Content uploaded by Juraj Švajda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juraj Švajda on Oct 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723 e-mail: jms@imde.ac.cn http://jms.imde.ac.cn
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-019-5490-z
709
Abstract: Public governance and civil society play an
important role in the preservation of the
environmental and cultural values of the specific
region of Tusheti. This area is an interesting study
object also due to its unique governing model and
different management issues including the historical
background of the region and the current growth of
tourism. In the region, where there is a significant
number of initiatives supported by donors, a
management plan for the protected landscape was
prepared and put into practice and selected measures
were implemented. Our evaluation of the activities
was focused on relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
impacts and sustainability of outcomes. On the basis of
the formulated conclusions, a few recommendations
related to process and system nature, implementation
and replicability of approaches are suggested. The
results show an increase in tourism in the region,
which leads to an improvement in the quality of life of
the local population. On the other hand, it represents
a threat to natural and cultural values, historical
identity and uniqueness. The Management Plan is an
excellent platform for stakeholder cooperation and
implementation of specific measures to protect this
exceptional territory.
Keywords: Protected landscape; Management plan;
Governance; Biodiversity; Tourism
Introduction
A number of authors (e.g. Worboys et al. 2015;
Lockwood et al. 2006) are concerned about the
management of protected areas (PA), while
agreeing that there should be joint efforts to ensure
the quality, fair and efficient management and
governance of these territories, so they can better
respond not only to current but also to future
challenges and opportunities. The world-wide set
of protected areas has seen tremendous growth in
recent decades. Nevertheless, the decline in
biodiversity, including loss of many species within
protected areas and degradation of ecosystem
services, continues (IPBES 2018). Therefore, if we
want to ensure that relevant biodiversity
conservation objectives are met (Aichi goal 11), it is
important to identify needs, regional and global
challenges (Hammer et al. 2016), opportunities in
the area of PA management and concrete measures
based on priorities. Lange and Jungmeier (2014)
and Dudley and Stolton (2018) identified several
Balancing development and conservation needs of
stakeholders in the Tusheti Protected Landscape
SVAJDA Juraj1* https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4528-9963; e-mail: juraj.svajda@gmail.com
MALAC Lukas2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2782-2288; e-mail: luk.malac@seznam.cz
KHARTISVILI Lela3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5130-5459; e-mail: lela.khartishvili@boku.ac.at
*Corresponding Author
1 Matej Bel University, Faculty of Natural Sciences, 97401 Banska Bystrica, Slovakia
2 HaskoningDHV, 18600 Praha, Czech Republic
3 BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1190 Wien, Austria
Citation: Svajda J, Malac L, Khartisvili L (2020) Balancing development and conservation needs of stakeholders in the
Tusheti Protected Landscape. Journal of Mountain Science 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-019-5490-z
© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Received: 27-Ma
r
-2019
1st Revision: 08-Aug-2019
2nd Revision: 15-Nov-2019
Acce
p
ted: 23-De
c
-2019
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
710
critical areas that will need to be addressed in the
future, including proposed measures.
Several experts call for an increase in the size
of protected areas (identification based on the
ecoregional approach – Dinerstein et al. 2017 or
selection of critical habitats which are not yet
protected by any form of protection – Braueneder
et al. 2018). Others emphasize the need to improve
efficiency - a third of protected areas are still
endangered by human activities (Jones et al. 2018).
At the global level, attention is paid to the
assessment of the potential and current status of
protected areas (Watson et al. 2014), including
capacity, results (Geldmann et al. 2018) and
threats (Schulze et al. 2017). Many countries have
begun to concentrate on identifying deficiencies in
networks of protected areas based on scientific
principles – endangered species, representative
ecosystems, intact landscape, connectivity and
climate refugia (Coristine et al. 2018). Similarly,
within the EU, many authors (e.g., Hoffmann et al.
2018) focus on the analysis of protected areas in
terms of priority species and different components
of diversity. There are a number of examples of
how we can measure PA efficiency, such as using
indicators (Eklund et al. 2019) as part of adaptive
management.
Creating a stable system of protected areas
brings with it a number of problems regarding the
definition of a protected area and its
misunderstanding or erroneous explanation. There
are already many so-called “paper parks”, which
create a false idea of security in achieving the goals
of biodiversity conservation. Barnes et al. (2018)
warn against the perverse results of a global policy
of protected areas pursuing only percentage targets.
A particular problem is marine protected areas
(especially criticized for inappropriate localization
and enormous costs - Jantke et al. 2018). Also
diminishing areas or reducing the degree of
protection or functionality of protected areas is a
fairly frequent case, as governments are aware of
the very weak pressure from the international
community in the event of failure to comply with
the relevant legislation. An equally important issue
is the harmonization of management in the case of
territories declared in several international
programs (Schaaf and Rodrigues 2016).
Finally, other experts point to insufficient
maximization of the socio-economic benefits of
protected areas (Pullin et al. 2013). Identifying and
maximizing the benefits flowing from protected
areas in the form of ecosystem services, including
successful examples of payments for these services
to residents or local communities (Eshoo et al.
2018), is a good opportunity to replace
inappropriate activities but also to link the
protection of specific territories with regional
planning and improve the financing of protected
areas. This is closely related to better presentation
of the connection between protected areas
(biosphere) to society and to the local economy
through sustainable development goals (SDG)
objectives (bio-banking and bio-economy).
Ensuring stable funding for protected areas is a
particular problem, as the rapid release of new
protected areas means an acute shortage of
financial resources needed to implement the
necessary measures, including day-to-day
operations. Paradoxically, for example, European
countries with the greatest biodiversity often
receive the least financial resources (Sánchez-
Fernández et al. 2018). Increasingly more frequent
will be private financing, which also has its own
risks, or public-private partnerships.
The reconciliation of local needs with the
protection of the territory opens up the issue of
relations between the protected area and the
people in it, or in the immediate surroundings,
which can range from support to resistance.
Particularly in areas with indigenous populations,
addressing these social issues is very sensitive as it
directly affects human rights (Franks et al. 2018).
Recently, a growing realization of the importance
of new participatory approaches (Brescancin et al.
2017) and models of management of protected
areas involving stakeholders, including the sharing
of common benefits, can be observed. The
management of protected areas by indigenous and
local populations is, in some cases, more effective
than government programs (for example
rainforests - Schleicher et al. 2017). Large reserves
are still inadequately interconnected with the
cultural and spiritual values of the area, which are
very strong motivations and must be taken into
account in the management of protected areas
(Verschuuren and Brown 2019).
Improving professionalism in the area of
protected area management should respond to the
growing pressure on protected areas, which is also
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
711
becoming more and more sophisticated, but also to
an increasing number of visitors. Employees often
lack education and training (not covering many of
the broader topics such as adaptation to climate
change), and there is a lack of evaluation and use of
outdated equipment and technology. This trend is
also related to improved communication through
social media but also to greater involvement of
people in monitoring of biodiversity (citizen
science) and new methods for visitor monitoring
(Tenkanen et al. 2017) or illegal activities. Online
data and smart technology also present issues
connected to security and sensitive data sharing
like the occurrence of endangered species. The
main causes of biodiversity loss should be the
subject of research and proposed measures should
also be based on its results (Mazor et al. 2018).
Rapid technological progress, for example, in the
area of remote land survey, which allows for
changes to be tracked almost in real time, is a great
challenge for implementation in practice in the
form of concrete measures, in order to stop
deforestation (Finer et al. 2018).
It is clear that the conservation of biodiversity
is not only possible through protected areas, as
many species and habitats are beyond their borders.
A good network of interconnected protected areas
(Saura et al. 2018) and an appropriate
management method (Mikoláš et al. 2017) should
ensure the survival and existence of many species
and the provision of ecosystem services at the
regional level. Connectivity and putting a stop to
habitat loss and fragmentation are part of a
number of conservation strategies at the national
and regional levels (Psaralexi et al. 2017).
In every area today, we are seeing huge, rapid
changes related to protected areas as well. The
objectives of these should remain relevant in the
coming period, even though some of them, like
climate change (Belote et al. 2017), the spread of
invasive species, or the ever-growing need for
natural resources (Harfoot et al. 2018), may be
contrary to the biodiversity conservation policy. As
attractive tourist destinations, protected areas
should remain the guarantors of values even in
those cases where there is a pressure to increase
the number of visitors and develop infrastructure.
Similarly, climate change can bring a greater
incidence of disturbances to which protected areas
must respond appropriately (Müller et al. 2018). In
many cases, preventive measures and adaptation
strategies will need to be considered. In connection
with degraded ecosystems, it is also important not
to forget the possibilities of restoration ecology (e.g.
the removal of a dam on rivers). Innovative
methods may also cover areas of legislation where
some countries recognize human rights as
protected areas or natural elements (Margallanes
2015).
The present work aims to investigate the
Tusheti Protected Landscape (TPL) as a model
region for integrative management of a protected
area. Our paper is focused on the evaluation of two
projects supported by the Czech Development
Agency: Preparation of a Management Plan for the
Tusheti Protected Landscape (2012-2014) and
Implementation of Selected Measures from the
Tusheti Protected Landscape Management Plan
(2014-2018). We were particularly interested in
how its realization contributed towards sustainable
development, better quality of nature and
landscape conservation planning and how the lives
of people were affected (impact on the quality of
life) including conservation of the natural and
cultural values of the region. Based on the analyzed
results, we offer some recommendations and
interim actions that will support the TPL and other
protected areas in general.
1 Materials and Methods
1.1 Institutional framework
Since achieving independence in 1991,
consolidated new (radical) economic reforms and
prioritization of strategic directions enabled
Georgia to position itself as a country with a stable
political environment for investing in new projects
and creating a foundation (condition) for long-
term inclusive economic growth. Recently,
developed strategic documents comply with the
Association's Agenda and the goals and tasks of the
EU cohesion policy. These documents address the
challenges facing the mountain inhabitants of
Georgia and promote local economic development
in the regions, especially in remote mountain areas,
where improving the physical infrastructure and
protecting the environment are also priorities.
Unfortunately, inconsistency with priorities and
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
712
strategic directions sometimes occurs – e.g.
construction of roads in mountain areas of high
ecological value and PAs, construction of dams and
high voltage transmitters in the villages, forcing
local people to change their livelihood habits or
abandon their homes, etc.
The Social-Economic Development Strategy of
Georgia (2014-2020) refers strictly to the rational
use of natural resources, ensuring environmental
safety and sustainability, as well as the prevention
of natural disasters in the process of economic
development (Government of Georgia 2014). The
Georgian Government takes efforts to develop
mountainous regions by introducing tax benefits
for local entrepreneurs, funding infrastructure
development projects, adopting strategies and
action plans for their sustainable development,
including social support programs (Government of
Georgia 2017a, b). The Georgian Government has
also announced a mountain development strategy
for 2019-2023 to improve infrastructure and
conditions for those living in the highlands of
Georgia and to solve major problems in the
shortest period of time. Finally, diversification of
the mountain rural economy is a core aspect for
sustainable rural development in order to tackle
poverty and undesirable workforce migration
processes (Regional Development Program of
Georgia (2018-2021) as well as the Rural
Development Strategy). A sustainable, balanced
development is widely discussed in the National
Environmental Action Program of Georgia (2017-
2021) which highlights the need for the creation of
sustainable management systems of environmental
protection and the development of natural
resources, particularly, waste management system
and water pollution (Government of Georgia
2017b).
The Agency of Protected Areas (APA)
emphasizes specific options for developing
community-based resource management and
follows the guidelines proposed by the Europarc
Federation (2015). The Forest Agency under the
same ministry also considers community inclusion
in development processes as relevant for the
conservation and management of forests. Both
agencies as well as Transboundary Joint Secretariat
(TJS) for the South Caucasus highlight ecotourism
as a means of communicating with local people and
generating income for local enterprises.
1.2 Study area – key facts
Georgia is a small mountainous country in the
South Caucasus region with a population of 3.7 mill.
About 54% of the territory lies at elevations higher
than 1000 m a.s.l. (Elizbarashvili et al. 2018) and
42% of the population lives in mountainous areas,
where the villages of Ushguli in Svaneti and
Bochorma in Tusheti, located above 2200 m a.s.l,
are among the highest settlements (permanently
inhabited) in Europe. Like other post-Soviet
countries, Georgia went through difficult periods of
transitions due to the high rate of inflation, difficult
access to the market, distracted economic structure
and mass migration, particularly from mountain
areas to cities and abroad. Since the privatization
and land registration reforms in the 1990s, the
agriculture sector is now organized and based on
family farms and their fragmented land plots
(Gugushvili et al. 2017, Kinkladze 2015).
Today, the country receives up to 8.7 million
international travelers annually. The relevant
service industry generates more than 7.2% of the
country’s GDP, holds more than 68% in service
export (Georgian National Tourism Administration
- GNTA 2018) and contributes 7.8% directly and
27% in total to the country’s employment (WTTC
2018). According to the statistics of GNTA, more
than 40% of tourists seek adventure and nature
travel combined with culture sightseeing and
ethnographical exploration. The most popular are
“hidden” trails among remote areas and well-
preserved cultural landscapes.
The most prominent tourist destinations are
often to be found within the boundaries of different
types of protected areas of Georgia. Currently, the
total coverage of PAs amounts to approximately 9%
of the country’s territory. According to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), by 2020
at least 12% of the country’s terrestrial and inland
water areas and 2.5% of marine areas must be
covered by protected areas.
Tusheti, one of the pioneer PAs in Georgia is
one example of a combination of cultural and
natural landscape, maintained over the centuries.
The small province situated on the northern slopes
of the Great Caucasus Mountains, in the NE
Kakheti region, is accessible only in four-wheel
drive and open for visitors only 4 months a year
(mid June – mid October). There are about 30-35
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
713
villages in the Tusheti region and there are about
200 families living on tourism, sheep and cow
breeding and agriculture. During the winter season,
most of the residents of Upper Tusheti migrate to
the lowlands. According to estimates, about 25
people remain there all year round. There is no
electricity and gas supply network in the villages.
The population mainly uses solar energy. Like
other mountainous regions, migration is very high
in Tusheti and there are abundant beautiful
villages around. The geographical isolation and the
characteristic way of living, which was connected
with sheep breeding, contributed to the emergence
and preservation of local culture (Makalatia 1983).
This is the most ancient highland region and has
preserved rich traditions of the old oriental
pastoral culture and Tushetian rule of life
characteristic only to this place (Nugzar 2006).
1.3 Tusheti Protected Areas (TPA) and
Protected Landscape (TPL) – the
importance of Caucasus as one of the
biodiversity hotspots in the world
The Caucasus is one of the most biologically
rich regions on Earth. This is one of the World
Wildlife Fund’s 35 priority places and one of the 34
biodiversity “hotspots” identified by Conservation
International (Garstecki 2017). A wide array of
ecosystems is concentrated in a relatively small
area and it holds a number of different landscapes
from semi-desert to high altitude tundra, and from
alpine meadow to deep forest. There are 6500
species of vascular plants, 25% (1,600) of which are
endemic to the Caucasus region, and a number
of endemic animals, including the East and West
Caucasian tur, the Armenian mouflon and the
Caucasian salamander. According to the
International Union for Conservation Nature’s
(IUCN) Red List (2010) there are 50 species of
globally threatened animals living on the territory
of the Caucasus.
The Tusheti PA (Figure 1) was established in
2003 under the Law of Georgia within the system
of protected areas and was assigned the category of
IUCN. Since 2007, the region was nominated in the
UNESCO World Heritage List (UNESCO WHC
2007). The upper part of Tusheti (1200-1400 a.s.l.)
is one of the most attractive and oldest historic-
ethnographic regions of Georgia with its
distinguished landscape architecture. Currently,
the Tusheti PA covers 113,660 ha, among which is
the national park (70,000 ha) – IUCN category II,
a state nature reserve (13,000 ha) – IUCN category
I and a protected landscape (32,000 ha) – IUCN
category V. In terms of governance structure, the
Tusheti PL is an exception from the other Protected
Areas of Georgia because since 2006 it has been
managed by the Akhmeta municipality, while the
management of all other protected areas is
undertaken by the APA through the local protected
area administration units.
Among 59 self-governing communes and 12
self-governing towns in Georgia (No 1215,
09/07/2014), Akhmeta is the only self-governing
entity that was given the rights to manage the
protected area, including the forests within its
boundaries (Kavtarishvili 2015). The Akhmeta
municipality established the management body,
the Tusheti PL administration, in 2011. The
administration has the status of a non-profit, non-
commercial legal entity, with its own resources,
rights and responsibilities; it signs contracts in its
own name, and has other responsibilities that are
essential for its effective operation. Thus, the
Tushetians are represented in the local self-
government of the Akhmeta municipality, they
participate in the elections of the head of the local
executive board and also participate in the Tusheti
PL forest management processes.
Establishment of protected areas in Tusheti
contributed to the growth of tourism in the region.
Moreover, the neighbouring Pshav-Khevsureti PA
is undergoing rapid eco-tourism infrastructure
development that allows for well-connected tourist
trails between Tusheti and Khevsureti and develops
synergized tourist trips. On the one hand, tourism
is becoming one of the most important economic
activities for people in the region as well as a good
source of income. On the other hand, there is a risk
of damaging the natural and cultural-historical
values of the region (Tvaradze 2016). The
development of a new management plan for the
Tusheti PL, which includes measures/indicators for
monitoring sustainable development processes in
tourism and identifying and mitigating problems,
was the main goal of the first project implemented
through close cooperation with the administration
of the Tusheti PL. This was followed by the second
project, which was dedicated to implementing
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
714
concrete measures of the plan elaborated in
practice, namely in the areas of tourism
infrastructure development, species monitoring
and inventory of significant natural phenomena. In
addition, a marking system for tourists was
designed and a basic network of tourist routes,
including maps with traditional toponyms and
promotion of this protected area.
The development of the management plan
addressed the recent strategy on governing models
and innovative management, and considered the
aspects of the consistent decentralized government
of PAs, the separate responsibilities in the field of
tourism and the environment between different
government bodies, both at national and regional
level as well as strong cooperation between
different stakeholders.
1.4 Methods
We implemented a qualitative research design,
based on document analysis and semi-structured
individual as well as group interviews with
different stakeholders. The personal experience of
the evaluation team helped to reflect the relevance
of practice and better understanding. Intervention
logic evaluation scheme is described in Appendixes
1 and 2 of this article.
Several methods were used for evaluation
(Sirakaya-Turk et al. 2017). Desk research involved
analysis of project documentation, outcomes,
strategic documents and methodology. Semi-
structured interviews included dozens of individual
and group interviews with project implementers,
contracting authorities, relevant public institutions
at national and local levels, project partners, NGOs,
self-government and tourism service providers.
Five focus groups were conducted with employees
of Tusheti protected areas and with inhabitants of
communities and villages in the region (Alvani,
Omalo, Bochorna, Diklo). Questionnaires (N=26)
were given to the target group of entrepreneurs in
tourism (collection of mainly economic data) and
an analysis of the results obtained from visitors
was collected by the Caucasus Environmental NGO
Network (CENN) during July and August 2018
(N=155). We also used secondary data obtained
from APA and the Tusheti PL (number of visitors,
Figure 1 Map of the study area (Tusheti protected areas covers three categories - national park, state nature reserve
and
p
rotected landsca
p
e).
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
715
biodiversity etc.). Evaluation visits and transect
walks (Rambaldi 2001) were conducted in 7
communities visited, including accommodation
operators and/or important community members
(13 visits), as well as informal communication with
other village residents (especially shepherds). In
the course of the application of the transect walk
method there was also some informal
communication with the visitors to Tusheti in
order to understand their motivations,
expectations and also to gain awareness of how
tourists assess their stay. The evaluation team
conducted dozens of such informal interviews.
Finally, the Most Significant Change method was
used (Dart and Davies 2003). During the first
evaluation mission, the setup and targeting of the
method and the training of two interviewers took
place. Between the first and second missions the
interviewers collected testimonials and stories
from the inhabitants regarding how life in Tusheti
changed over the last 5 years from their point of
view – a total of 20 stories. These were then sorted
and systematized by the evaluation team. The most
significant changes identified in this way were
consulted during the second evaluation mission
within two verification workshops with the local
community – Omalo and Alvani.
2 Results
2.1 Tourism in the region
Available data confirm that the number of
visitors is clearly increasing in the region. In 2018,
14,870 people visited the region (APA data related
to the National Park, taking into account the
character of the individual territorial protection
regimes in Tusheti but these data can be extended
to the whole territory). We can assume that there
are roughly 3500 hikers per month on the trails,
and roughly 115 per day.
Data aggregated by CENN on a sample of 155
visitors show several major trends in visitation.
The region is especially popular among European
visitors. The most important groups are visitors
from Germany, Poland and Czechia. More than half
of the surveyed visitors are under 35 years of age.
Most visitors use the accommodation available in
the region. Only about 21.5% of visitors stay in
tents. The region is popular especially for group
visits. The average visitor group size is 4.35. Most
often they are two-member groups. Visitors in the
region stay on average for about 3 days. The ratio
of overnight visitors is very low because of the
difficult accessibility of the region. It can be
assumed that almost every visitor to Tusheti will
use locally provided tourist services, especially
accommodation. At the same time, however, the
visitors only rarely stay for more than 4 days - the
region does not have the potential to attract long-
term visitors for the time being and has more of a
“transitory” character. Visitors received
information about the region mainly from friends
(37%) or from social networks (30% - especially
travel forums). The share of “more traditional”
sources of information is rather marginal - 10% of
visitors received information from a website (not
specifying whether the website of the National Park,
Tusheti Protected Landscape or third party) and
only 4% from the media.
These findings are also confirmed by the
collection of qualitative and quantitative data by
the evaluation team. Visitor service providers
confirm that there is a dramatic increase of visits in
the region. Respondents in the questionnaire
survey among these service providers
overwhelmingly responded that there has been a
significant increase in regional visitors since 2013
(58% of respondents), while only one respondent
answered that the situation is not much different
compared to 2013 (Figure 2). Tour operators in
individual and group interviews confirm that the
groups of foreign visitors are very broad and
diverse. Apart from European visitors, they also
include visitors from the US, Australia, but also, for
example, India or China and many other countries.
In most cases, young visitors are interested in
independent travel and in exploring local natural
and cultural values. The vast majority of these
visitors go through the region (very popular is the
long-distance hike towards Dartlo, Girevi and
through the Atsuna pass to Psavi and Khevsureti -
on this trip travelers will spend about 3 days on the
territory of Tusheti, assuming they start in Omalo)
and only exceptionally spend more than 2 nights in
one place.
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
716
However, this dramatic increase in the
region's visit cannot be attributed to the causal link
with the projects being evaluated. It is most likely
to occur without the implementation of the
evaluated projects. Some of the previous initiatives
supported by the Czech Development Agency
undoubtedly contributed to the increase in number
of visitors, as they supported the development of
the accommodation capacity in the region and its
quality. It was mainly the supply of solar collectors
and photovoltaic cells, which provided the
supported pensions with electricity and hot water,
these initiatives are, however, not subject to
evaluation. They directly or indirectly help to cope
with this growth in visits to the region and a
positive assessment of visitors, which increases the
likelihood of their return to the region and/or
recommendations to other visitors. These are
mainly the following contributions of the evaluated
interventions: trails marked in the area make it
easier for visitors to navigate and regulate their
movement; building additional infrastructure
(bridges) extends the area that travelers can visit,
so they do not have to move along a single
“predetermined” route (if they follow the most
frequent route from Omalo to Dartlo). The TPL
Administration will potentially contribute to
preserving the traditional nature of the Tusheti
settlement, which is one of the region's main
attractions.
2.2 Protection of natural and cultural values,
historical identity and uniqueness
The regulatory activity of the TPL
Administration limits poaching, which is positively
perceived by the inhabitants of the region. A
positive influence on the protection of natural
values is also the regulation of timber harvesting or
the planning of the development of tourism
infrastructure with regard to biodiversity
(Gokhelashvili et al. 2002). On the other hand, an
accompanying effect of the development of the
region is the fact that people leave traditional ways
of livelihood, resulting in the disappearance of
former meadows and pastures due to reduced
intensity of their use and the development of
secondary succession, i.e. changes in the
composition of ecosystem communities. The fight
against succession is one of the tasks of the TPL
Administration, but it has not been fulfilled so far.
Negative impacts on the protection of natural
values are also caused by insufficient infrastructure
of waste management (although positive changes
Figure 2 Five-year trends observed by tourism service providers in Tusheti (n=26).
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
717
are observed mainly in the vicinity of Omalo),
which does not correspond to the current burden
on visitors' territory. Another problem occurred to
the trail erosion and visitors’ management caused
by increased trekking traffic, particularly on the
Atsunda Pass.
The impact of evaluated initiatives on the
protection of cultural and historical identity and
the uniqueness of the region cannot be identified
objectively. Some authors (e.g. Khartishvili et al.
2018) point to Dartlo (restored by the project - see
World Bank 2016) as an example of community-
based tourism that integrates and helps community
inclusion in development and decision-making
processes, and community-based tourism can help
improve also nature and culture protection.
Tourism development encouraged Tush people to
invest in their abandoned houses and start
businesses. However, according to the same author,
there are various cases in Tusheti as well as other
mountain regions of Georgia when local families
reduced or even stopped farming and made more
efforts in guesthouse businesses. They purchased
products from lowlands instead of their production.
Farms with limited agriculture resources became
more dependent on tourism and began to focus on
making profit from the tourism business rather
than from agriculture. This situation created
threats as not many wanted to learn agriculture
and other traditional businesses, especially the
young generation.
The dramatic development of tourism in the
region had a rather negative impact on the cultural
and historical values of Tusheti. Especially in
Omalo and in the immediate surroundings there
was a construction of new buildings for tourism
services (especially guesthouses or hotels) that do
not respect the traditional architecture of the
region. These so-called “toxic” houses significantly
damage the cultural values of the area. As
mentioned above, the inhabitants of the region
tend to be abandoning traditional livelihoods.
Especially in the case of traditional handicrafts,
people who do this craft work have no traditional
knowledge. Significant progress in the protection of
the cultural values of the area was seen in the
proclamation of monument protection in the ten
villages of Tusheti, in which new construction is
regulated and therefore the emergence of new
“toxic” houses and other interventions that damage
the traditional cultural region in the public space is
supposed to be prevented. This trend should be
further enhanced by the recent elaboration and
adoption of the territorial plan, which elaborates in
more detail the protection of the cultural and
historical values of the territory and formulates
measures for their recovery (in the case of available
funds).
One of the outcomes of the work of the
territorial planning team is the manual for new
buildings which elaborates in great detail (even at
the level of specific villages) the traditional
construction techniques, usable materials and the
general appearance of the buildings and their
aesthetics. Both these initiatives, either directly or
potentially strengthening the protection of the
cultural values of the territory, were implemented
without a direct or indirect contribution from the
evaluated initiatives. On the other hand, it is
necessary to mention the important place of the
TPL Administration in the enforcement of these
new regulations in practice in the territory. The
TPL Administration currently has decision-making
powers regarding the use of natural resources
(wood, slate) for new constructions. The issuance
of licenses is subject to the consent of the
conservation office with the submitted project - the
project must therefore be in accordance with the
above-mentioned manual or, respectively,
regulation of the spatial plan. The support of the
Czech Development Agency has played an
important role in the establishment and
functioning of this institutional structure. In the
meantime, it has contributed to the future
strengthening of the protection of the cultural
values of the area.
2.3 Improving the quality of life for the local
population
The perception of the trend in the
development of quality of life and living standards
by the population was described in the answer to
one of the questions. The analysis of the impacts of
tourism development in the region was also
devoted to a questionnaire survey among the
providers of tourism services, which was carried
out by the evaluation team from September to
October 2018 (return of 26 subjects in tourism).
Respondents in the questionnaire confirmed the
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
718
hypothesis of a significant increase in tourism
revenue in the region. In the last few years,
according to respondents from the questionnaire
survey, there has been a significant increase in the
volume of services provided, a slight increase in
prices for services provided and above all, a
significant increase in net tourism profits by
service providers.
At the same time, these respondents observed
a significant increase in the share of tourism profits
in the total income of the family. In spite of a short
summer season, tourism revenues on average
account for more than 45% of their annual
revenues (data for 2017) today, while in 2013 they
accounted for just under 25%. An even higher
increase in the share of tourism revenue is then
recorded if we remove from the sample of
respondents entities that already had a very high
proportion of tourism revenue in 2013 (for
example, if such a person already drew all his or
her tourism revenue in 2013, in the current year
there would be relatively no change - although it
would undoubtedly have a significant increase, so
the subjects distort the results of the analysis).
Therefore, if only the respondents whose net
income from tourism in 2013 did not reach more
than 50% of the total net income are analyzed,
there is a 2.3-fold increase by 2017 (roughly from
18% to 41%). The vast majority of these
respondents also agree with the statement that
since 2013, the quality of their lives has improved
(Figure 3). Again, it is necessary to recall that the
causal link between the support of the evaluated
projects and the observed impacts is rather low,
but there is a positive trend in the region that
outlined the expected impacts of these initiatives.
Here we should consider that the majority of
travelers use three locations for accommodation
(Alvani, Dartlo and Shenako) and other villages are
ignored. For people who could not benefit from
tourism businesses, the development of tourism
has restricted access to previously accessible
natural resources. For others, tourism has meant
new aspirations, new ways of life, a broader
horizon and a prosperous future. The distribution
of tourists throughout the region, which means the
creation of new places and networks of routes, will
contribute to the inclusion of other (side)
territories (Gometsari Gorge, etc.) in the
development processes and support sustainable
development on the way forward.
Regarding impacts, a very positive trend of
socio-economic development is observed in the
region as well as in the quality of life of the
population. It is necessary to note that in this sense
it is difficult to isolate the influence of the support
of the project donors - socio-economic
development is caused by external factors,
especially the turbulent development of tourism in
the region. However, the support has significantly
contributed to managing this increase and
improving the visitors' experience and at least in
the first years, the initiatives were a significant
impetus that tourism development helped to kick-
start (these initiatives were not subject to
evaluation - mainly electrification of small hotels
and other buildings). As a direct consequence of
the existence of the administrative structure,
regulations are issued and enforced which have a
positive impact on the protection of the region's
natural and cultural heritage. The impact on
increased participation and community decision-
making has not been reflected on so far. For these
reasons, the impact of the support on the
development of the region is assessed as rather
high and the initiatives represent an example of
good practice, with the support laying the basis for
further development of the region.
3 Discussion and Conclusion
3.1 The most important findings
The implemented initiatives are fully in line
with the relevant strategies of Georgia, the target
group needs and they fulfill the relevant SDGs. The
target groups unambiguously articulate the need
Figure 3 Perceived increase in quality of life as direct
effect of tourism since 2013 in Tusheti region (n=26).
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
719
for infrastructure development and supply for
tourism. At the same time, this is associated with
the risk that, due to the rapid development of
visitors, Tusheti will lose the authenticity of its
landscape and settlements, which is the main
added value of the region and the reason why
visitors come. The establishment and
strengthening of the TPL Administration largely
responds to this dilemma while developing an
initiative to expand tourism infrastructure and
attract visitors to the region and to protect the
natural and cultural heritage.
Costs incurred on individual implemented
activities were spent economically. The synergies
and cooperation with other donors and
stakeholders should also have a very positive
impact on the effectiveness and economy of the aid.
In the management of the TPL Administration and
local TPA (territorial agency of APA) it may lead to
the duplication of activities and inefficiency in
reaching protection objectives, as well as delivering
the project outcomes. An example of good practice
for the management is the elaboration of the
management plan. The existing plan is the key
document for the TPL administration. However,
given the current context in terms of cooperation
and resources, the plan cannot be accomplished to
its fullest within the six-year timespan during
which the plan is valid before its next revision.
Part of the results were only limited.
Biodiversity monitoring and well-designed
methodologies and background studies were set up,
but monitoring is hardly ever undertaken for
capacity reasons. Similarly, in the field of external
communication and public relations (PR), the
Tusheti logo and formulated communication
strategy were developed, the TPL Administration
activities in the field of external communication
and PR are very limited and the evaluation team
did not notice any case when visitors would seek
for information about the region from the TPL
Administration website or other communication
channels of the agency, or even visit the region on
the basis of its communication and PR activities.
Also, the objectives of generating additional
revenue from tourism were not achieved; the pilot
collection of a voluntary entrance fee generated
only about 1650 GEL (1 Eur = 3.2 Georgian Lari) in
two months. It should be noted, however, that the
poor fulfillment of these goals is rather due to the
lack of flexible and personally unstable cooperation
with the APA which the implementation team
could not influence.
Here we need to mention the limitations of the
study as well. The target region is very specific, so
geographic (accessibility, seasonality) or cultural
(language) conditions must be always taken into
account during data collection. With regard to the
total existing tourist infrastructure, the
questionnaire survey among providers of tourism
services does not have a very low value. The survey
among visitors shows a very small sample in
relation to the total number of visitors, thus serving
rather to describe the context of the visits to the
region. The availability of quantitative data is very
limited for evaluation. While some data are
aggregated at APA level, their quality is debatable.
At TPL Administration level, almost no
quantitative monitoring of the implementation of
the management plan is realized (although the
monitoring indicators and the way of collecting the
data are formulated in the document). For this
reason, it is necessary to rely almost exclusively on
qualitative information (and cross-checking it) in
evaluating the fulfillment of the management plan.
3.2 Recommendations
On the basis of the findings, the following
recommendations were formulated on the
procedural and systemic level, sustainability,
implementation and replication.
In the case of capacity-building projects, at
least in the first stages of implementation, a long-
term presence of the implementer in the field is
required. The formulation of objectives and related
results and their indicators that meet the SMART
characteristics (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic and Time-based) must be required. If
multiple donors and other stakeholders are
involved in the target area, a shared local structure
should be built instead of developing a custom
solution. Systematic coordination with other
donors and stakeholders involved in the target
region should be continued.
Continue initiatives to support the TPL
Administration's capacity, with an emphasis on
lack of expertise and knowledge (biodiversity,
cultural heritage care, external communication).
Encourage the process of formalizing the
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
720
representation and participation of the Tusheti
community at the most appropriate platform
(Tusheti council, Local Action Group – LAG – see
Khartishvili et al. 2019, etc.). Consider promoting a
pilot project to build an association or other form
of formal business cooperation in Omalo, which
could take responsibility for part of the marketing
and visitor awareness activities. Further develop
the tourist infrastructure - in particular, complete
the tourist routes in the direction of Khevsureti and,
if necessary, build additional infrastructure
(campsites, shelters, etc.) with other partners.
Continue negotiations with the relevant Georgian
authorities in order to create an acceptable model
of a mandatory TPL entrance fee.
In the case of appropriate legislative and
institutional conditions in Georgia, replicate the
support model based on the Management Plan.
From the outset, support the systematic
development of community management
principles and participation in the elaboration and
implementation of the Management Plan, in the
event of a combination with the establishment of
LAGs, take care of the institutional and procedural
interconnection of all structures so as to prevent
double-tracking. Carefully prioritize actions of the
Management Plan and gradually develop individual
activities in the longer term. Start working within
the region as soon as possible to work on
appropriate regulations (with the consistent
involvement of the community in their formulation)
as tools to mitigate the negative impacts of
increasing the attractiveness of the area for visitors.
To complement systemic activities with a source of
lesser investment as a tool for early
implementation of specific measures of the
Management Plan and a means to enhance
ownership among target groups and the visibility of
donors. Consider limiting the implementation of
mountain area support in the Cooperation Program
to only one region.
3.3 Lessons learned related to sustainable
development and PA management
We see the novelty of the study and its
contribution to the international literature also for
different aspects of sustainable development of
mountain areas and management of protected
areas. A broader perspective emerging from the
analysis of a national case study is increasing
international relevance. Current management
system of TPA enhances communication and
cooperation between regional administrations and
creates more initiatives and entrepreneurship of
TPL management and staff. It includes the local
population in problem definition, planning and
decision-making processes. However,
decentralization and self-management system
requires the necessary skills and flexibility of local
actors in management and monitoring. This is a
core aspect for sustainable development. As Forleo
et al. (2018) pointed out, for PA management it is
important to design strategies and actions aimed at
improving relations between nature and people
which means an increase of social and economic
values of these areas.
Mountain areas are sensitive ecosystems and
they are often used by a wide range of stakeholders.
Collaborative governance is becoming increasingly
important for sustainable practices (Thelbro et al.
2018) and co-management of PAs can alleviate
conservation conflicts (Fedreheim and Blanco
2017). As the examples from other areas show (e.g.
Bratucu et al. 2017) implementation of sustainable
development practices in mountain tourism is an
effective solution to the growing number of visitors.
The fragility of mountain areas is often connected
with depopulation, ageing and unemployment
(Forleo et al. 2017) so analysis of not only
environmental but also demographic and economic
profiles is important for sustainable development.
Overvag et al. (2016) point out that attention
should be paid to multilevel politics, entire
mountain areas and the context of their
development, rather than focusing on minor
projects and PAs. There are many positive
examples of PAs’ governance and contributions to
regional development (Volgger et al. 2016).
Thus, cooperative behavior contributes to the
development of both individual businesses and the
whole territory. New approaches (LAG and RAG)
require more research and monitoring on how the
form of cooperation (cooperatives of unities of
groups) is beneficial to the rural entrepreneurs and
communities. They highlight inclusion of local
communities in planning and implementation
processes through development of regional
structures. Another model of cooperation at local
and national level is the established tourism
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
721
information centers in the regions, together with
local municipalities. Such organizations are
effective when they play the role of destination
management organization for better regional
partnership and marketing.
Tusheti is an interesting case study in which
we can demonstrate especially application of
different protected area management categories
(Dudley et al. 2013) and modern way of governance
- decentralization and involvement of local people
(Borrini et al. 2013). Preparation of the
management plan followed the recommended steps
– e.g. a description of the values and vision of the
area, SMART goals, data collection, including
identification of threats and proposals for action
(Thomas and Middleton 2003). Monitoring and an
adaptive revision of the plan for the further period
is also important and there is still potential for
better involvement of the public. Regarding
financial sustainability of protected area
management (Emerton et al. 2006) there is a need
to include new innovative schemes (such as
payments for ecosystem services and entrance fees).
Other areas which need attention in the following
years are personnel and organizational
development (Kopylova and Danilina 2011)
including staff training, management of natural
resources including incident management (natural
disturbances – Lockwood et al. 2006), tourism and
recreation issues (preference of nature based
tourism, identification of visitors, programs and
services, interpretation, management of negative
impacts – Yu-Fai et al. 2018), evaluation of
management effectiveness (Hockings et al. 2006),
communication and participation of stakeholders
(Hesselink et al. 2007), research and monitoring,
regional development and cooperation, marketing
and public relation (Getzner et al. 2010),
fragmentation and connectivity inside and between
protected areas, transboundary conservation and
adaptation to climate change (Worboys et al. 2015).
The main objectives of the evaluated initiatives
were mostly achieved. There is, as far as possible, a
stable TPL structure which has been approved and
started to be implemented by a very well-developed
management plan. The quantitative objectives of
the projects have been fulfilled. There is an increase
in the number of tourists who generate significant
income for the inhabitants of Tusheti and hence
increase the standard of living. However, the causal
link between the implementation of these objectives
and the content of the implemented activities is
rather low. For the time being, the sustainability of
the results is still to be considered rather low. TPL
Administration does not have a sufficient capacity to
effectively operate and implement the Management
Plan. As a rule, individual measures can only be met
with support from external sources. On the other
hand, high ownership and motivation of the TPL
Administration representatives is observed in relation
to the implementation of the Management Plan.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Czechia. We would like to
acknowledge Sofia Tvaradze and the anonymous
reviewers who helped to improve the first version
of this manuscript. Also many thanks to Matej
Masny for elaboration of the study area map.
Electronic supplementary material:
Supplementary materials (Appendixes 1 and 2) are
available in the online version of this article at
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-019-5490-z
References
Barnes MD, Glew L, Wyborn C, et al. (2018) Prevent perverse
outcomes from global protected area policy. Nature Ecology &
Evolution 2: 759-762.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y
Belote RT, Dietz MS, McKinley PS, et al. (2017) Mapping
conservation strategies under a changing climate. BioScience
67(6): 494-497. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix028
Brauneder KM, Montes C, Blyth S, et al. (2018) Global screening
for Critical Habitat in the terrestrial realm. PLoS ONE 13(3):
e0193102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193102
Borrini G, Dudley N, Jaegert T, et al. (2013) Governance of
protected areas: from understanding to action. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland. p124.
Bratucu G., Baltescu CA, Neacsu NA, et al. (2017) Approaching
the sustainable development practices in mountain tourism in
the Romanian Carpathians. Sustainability 9(11): 2051.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112051
Brescancin F, Dobsinska Z, de Meo I, et al. (2017) Analysis of
stakeholders' involvement in the implementation of the
Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. Forest Policy and
Economics 78: 107-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.013
Coristine LE, Jacob AL, Schuster R, et al. (2018) Informing
Canada’s commitment to biodiversity conservation: A
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
722
science-based framework to help guide protected areas
designation through Target 1 and beyond. FACETS 3: 531-562.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0102
Dart J & Davies R (2003) A dialogical story-based evaluation
tool: The most significant change technique. American
Journal of Evaluation 24(2): 137-155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400202
Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A, et al. (2017) An ecoregion-based
approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience
67(6): 534-545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014
Dudley N, Shadie P, Stolton S (2013) Guidelines for applying
protected area management categories including IUCN WCPA
best practice guidance on recognising protected areas and
assigning management categories and governance types.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 86 p.
Dudley N, Stolton S (2018) Protected areas: challenges and
responses for the coming decade, Equilibrium Research
Dialogue: 1, Bristol, UK.
Eklund J, Coad L, Geldmann J, et al. (2019) What constitutes a
useful measure of protected area effectiveness? A case study
of management inputs and protected area impacts in
Madagascar. Conservation Science and Practice 1(10).
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.107
Elizbarashvili NMH, Khoetsyan A, Meladze G, et al. (2018)
Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions and Resource
Management: Textbook for Students of Higher Educations.
DANI: Tbilisi.
Emerton L, Bishop J, Thomas L (2006) Sustainable Financing
of Protected Areas: A Global Review of Challenges and
Options. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK, 97 p.
Eshoo PF, Johnson A, Duangdala S, et al. (2018) Design,
monitoring and evaluation of a direct payments approach for
an ecotourism strategy to reduce illegal hunting and trade of
wildlife in Lao PDR. PLOS ONE 13(2): e0186133.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186133
Europarc Federation (2015) Assessment of capacity
development needs of protected area staff in Eastern Europe
– Georgia. Available online at:
https://www.europarc.org/tools-and-training/capacity-
building/map/georgia/ (Accessed on 17 January 2019).
Finer M, Novoa S, Weisse MJ, et al. (2018) Combating
deforestation: From satelite to intervention. Science
360(6395): 1303-1305.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1203
Forleo MB, Giannelli A, Giaccio V, et al. (2017) Geosites and
parks for the sustainable development of inner areas: the
Matese Mountain (Italy). GeoJournal of Tourism and
Geosites 20(2): 231-242. Available online at:
http://gtg.webhost.uoradea.ro/PDF/GTG-2-
2017/251_Forleo.pdf (Accessed on 17 January 2019).
Forleo MB, Palmieri N (2018) A framework for assessing the
relational accessibility of protected areas. Journal of Cleaner
Production 194: 594-606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.149
Franks P, Booker F, Roe D (2018) Understanding and assessing
equity in protected area conservation: a matter of governance,
rights, social impacts and human wellbeing. IIED Issue Paper.
IIED, London, UK.
Fedreheim GE, Blanco E (2017) Co-Management of protected
areas to alleviate conservation conflicts: Experiences in
Norway. International Journal of the Commons 11( 2): 754-
773. JSTOR, Available online at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26522934 (Accessed on 17
January 2019).
Garstecki T (2017) Feasibility assessment for a World Heritage
nomination of the Colchic Forests and Wetlands under the
natural criteria. Scoping and Feasibility Study Available
online at:
http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/6829/1/FS_WH_Colchic_Fores
ts_%26_Wetlands_final.pdf (Accessed on 17 January 2019).
Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes MD, et al. (2018). A global analysis
of management capacity and ecological outcomes in
terrestrial protected areas. Conservation Letters 11(3): e12434.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12434
Georgian National Tourism Administration (2018) Georgian
Tourism in Figures. Available online at: https://gnta.ge/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/2017-ENG.pdf (Accessed on 17
January 2019).
Getzner M, Jungmeier M, Lange S (2010) People, parks and
Money. Stakeholder involvement and regional development: a
manual for protected areas. Verlag Johannes Heyn,
Klagenfurt, 215 p.
Gokhelashvili R, Gavashelishvili A, Javakhishvili Z, et al. (2002)
Tourism Infrastructure Planning in Tusheti National Park of
Georgia. Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in
Recreational and Protected Areas Conference Proceedings,
Vienna, Austria, pp. 74-77.
Government of Georgia (2014) Strategy for Social-Eonomic
Development of Georgia. SEDG. Available online at:
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-
documents/cps-geo-2014-2018-sd-01.pdf (Accessed on 17
January 2019).
Government of Georgia (2017a) Strategy for the Development of
High Mountainous Regions of Georgia. Available online at:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/104537
/127659/F1097580316/4036%20eng.pdf (Accessed on 17
January 2019).
Government of Georgia (2017b) Rural Development Strategy of
Georgia 2017-2020. Available online at:
http://enpard.ge/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rural-
Development-Strategy-of-Georgia-2017-2020.pdf (Accessed
on 17 January 2019)
Gugushvili T, Salukvadze G, Salukvadze J (2017) Fragmented
development: Tourism-driven economic changes in Kazbegi,
Georgia. Annals of Agrarian Science 15(1): 49-54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasci.2017.02.005
Hammer T, Mose I, Siegrist D, et al. (2016) Parks of the Future.
Protected Areas in Europe Challenging Regional and Global
Change. Oekom, München.
Harfoot MB, Tittensor DP, Knight S, et al. (2018). Present and
Future biodiversity risks from fossil fuel exploitation.
Conservation Letters 11 (4): 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12448
Hesselink F, Goldstein W, Van Kempen PP, et al. (2007)
Communication, Education and Public Awareness, a toolkit
for the Convention on Biological Convention, Montreal, 308 p.
Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, et al. (2006) Evaluating
Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management
effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 105 p.
Hoffmann S, Beierkuhnlein C, Field R, et al. (2018) Uniqueness
of Protected Areas for Conservation Strategies in the
European Union. Scientific Reports 8: 6445.
IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) (2018) Biodiversity and
nature's contributions continue dangerous decline, scientists
warn: Human well-being at risk. Landmark reports highlight
options to protect and restore nature and its vital
contributions to people. ScienceDaily, 23 March 2018.
Available online at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/1803230937
34.htm (Accessed on 17 January 2019).
Jantke K, Jones KR, Allan JR, et al. (2018) Poor ecological
representation by an expensive reserve system: Evaluating 35
years of marine protected area expansion. Conservation
Letters 11(6): 1-8. https://doi.org/: 10.1111/conl.12584
Jones KR, Venter O, Fuller RA, et al. (2018) One-third of global
protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360
(6390): 788-791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565
Kavtarishvili M (2015) Tusheti and its forests - a unique case of
local governance in Georgia. Journal on Protected Mountain
Areas Research 7 (2): 70-77.
https://doi.org/10.1553/eco.mont-7-2s70
Khartishvili L, Mitrofanenko T, Muhar A, et al. (2018)
J. Mt. Sci. (2020) 17(3): 709-723
723
Community based tourism in Dartlo: towards a better
integration of community in tourism. 5th Forum Carpaticum
Book of Abstracts, Eger, Hungary, p. 73.
Khartishvili L, Muhar A, Dax T, et al. (2019) Rural tourism in
Georgia in Transition: Challenges for regional sustainability.
Sustainability 11(2): 410.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020410
Kinkladze R (2015) Modern trends and prospects to develop the
agrarian sector of Georgia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences 213: 562-568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.450
Kopylova SL, Danilina NR (2011) Protected Area Staff Training:
Guidelines for Planning and Management. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN, 102 p.
Lange S, Jungmeier M (2014) Parks 3.0 – Protected areas for
the next society. Series: Proceedings in the Management of
Protected Areas, Vol. 6. Verlag Johannes Heyn, Klagenfurt.
Lockwood M, Worboys G L, Kothari A (2006) Managing
Protected Areas a global guide. London Earthscan, 802 p.
Magallanes CJI (2015) Nature as an Ancestor: Two Examples of
Legal Personality for Nature in New Zealand. VertigO 22,
https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.16199
Makalatia S (1983) Tusheti. Nakaduli: Tbilisi.
Mazor T, Doropoulos Ch, Schwarzmueller F, et al. (2018) Global
mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity
loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 1071-1074.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0563-x
Mikoláš M, Tejkal M, Kuemmerle T, et al. (2017) Forest
management impacts on capercaillie habitat distribution and
connectivity in the Carpathians. Landscape Ecology 32(1):
163-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1098
Müller J, Noss RF, Thorn S, et al. (2018) Increasing disturbance
demands new policies to conserve intact forest. Conservation
Letters, e12449. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12449
Nugzar I (2006) Tusheti – A guide-book for travelers on
customs and rituals. Agency of Protected Areas – Tusheti
Protected Areas Administration.
Overvag K, Skjeggedal T, Sandstrom C (2016) Management of
mountain areas in Norway and the persistence of local–
national conflicts. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 59(7): 1186-1204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1062747
Psaralexi MK, Votsi N-E P, Selva N, et al. (2017) Importance of
roadless areas for the European conservation network.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5(2): 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00002
Pullin AS, Bangpan M, Dalrymple S, et al. (2013) Human well-
being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environmental
Evidence 2:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-2-19
Rambaldi G (2001) Transect Mapping Guidelines. Available
online at:
http://pgistk.cta.int/m08/docs/M08U01_handout_transect
_mapping.pdf (Accessed on 05 July 2019)
Saura S, Bertzky B, Bastin L, et al. (2018) Protected area
connectivity: shortfalls in global targets and country-level
priorities. Biological Conservation 219: 53-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.020
Sánchez-Fernández D, Abellán P, Aragón P, et al. (2018)
Matches and mismatches between conservation investments
and biodiversity values in the EU. Conservation Biology 32(1):
109-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12977
Schaaf T, Clamote Rodrigues D (2016) Managing MIDAs:
Harmonising the management of Multi-Internationally
Designated Areas: Ramsar Sites, World Heritage sites,
Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 140 pp.
Schleicher J, Peres CA, Amano T, et al. (2017) Conservation
performance of different governance regimes in the Peruvian
Amazon. Scientific Reports 7: 11318.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10736
Schulze K, Knights K, Coad L, et al. (2017) An assessment of
threats to terrestrial protected areas. Conservation Letters
11(3): e12435. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12435
Sirakaya-Turk E, Uysal MS, Hammitt WE, et al. (2017) Research
Methods for Leisure, Recreation and Tourism. CABI Tourism
Texts. 2nd edition UK, USA.
Tenkanen H, di Minin E, Heikinheimo V, et al. (2017) Instagram,
Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data
for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Scientific reports 7:
17615.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18007-4
Thellbro C, Bjärstig T, Eckerberg K (2018) Drivers for public–
private partnerships in sustainable natural resource
management. Lessons from the Swedish Mountain Region.
Sustainability 10(11): 3914.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113914
Thomas L, Middleton J (2003) Guidelines for Management
Planning of Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland Switzerland and
Cambridge UK, 79 p.
Tvaradze S (2016) Impact of Tourism on Biodiversity along the
Atsunta Pass Trail (Pshav-Khevsureti & Tusheti PAs) and
Mitigation Measures. Available online at:
https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/ina/Dokumente/KTF/Co
urse_2015/15_Abstract_Sofia_Tvaradze.pdf (Accessed on 17
January 2019).
UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2007) Tentative Lists – Mta
Tusheti. http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5228/
(Accessed on 17 January 2019)
Verschuuren B, Brown S (2019) Cultural and spiritual
significance of nature in protected areas. Governance,
Management and Policy. Routledge, London, 1st edition, 334
p..
Volgger M, Lun L-M, Pechlaner H (2016) Protected Areas in the
Alps: Governance and Contributions to Regional
Development. In: Mountain Tourism: Experiences,
Communities, Environments and Sustainable Futures, CABI,
pp. 299-309.
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, et al. (2014) The
performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515: 67-
73. https://doi.org/: 10.1038/nature13947
Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, et al. (eds.) (2015)
Protected Area Governance and Management, ANU Press,
Canberra.
World Bank (2016) Kakheti Regional Development Program,
Village Dartlo Urban Regeneration.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/642811487049
652742/pdf/112765-REVISED-RP-P126033-Box402887B-
PUBLIC-Disclosed-2-13-2017.pdf (Accessed on 17 January
2019)
WTTC (2018) Travel & Tourism Economic Impact – Georgia.
Available online at: https://www.wttc.org/-
/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/countries-
2018/georgia2018.pdf (Accessed on 17 Jan 2019).
Yu-Fai L, Spenceley A, Hvenegaard G, et al. (2018) Tourism and
visitor management in protected areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, 120 p.
