderness planning. Ogden, OR: Forest Service, US Department of
Agriculture.
Stebbins, R. (2001). Serious leisure. Society, 38(4), 53e57.
Sullivan, B., Wood, C., Iliff, M., Bonney, R., Fink, D., & Kelling, S. (2009). eBird: A
citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological
Conservation, 142, 2282e2292.
Thur, S. (2010). User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected
areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine Policy, 34,
63e69.
Tonge, J., Ryan, M., Moore, S., & Beckley, L. (2015). The effect of place attachment on
pro-environment behavioral intentions of visitors to coastal natural area tourist
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 54, 730e743.
Tribe, J. (2016). The economics of recreation, leisure and tourism (5th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Tulloch, A., Mustin, K., Possingham, H., Szabo, J., & Wilson, K. (2013). To boldly go
where no volunteer has gone before: Predicting volunteer activity to prioritize
surveys at the landscape scale. Diversity and Distributions, 19, 465e480.
Turner, J. (2002). From woodcraft to ‘Leave No Trace’: Wilderness, consumerism,
and environmentalism in twentieth-century America. Environmental History, 7,
462e484.
Watson, J., Dudley, N., Segan, D., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and po-
tential of protected areas. Nature, 515, 67e73.
Wearing, S., & McGehee, N. (2013). Volunteer tourism: A review. Tourism Manage-
ment, 38, 120e130.
Weaver, D. (2005). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 439e455.
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice. London: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Weaver, D. (2013). Protected area visitor willingness to participate in site
enhancement activities. Journal of Travel Research, 52, 377e391.
Weaver, D. (2014a). Volunteer tourism and beyond: Motivations and barriers to
participation in protected area enhancement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23,
683e705.
Weaver, D. (2014b). Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: Toward
enlightened mass tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53, 131e140.
Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2004). Visitor attitudes toward tourism development and
product integration in an Australian urban-rural fringe. Journal of Travel
Research, 42, 286e296.
Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2008). Perceptions of a nearby exurban protected area in
South Carolina, USA. Environmental Management, 41(3), 389e397.
Weiler, B., & Davis, D. (1993). An exploratory investigation into the roles of the
nature-based tour leader. Tourism Management, 14, 91e98.
Wilshusen, P., Brechin, S., Fortwangler, C., & West, P. (2002). Reinventing a square
wheel: Critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodi-
versity conservation. Society & Natural Resources, 15, 17e40.
Worboys, G., Lockwood, M., & De Lacy, T. (2001). Protected area management:
Principles and practice. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Zanon, D., Doucouliagos, C., Hall, J., & Lockstone-Binney, L. (2013). Constraints to
park visitation: A meta-analysis of north american studies. Leisure Sciences, 35,
475e493.
David Weaver has published more than 130 journal arti-
cles, book chapters and books in the areas of sustainable
destination management, ecotourism, indigenous tourism,
and resident perceptions of tourism. Professor Weaver has
contributed extensively to leading journals such as Annals
of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel
Research and Journal of Sustainable Tourism. His widely
adopted textbooks include Ecotourism (Wiley Australia),
Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (CABI), and Sustainable Tourism:
Theory and Practice (Taylor & Francis). He is a Fellow of the
International Academy for the Study of Tourism and has
delivered numerous invited keynote addresses around the
world on innovative tourism topics.
Laura Lawton is an Associate Professor within the
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management at
Griffith University, Australia. She has published numerous
government reports, academic journal articles and book
chapters in several areas, including protected areas,
ecotourism, resident perceptions of tourism, festival sus-
tainability, and cruise ship tourism. She is a co-author of
the tourism text ‘Tourism Management,’ published by
Wiley and sits on the board of four academic journals.
Laura serves as Deputy Chair of The International Centre
of Excellence in Tourism and Hospitality Management Ed-
ucation (THE-ICE), an independent international accredita-
tion body that specialises in tourism, hospitality, and
events education.