A sustainable tourism paradigm: Opportunities and limits for forest landscape planning

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 2379-2391

  Rizio, Dina ^a   Gios, Geremia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Forest landscape; Local communities; Natural resource management; Sustainable tourism

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TOURISM ECONOMICS;

EID: 84899144799     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su6042379     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. The economic impact of travel & tourism 2013. World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). Available online: http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/world2013_1.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2013).
2. Blake, A.; Arbache, J.S.; Sinclair, M.T.; Teles, V. Tourism and poverty relief. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 107-126.
3. Del Pablo-Romero, M.P.; Molina, J.A. Tourism and economic growth: A review of empirical literature. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 8, 28-41.
4. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
5. Pearce, D.W.; Markandya, A.; Barbier, E. Blueprint for a Green Economy; Earthscan: London, UK, 1989.
6. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In Proceedings of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992.
7. Charter for Sustainable Tourism. In Proceedings of World Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain, 27-28 April 1995.
8. However, these constraints are not fully recognized by all the authors who analyze this problem. In fact, for this reason, it is worth noting the definitions of both strong and, in particular, weak sustainability. For more details see Neumayer (2003). Neumayer, E. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, 2nd ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2003.
9. Norgaard, R.B. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1219-1227.
10. Sharpley, R. Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. J. Sustain. Tour. 2000, 8, 1-19.
11. Jamal, T.; Camargo, B.A.; Wilson, E. Critical omissions and new directions for sustainable tourism: A situated macro-micro approach. Sustainability 2013, 5, 4594-4613.
12. Martini, U. Approccio alla sostenibilità, governance e competitività delle destinazioni turistiche: Stato dell'arte e prospettive. In Management per la Sostenibilità dello Sviluppo Turistico e la Competitività delle Destinazioni; Franch, M., Martini, U., Eds.; Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 2013; pp. 17-61. (In Italian)
13. Cesaro, L.; Romano, R.; Zumpano, C. Analisi e Approfondimenti sul Post 2013: Foreste e Politiche di Sviluppo Rurale; INEA: Roma, Italy, 2013. (In Italian)
14. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being-A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 1-25.
15. Farley, J.; Costanza, R. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2060-2068.
16. Wibe, S. Non Wood Benefits in Forestry: A Survey of Valuation Studies; United Nation Economic Commission for Europe: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
17. Wunder, S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts; Occasional paper 42; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bagor, Indonesia, 2005.
18. Staiff, R. Cultural Inscriptions of Nature: Some Implications for Sustainability, Nature-based Tourism and National Parks. In Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, 2nd ed.; McCool, S.F., Moisey, R.N., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008; pp. 220-235.
19. Reimoser, F. Il ruolo della selvicoltura nella gestione faunistica. Sherwood 2005, 112, 19-23. (In Italian)
20. Gios, G.; Rizio, D. Payment for forest environmental services: A meta-analysis of successful elements. iForest 2013, 6, 141-149.
21. Deffontaines, J.-P. L'objet dans l'espace agricole. Le regard d'un géoagronome. Nat. Sci. Soc. 2004, 12, 299-304. (In French)
22. Gios, G.; Clauser, O. Forest and tourism: Economic evaluation and management features under sustainable multifunctionality. iForest 2009, 2, 192-197.
23. Briassoulis, H. Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 1065-1085.
24. Healy, R.G. The "common pool" problem in tourism landscapes. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 596-611.
25. Dillman, B.L.; Bergstrom, J.C. Measuring environmental amenity benefits of agricultural land. In Farming and the Countryside: An Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits; Hanley, N., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 1991; pp. 250-271.
26. Jafari, J. The tourism market basket of goods and services. In Studies in Tourism Wildlife Parks Conservation; Singh, T., Kaur, J., Singh, P., Eds.; Metropolitan Book: New Delhi, India, 1982; pp. 1-12.
27. Many different tools of intervention have traditionally been used in the management of forest resources. Command and control tools are based on legally binding restrictions. These measures, which come into play at the end of the production cycle, establish a final "cure", but do not address the root of the problem. However it is worth noting that procedural standards have also been introduced, and in some cases certain products, or the use of certain raw materials, have been banned. Cap and trade mechanisms are based on emissions limits and allow two parties to sign an agreement under which the party emitting lower quantities of greenhouse gas cedes the rest of their quota to the party whose emissions exceed the maximum limit. These are voluntary agreements, usually subsidized by governments and aimed at lowering polluting emissions. There are numerous other tools in place for voluntary use: corporate social responsibility, environmental certification, various systems of environmental management.
28. Galizzi, G. Una Politica per l'Agricoltura della Montagna Alpina; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1992. (In Italian)
29. Provincia Autonoma di Trento (PAT), Ufficio Foreste Demaniali. Piano di Assestamento dei beni Silvopastorali di Paneveggio 1991-2000; Provincia Autonoma di Trento: Trento, Italy, 2006. (In Italian)
30. Zugliani, G.; Dotta, L. Legno di risonanza Gestione, selezione e lavorazione nelle Foreste Demaniali di Paneveggio (TN). Sherwood 2009, 155, 14-18. (In Italian)
31. Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 1968, 162, 1243-1248.
32. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
33. Lachapelle, P.R.; McCool, S.F. Exploring the concept of "Ownership" in natural resource planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 279-285.
34. Ostrom, E. Come Alcune Comunità Hanno Evitato la Tragedia delle Risorse Collettive. Quarto Meeting Annuale del Centro Studi e Documentazione sulle Proprietà Collettive, Trento, Italy, 7-8 November 1998. (In Italian)