Content uploaded by Kelly L. Cerialo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kelly L. Cerialo on Apr 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Antioch University Antioch University
AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive
Dissertations & Theses Student & Alumni Scholarship, including
Dissertations & Theses
2021
The Social Impacts of Tourism in the UNESCO Champlain The Social Impacts of Tourism in the UNESCO Champlain
Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (USA) Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (USA)
Kelly L. Cerialo
Antioch University - PhD Program in Leadership and Change
Follow this and additional works at: https://aura.antioch.edu/etds
Part of the Environmental Policy Commons, Leadership Studies Commons, Recreation, Parks and
Tourism Administration Commons, Regional Sociology Commons, and the Tourism Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Cerialo, K. L. (2021). The Social Impacts of Tourism in the UNESCO Champlain Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve (USA). https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/717
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student & Alumni Scholarship, including
Dissertations & Theses at AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Dissertations & Theses by an authorized administrator of AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. For
more information, please contact hhale@antioch.edu, wmcgrath@antioch.edu.
THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM IN THE UNESCO CHAMPLAIN-ADIRONDACK
BIOSPHERE RESERVE (USA)
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of
Graduate School of Leadership & Change
Antioch University
In partial fulfillment for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
Kelly L. Cerialo
ORCID Scholar No. 0000-0002-1568-3751
June 2021
ii
THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM IN THE UNESCO CHAMPLAIN-ADIRONDACK
BIOSPHERE RESERVE (USA)
This dissertation, by Kelly L. Cerialo, has
been approved by the committee members signed below
who recommend that it be accepted by the faculty of
Graduate School of Leadership & Change
Antioch University
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dissertation Committee:
• Lize (A.E.) Booysen, DBL, Committee Chair
• Donna Ladkin, PhD, Committee Member
• Marina Novelli, PhD, Committee Member
iii
Copyright © 2021 by Kelly L. Cerialo
All Rights Reserved
iv
ABSTRACT
THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM IN THE UNESCO CHAMPLAIN-ADIRONDACK
BIOSPHERE RESERVE (USA)
Kelly L. Cerialo
Graduate School of Leadership & Change
Yellow Springs, OH
In its most benign form, tourism is able to protect the cultural and ecological integrity of a region
and to promote economic development in line with sustainability principles. Additionally,
sustainable forms of tourism have the potential to improve the quality of life within the host
community by promoting intergenerational equity. However, sustainable models of tourism are
extremely challenging to design, implement, and manage at the community level because of
competing stakeholder interests. There are significant power dynamics associated with
sustainable tourism planning and management that often fail to incorporate all citizens’ voices,
particularly those belonging to underprivileged backgrounds. Due to the growth of international
tourism (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) and its related impacts, multinational organizations
such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) continue to collaborate with
member states and affiliates to identify methods to improve existing sustainable tourism
strategies, discover new ones, and to address the social impacts of tourism globally. This study
examines the social impacts of tourism in UNESCO’s Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve and the stakeholders’ dynamics that influence tourism planning in the region. Through
an exploratory case study, this research uses media analyses, document review, focus groups,
v
and semi-structured interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the social impacts of tourism
and the stakeholders’ dynamics related to tourism management. Stakeholder theory, responsible
leadership, and ecosystem services are used as a theoretical framework to ground the inquiry and
to provide insight into how the social impacts of tourism are related to tourism planning
dynamics. The findings revealed significant new knowledge about social impacts of tourism in
the Adirondack High Peaks Wilderness and a mapping of complex competing stakeholder
interests related to tourism management. A conceptual model is offered to assess the social
impacts of tourism in international UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. This dissertation is available
in open access at AURA (https://aura.antioch.edu/) and OhioLINK ETD Center
(https://etd.ohiolink.edu/).
Keywords: tourism, sustainable tourism, social impact, UNESCO, biosphere reserve, Champlain-
Adirondack Biosphere Reserve, protected areas, stakeholder theory, responsible leadership,
ecosystem services
vi
Acknowledgments
The five years that led to this publication have been simultaneously humbling and
empowering. I am filled with gratitude for those who have supported and inspired me along the
way.
To my dissertation committee—Dr. Lize Booysen, for your wisdom, patience, and grace.
Thank you, Karin, for introducing me to the beauty and complexities of South Africa that
eventually led to this study. Your brilliant feedback and encouragement kept me grounded,
optimistic, and moving forward throughout my PhD journey. I could not have asked for a better
chair and mentor. To Dr. Donna Ladkin—Thank you for your incredible attention to detail,
insightful analysis, and for always encouraging me to see things from a new perspective. To Dr.
Marina Novelli—Thank you for your guidance, innovative thinking, and expertise on sustainable
tourism. Your scholarship is inspiring and has changed the way that I view tourism.
To C16 and my Antiochian friends—Thank you for your candor, thought-provoking
discussions, and your leadership. I am honored to have learned about leadership and change with
such a dynamic and inspiring group of change agents.
Thank you to my colleagues and mentors at Paul Smith’s College—particularly Joe
Conto, Dr. Diane Litynski, and Dr. Melanie Johnson for your support and encouragement. And
thank you to Dr. Eric Holmlund for introducing me to this PhD program and for being a research
buddy, sounding board, and mentor since I started the program.
Thank you to my UNESCO Biosphere Reserve colleagues for teaching me that:
Life is an amazing series of connections. Between people, between people and nature,
between knowledge and action, across time and place. If these connections break, we put
vii
our collective quality of life at risk. If we keep them strong, we build a future that
inspires us. (UNESCO, n.d.)
Thank you to Anthea Rossouw—owner and operator of Dreamcatchers tourism company
in South Africa—who showed me what a truly sustainable model of tourism should look like.
A sincere thank you to the 50 participants who took time to participate in this study and
who helped me tell the complex story about the social impacts of tourism in the
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve.
A special thank you to my friends and family, particularly my parents, Jill and Doug, who
have stuck by my side throughout all of my academic and professional pursuits. Thank you for
always believing in me and for teaching me a strong work ethic that has helped turn obstacles
into opportunities. I am forever grateful for your love, support, and positivity.
To Jeremy—for your love, laughter, unfaltering encouragement, and patience—this
dissertation would not be finished without you. You always gave me something to look forward
to after a long day of writing. Your dedication, praise, and clever feedback gave me inspiration
when I needed it the most. I cannot wait for our post-PhD adventures together!
viii
Dedication
To Dustyn K. Gobler, one of my oldest and dearest friends, who appreciated the power of
written word and who loved to explore new places with an open heart and open mind. This one is
for you, my friend. May your humility, wisdom, kindness, love of dogs, books, writing, and
travel live on in those whose lives you’ve touched.
ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
Dedication .................................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Tourism Background .................................................................................................................. 2
UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Reserve Programme ................................................................ 4
UNESCO Biosphere Reserve’s Functions and Goals ................................................................. 5
Land Zoning in Biosphere Reserves ........................................................................................... 6
Biosphere Reserves: Looking Beyond the Traditional Concept of Protected Areas ................. 7
Purpose and Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 9
Overview of Research Design .................................................................................................... 9
Theoretical Frameworks ........................................................................................................... 10
Stakeholder Theory in Tourism ............................................................................................ 11
Responsible Leadership in Tourism...................................................................................... 12
Ecosystem Services in Tourism ................................................................................................ 12
Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................................... 13
Study Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 14
Positionality of the Researcher ................................................................................................. 15
Overview of the Dissertation Chapters ..................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 19
Relationship Between Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Development ............................. 19
x
Evolution of Sustainable Tourism ............................................................................................ 21
Discourse on the Impacts of Tourism ....................................................................................... 25
Social Impacts of Sustainable Tourism on Host Communities ................................................ 26
Foundational Research on the Social Impacts of Tourism ....................................................... 26
Tourism Irridex: A Tool to Measure the Social Impact of Tourism ......................................... 28
Social Impacts: Tourism Life Cycle and Tourist Types ........................................................... 31
Social Carrying Capacity in Tourism ....................................................................................... 35
Measuring Social Impacts of Tourism with the Social Exchange Theory ................................ 39
Social Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas ......................................................................... 43
Social Inequalities Related to Tourism in Protected Areas ...................................................... 45
Managing Tourism in Protected Areas to Mitigate Social Impacts .......................................... 46
Sustainable Tourism in UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves ............................................. 48
Leadership Approaches in Sustainable Tourism....................................................................... 52
Stakeholder Theory in Tourism ............................................................................................ 52
Responsible Leadership in Tourism...................................................................................... 55
Ecosystem Services in Tourism ................................................................................................ 57
Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................. 58
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ............................................... 60
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 60
Ontological and Epistemological Approach ............................................................................. 60
Qualitative Research ................................................................................................................. 61
Limitations of Qualitative Research ......................................................................................... 62
Research Approach and Justification ........................................................................................ 63
xi
Defining Case Study Research .................................................................................................. 64
History and Application of Case Study Research ..................................................................... 65
Philosophical Foundations of Case Study Research ................................................................. 65
Case Design and Categories...................................................................................................... 66
Criticisms and Disadvantages of Case Study Research ............................................................ 68
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 68
Ethical Considerations in Case Study Research ....................................................................... 69
Positionality: Insiders vs. Outsiders in Qualitative Research ................................................... 71
Case Study Context: Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve ........................................... 72
Mission, Vision, and Goals of the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve ....................... 74
CABR’s Primary Challenges .................................................................................................... 74
Research Design........................................................................................................................ 76
Key Findings from Pilot Study to Inform Research Design ................................................. 76
Research Phases ........................................................................................................................ 79
Sequential Research Design .................................................................................................. 80
Phase 1, Step 1: Media Analysis ............................................................................................... 80
Media Analysis Procedures................................................................................................... 81
Media Analysis: Data Analysis and Coding ......................................................................... 81
Phase 1, Step 2: Document Review .......................................................................................... 83
Document Review Analysis .................................................................................................. 84
Phase 2: Focus Groups .............................................................................................................. 84
Focus Group Participant Recruitment ................................................................................... 85
Focus Group Procedures ....................................................................................................... 86
xii
Focus Group Data Analysis and Coding ............................................................................... 87
Phase 3: Semi-Structured Interviews ........................................................................................ 90
Phase 3 Participant Recruitment ........................................................................................... 91
Interview Process .................................................................................................................. 91
Interview Data Analysis and Coding .................................................................................... 92
Mapping of Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 93
Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................. 94
Study Design Limitations ......................................................................................................... 96
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 99
Phase 1: Media Analysis ........................................................................................................ 100
Media Analysis Key Themes .............................................................................................. 101
Media Analysis Key Takeaways ......................................................................................... 114
Phase 1: Document Review .................................................................................................... 115
Document Review Key Findings ........................................................................................ 116
Document Review Key Takeaways .................................................................................... 124
Combined Findings from Media Analysis and Document Review ........................................ 125
Phase 2: Focus Groups ............................................................................................................ 127
Integration of Findings from Phase 1...................................................................................... 128
Focus Group Participant Demographics ................................................................................. 131
Age Range of Participants .................................................................................................. 131
Race..................................................................................................................................... 132
Duration of Time Living in the Adirondacks ..................................................................... 132
xiii
Key Themes by Focus Group ................................................................................................. 133
Focus Group #1: Tourism Sector – Key Themes ................................................................ 134
Key Takeaways from Focus Group #1 ............................................................................... 147
Focus Group #2: Non-Tourism Sector – Key Themes ....................................................... 147
Key Takeaways from Focus Group #2 ............................................................................... 157
Focus Group #3: Tourism Planners and Managers – Key Themes .................................... 158
Key Takeaways from Focus Group #3 ............................................................................... 171
Combined Focus Group Findings ........................................................................................... 172
Key Takeaways from Focus Groups ................................................................................... 174
Reflections on Differences Across Focus Groups .................................................................. 174
Phase 3: Interviews ................................................................................................................. 177
Integration of Findings from Phase 2...................................................................................... 178
Interview Participant Demographics....................................................................................... 180
Age Range of Participants .................................................................................................. 180
Race..................................................................................................................................... 180
Duration of Time Living in the Adirondacks ..................................................................... 181
Phase 3 Interview Key Themes ........................................................................................... 181
Integrative Findings ................................................................................................................ 191
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 193
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................... 195
Interpretation and Discussion of Findings .............................................................................. 196
Dimension 1: Destination Assets ........................................................................................... 198
Tourism as a Primary Economic Driver (f = 47) ................................................................ 199
xiv
Improved Amenities and Infrastructure (f = 13) ................................................................. 202
Quality of Life (f = 10) ....................................................................................................... 202
Environmental Value (f = 16) ............................................................................................. 203
Strong Sense of Community (f = 15) .................................................................................. 204
Dimension 2: Shifts in Tourism Patterns ............................................................................... 205
Overuse (f = 36) .................................................................................................................. 207
Unprepared Tourists (f = 22) and COVID-19 Exacerbated Tourism Impacts (f = 19) ...... 210
Shift in Tourist Demographics and Habits (f = 15) and No Slow Season (f = 13) ............. 212
Tourist Conversion (f = 11) ................................................................................................ 218
Employing Stakeholder Theory in Tourist Conversions. ....................................................... 220
Dimension 3: Tourism Tensions and Inequalities ................................................................. 224
Unequal Distribution of Wealth Related to Tourism (f = 46). ............................................ 225
Lack of Workforce Housing (f = 59) .................................................................................. 230
Inequality and Access (f = 22) ............................................................................................ 233
Us vs. Them (f = 41) ........................................................................................................... 235
Knowledge is Power in Tourism (f = 7) ............................................................................. 237
Dimension 4: Capacity and Governance Issues ..................................................................... 238
Lack of Capacity and Resources to Support Tourism Demand (f = 23). ............................ 239
Insufficient Infrastructure (f = 13) and Need for Better Environmental Education (f = 21)
............................................................................................................................................. 241
The Adirondack Park is Not Managed as a Whole system (f = 14). .................................. 242
Integration of Findings and Conceptual Model ...................................................................... 244
xv
Conceptual Model to Assess the Social Impacts of Tourism in UNESCO Biosphere
Reserves .............................................................................................................................. 244
Contributions of This Study to Scholarship ............................................................................ 246
Implications and Recommendations for Policy and Practice ................................................. 247
Contributions of Research to Tourism Practice .................................................................. 247
Recommendations for Tourism Leaders ............................................................................. 248
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 250
Study Limitations .................................................................................................................... 251
Lack of Participant Diversity .............................................................................................. 251
Location .............................................................................................................................. 252
COVID-19 Pandemic .......................................................................................................... 252
Closing Thoughts .................................................................................................................... 253
References ................................................................................................................................... 254
Appendix A: Focus Group Informed Consent Form .................................................................. 276
Appendix B: Focus Group Facilitation Guide ............................................................................ 281
Appendix C: Participant Recruitment Email – Focus Groups .................................................... 285
Appendix D: Pre-Focus Group Demographic Survey ................................................................ 287
Appendix E: Interview Informed Consent Form ........................................................................ 291
Appendix F: Pre-Interview Demographic Survey ...................................................................... 295
Appendix G: Interview Questions .............................................................................................. 299
Appendix H: Participant Recruitment Email – Interviews ......................................................... 302
Appendix I: IRB Application ...................................................................................................... 304
Appendix J: Focus Group Word Cloud ...................................................................................... 311
xvii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Definitions of Sustainable Tourism .............................................................................. 22
Table 2.2 Doxey’s Stages of Tourist Irritation with Social and Power Relationships. ............... 29
Table 2.3 Stages of Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle Model (1980) ........................................ 32
Table 2.4 Adapted from Butler’s (1980) TALC Stages and Plog’s (1974) Tourist Types ......... 33
Table 2.5 The Positive and Negative Social Impacts of Tourism on a Host Destination ............. 43
Table 3.1 Definitions of Different Types of Case Studies ........................................................... 67
Table 3.2 Four Tests Used to Determine the Quality of Empirical Social Research .................. 69
Table 3.3 Focus Group Participant Selection Criteria and Number of Participants per Focus
Group ............................................................................................................................................ 85
Table 4.1 Media Analysis Themes and Sub-themes by Publication and Frequency (f) ............. 102
Table 4.2 Documents Reviewed by Organization ...................................................................... 116
Table 4.3 ROOST’s Organizational Case Based on Key Findings from the Document Review 117
Table 4.4 ORDA’s Organizational Case Based on Key Findings from the Document Review . 119
Table 4.5 APA’s Organizational Case Based on Key Findings from the Document Review .... 120
Table 4.6 DEC’s Organizational Case Based on Key Findings from the Document Review .... 121
Table 4.7 North Elba/Lake Placid Development Commission’s Organizational Case Based on
Findings from the Document Review ......................................................................................... 123
Table 4.8 Research Questions with Corresponding Focus Group Question Categories............. 129
Table 4.9 Age Range of Phase 2 Participants ............................................................................. 131
Table 4.10 Race of Phase 2 Participants ..................................................................................... 132
Table 4.11 Duration of Time Participants Lived in the Adirondacks ......................................... 133
Table 4.12 Focus Group #1 Themes and Subthemes .................................................................. 135
xviii
Table 4.13 Focus Group #2 Themes and Subtheme. .................................................................. 148
Table 4.14 Focus Group #3 Themes and Subthemes .................................................................. 159
Table 4.15 Combined Focus Group Themes by Focus Group by Frequency (f). ....................... 173
Table 4.16 Research Questions and Corresponding Phase 3 Interview Questions..................... 179
Table 4.17 Age Range of Phase 3 Participants ........................................................................... 180
Table 4.18 Duration of Time Participants Lived in the Adirondacks ......................................... 181
Table 4.19 Interview Key Themes by Participant. P = Participant; f = frequency ..................... 182
Table 4.20 Integration of Themes and Sub-themes by Frequency (f) Across Data Sets ............ 192
Table 5.1 Dimensions 1–4 with Supporting Themes and Sub-Themes by Frequency (F) Across
Data Sets ..................................................................................................................................... 197
xix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals ................................................... 4
Figure 1.2 Schematic Spatial Layout of a Typical Biosphere Reserve........................................... 7
Figure 2.1 The Triple Bottom Line in Global Tourism .............................................................. 21
Figure 2.2 Stages of Development in Social Impacts of Tourism Research with Examples ....... 26
Figure 2.3 Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) .............................................................................. 31
Figure 2.4 Psychographic of Personality Types for Tourists ....................................................... 33
Figure 2.5 Sustainable Development and Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) ............................. 35
Figure 2.6 Murphy’s (1983) Tourist-Resident Relationship Model ........................................... 36
Figure 2.7 Model for Determining Sociological Carrying Capacity ........................................... 39
Figure 3.1 Research Phases........................................................................................................... 79
Figure 4.1 Research Phases........................................................................................................... 99
Figure 5.1 Four Dimensions Related to the Social Impacts of Tourism in Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve ...................................................................................................................... 197
Figure 5.2 Dimension 1: Destination Assets of the Adirondacks Based Themes and Sub-Themes
from Data Collection................................................................................................................... 199
Figure 5.3. Combined Phase 2 Focus Groups and Phase 3 interviews Word Cloud–First Word
That Comes to Mind When You Think of Tourism in the Adirondacks. ................................... 201
Figure 5.4 Dimension 2: Shifts in Tourism Patterns in the Adirondacks ................................... 206
Figure 5.5 Key Findings from Phases 1–3 by Frequency Mapped onto Tourism Sustainable
Development and TALC (Tourism Area Life Cycle) Model . .................................................. 214
Figure 5.6 Key Findings from Phases 1–3 by Frequency Mapped onto Murphy’s Tourist-
Resident Relationship Model . . ................................................................................................. 217
xx
Figure 5.7 Key Stakeholder Attitude and Impact Matrix of Tourism in the Adirondacks ......... 223
Figure 5.8 Dimension 3: Tourism Tensions and Inequalities with Supporting Themes from Data
Collection Phases 1–3. ................................................................................................................ 225
Figure 5.9 Dimension 4: Capacity and Governance Issues Related to Tourism in the
Adirondacks. ............................................................................................................................... 239
Figure 5.10 Conceptual Model to Assess the Social Impacts of Tourism in UNESCO Biosphere
Reserves. ..................................................................................................................................... 245
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the travel and tourism industry was one of the
fastest growing industries in the world (UNWTO, 2020). Stemming from a rise in global
mobility, a growing middle class in emerging economies, and technological advances,
international travel became more accessible to more people worldwide (Hashemkhani Zolfani et
al., 2015). Nature-based tourism was one of the most popular sectors of the tourism industry, and
many protected areas and public lands have become attractive international tourist destinations
(Winter et al., 2020). According to Balmford et al. (2015), global protected areas attracted
approximately 8 billion visitors per year (80% of the protected areas are in Europe and North
America) and resulted in roughly $600 billion in tourist spending. Although tourism provides
significant economic growth for protected areas and is a potential source of funding to promote
conservation efforts, tourism can also have significant social and ecological impacts on a host
destination (Winter et al., 2020). There is a growing body of literature examining the social
impacts of tourism in protected areas (Manning et al., 1996; Mbaiwa, 2003; Salerno et al., 2013);
however, there is a limited amount of research that focuses on the social impacts of tourism in
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Biosphere
Reserves. This study aims to fill this gap in literature by examining the social impacts of tourism
and the stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in a popular protected area
tourism destination in the United States, the Adirondack High Peaks Region in UNESCO’s
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (CABR).
This three-phase exploratory case study uses a sequential design consisting of Phase 1:
media analysis (76 online articles) and document review (16 documents), Phase 2: three online
focus groups (N = 38), and Phase 3: semi-structured interviews (N = 12) to explore the social
2
impacts of tourism and the stakeholder dynamics of tourism management in CABR. Stakeholder
theory, responsible leadership, and ecosystem services are used as a theoretical framework to
position the inquiry and to provide a deeper understanding of the stakeholder dynamics and
leadership strategies to manage tourism and ecosystem services in the host community. Based on
the findings from the three phases of data collection, a conceptual model is introduced to
evaluate the social impacts of tourism in global UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. The following
chapter provides an introduction to the current state of tourism that led to this study, the purpose
and significance of the study, the research questions, the theoretical framework in which the path
of inquiry is grounded, research design, the positionality of the researcher, definition of key
terms, study limitations, and an overview of the subsequent dissertation chapters.
Tourism Background
Each year, the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) publishes
statistics on global tourism to monitor international travel trends. UNWTO’s 2019 Tourism
Highlights Report indicates that international tourist arrivals grew 6% in 2018 and reached the
1.4 billion mark two years ahead of what UNWTO had previously predicted (UNWTO, 2019).
According to the UNWTO’s Tourism Highlights Report (2019), export earnings generated by
tourism rose to $1.7 trillion USD in 2018. This staggering figure indicates that the overall
revenue from tourism spending grew faster than the global economy in 2018 (UNWTO, 2019).
Considering the growth trajectory of tourism prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the
likelihood of international tourism returning in the near future, it is increasingly important that
popular tourism destinations consider the social impacts of tourism on host communities.
In 2019, international tourist arrivals continued to grow by 4% to 1.5 billion, but this rate
was slower than previous growth in 2017 (+6%) and 2018 (+6%; UNWTO, 2020). The UNWTO
3
speculated that trade tensions, geopolitical disputes, and the collapse of several low-cost airlines
in Europe have contributed to the slowdown in growth (UNWTO, 2020). In January 2020, the
UNTWO forecasted that based on current tourism trends, economic prospects, and the UNWTO
Confidence Index, that there would be a growth of 3% to 4% in international tourist arrivals
globally in 2020 (UNWTO, 2020). However, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic halted this
predicted growth.
Notwithstanding the current state of affairs, it is worth noting that both government and
non-government organizations have been considering the social, ecological, and economic
impacts of tourism on a local and global scale as international tourist arrivals grew steadily over
the last five decades and recognized the importance of seeking innovative strategies to improve
the way tourism impacts on society and the environment. According to early sustainable tourism
scholars, sustainable tourism development aims to improve the tourist experience while
addressing the environmental, social/cultural, and economic needs of the destination (Butler,
1991; Pigram, 1990; Sharpley, 2000; WCED, 1987). Similarly, the negative impacts of tourism
have become a significant concern on both regional and national levels (Butler, 1974;
Hashemkhani Zolfani et al., 2015). The concept of “sustainable tourism” emerged out of this
concern in order to mitigate the degrading impacts of tourist activities on host communities and
the environment (Pigram, 1990; Sharpley, 2000). Multi-national organizations including the
UNWTO and UNESCO research methods to identify new and to enhance existing sustainable
tourism models that minimize the negative impacts of tourism on a destination and leverage the
positive influences.
Tourism has the potential to advance sustainable development and to stimulate actions to
support the UN’s 2030 Agenda (WTO, 2017). While, according to the UNWTO, the tourism
4
sector is directly linked to three of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; see
Figure 1.1)— SDG 4 “Life Below Water;” SDG 8 “Decent Work and Employment,” and SDG
12 “Responsible Consumption and Production”—there is evidence that tourism plays a critical
role in achieving most of the SDGs, i.e.,, gender equality, protecting the environment, and
eradicating poverty (WTO, 2017). The following section provides an overview of UNESCO’s
Man and Biosphere Program and its relation to sustainable tourism, as the location of the case
study where this research was conducted is the largest UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in the
contiguous United States (U.S.) and one of the most popular outdoor recreation destinations in
the northeastern U.S.
Figure 1.1
United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals
Note: Copyright 2016 by the United Nations. Reprinted with permission (WTO, 2017, p. 16).
UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Reserve Programme
In 1971, UNESCO established the Man and the Biosphere Reserve (MAB) Programme,
an intergovernmental program designed to promote knowledge exchanges that support
5
sustainable development and preserve biological and cultural diversity (“UNESCO Man and
Biosphere Reserve Programme,” n.d.). Biosphere reserves are protected landscapes that are rich
in biodiversity and serve as a model to test and apply approaches to sustainable development
including natural resource management, environmental education, and sustainable tourism
(Bokova, 2017). In a quest to improve human interaction with the natural environment, biosphere
leaders are challenged to find a balance between economic development, environmental
conservation, and cultural preservation.
Considering the complexity of this task, and the growing need to address the United
Nation Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and its related 17 Sustainable Development
Goals, biosphere leaders often turn to tourism as a solution to promote sustainable development
(Bokova, 2017). However, if tourism is employed as a means of economic growth without
proper planning, management, and monitoring, existing literature has highlighted that significant
environmental and social and economic problems can arise including increased housing costs,
traffic, pollution (Deery et al., 2012), overcrowding and over-tourism, as well as socio-economic
inequalities (Milano et al., 2019).
UNESCO Biosphere Reserve’s Functions and Goals
Through cross-sector partnerships, UNESCO’s MAB Program supports the practical
application and integration of social and natural sciences, equitable benefits, natural resource
management, education, and economics to improve human livelihoods, and approaches to
economic development that preserve the social, cultural, and environmental integrity of the
region (“UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Programme,” n.d.). Currently, UNESCO’s
World Network of Biosphere Reserves consists of 701 sites in 124 countries across the world
(“UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Programme,” n.d.). UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are
designed to serve three primary functions: conservation, sustainable development, and logistic
6
support (Batisse, 1986). Conservation in biosphere reserves focuses on protecting biodiversity,
ecosystems, landscapes, species, and genetic variation (Pool-Stanvliet & Coetzer, 2020).
Sustainable development in biospheres aims to promote economic growth that is environmentally
and socio-culturally sustainable (Bokova, 2017). Lastly, logistic support in biospheres includes
research, monitoring, education, and training necessary to facilitate sustainable development
(Bokova, 2017). The United Nations’ 17 SDGs act as a framework for action to implement
sustainable development in global biospheres (Pool-Stanvliet & Coetzer, 2020). In addition to
the three functional areas, biosphere reserves pursue four overarching objectives based on the
Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves:
1. Conserve biodiversity, restore and enhance ecosystem services, and foster the
sustainable use of natural resources;
2. Contribute to building sustainable, healthy and equitable societies, economies and
thriving human settlements in harmony with the biosphere;
3. Facilitate biodiversity and sustainability science, education for sustainable
development (ESD) and capacity building;
4. Support mitigation and adaptation to climate change and other aspects of global
environmental change. (Bokova, 2017, p. 17)
Land Zoning in Biosphere Reserves
Biosphere reserves serve as a model to test and apply strategies to manage change in
ecological and social systems, as well as conservation of biodiversity and conflict prevention
related to sustainable development (Bokova, 2017). In order to effectively manage conservation,
development, and logistical support, each biosphere reserve is zoned according to three distinct
territories:(1) core zone—devoted to long-term protection with restricted development; (2) buffer
zone—limited development and human use; and (3) transition zone— where sustainable
7
development is promoted by public authorities, local communities, and enterprises (see Figure
1.2; “UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Programme,” n.d.). Land zoning in global biosphere
reserves has been met with resistance by segments of biosphere reserve population as they see
biosphere zoning as an effort to further regulate land use and prohibit economic development in
favor of environmental conservation.
Figure 1.2
Schematic Spatial Layout of a Typical Biosphere Reserve
Note: Pool-Stanvliet & Coetzer, 2020, p. 1. Licensed under CC by 4.0.
Biosphere Reserves: Looking Beyond the Traditional Concept of Protected Areas
Although biosphere reserves share similar characteristics to traditional protected areas at
the policy and site level, there are several considerable differences between biospheres and
protected areas such as national parks (Nguyen et al., 2009). First and foremost, by design, in
biosphere reserves more than 80% of the designated area lies outside of legally protected zones
(Ishwaran et al., 2008). Within a biosphere, the core zone is the only protected area and is
typically around 20% of the designated terrain (Nguyen et al., 2009). Bioret (2001) claimed that
8
this creates a significant challenge for managers of biosphere reserves as they have to account for
the diverse functions and management of sustainable development for local communities,
conservation, education, and research. Due to the variance in land use, human impact, and
conservation within a designated biosphere reserve, biospheres tend to be more dynamic and
complex than standard protected areas (Nguyen et al., 2009).
With a strong focus on multi-stakeholder engagement and involving local communities in
management decisions, biosphere reserves have participatory governance structures that can be
replicated to develop and maintain sustainable communities (Bokova, 2017). Leaders in
biosphere reserves are responsible for navigating complex social, economic, and environmental
issues to promote sustainable development by creating space for diverse stakeholder
perspectives. Employing traditional and local knowledge in ecosystem management, leaders in
biosphere reserves access the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WBBR) and local
communities to integrate biological and cultural diversity in decision-making (“UNESCO Man
and Biosphere Reserve Programme,” n.d.). In a quest to preserve biodiversity, biosphere leaders
are challenged to find a healthy balance between economic development, environmental
conservation, and social preservation when designing tourism models. The following section
provides an overview of the purpose of this study as well as the research questions that will be
used to guide the path of inquiry.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The purpose and significance of this study are threefold. First, it fulfills a significant gap
in literature about the social impacts of tourism in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Currently,
there is a robust body of scholarship that discusses the social impacts of tourism in protected
areas, but research in this field has yet to explore the social impacts of tourism in UNESCO
Biosphere Reserves. Second, this study applies stakeholder theory and the framework of
9
responsible leadership to the tourism context to understand how stakeholder engagement and
responsible leaders can improve the long-term sustainability of tourism models in biosphere
reserves. Lastly, this study examines how responsible leadership and stakeholder theory in
biosphere reserves can be used to improve the management of ecosystem services in the tourism
sector.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the inquiry for my dissertation research:
1. What are the social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve?
2. What are the stakeholders’ dynamics that influence tourism planning in
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve?
Overview of Research Design
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the social impacts of tourism, the stakeholders’
dynamics associated with tourism planning in CABR, and the contextual details related to both
of these topics, I used a qualitative approach. Considering the complexity of the social impacts of
tourism and stakeholder dynamics, it was important to use a qualitative approach that allowed for
open-ended responses and an inductive approach to analyzing the data. Qualitative studies allow
for a rich exploration of peoples’ experiences and/or perceptions about a particular topic (e.g.,
social impacts of tourism) and aim to uncover the how and why of the human experience
(Creswell, 2014; Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
This exploratory case study follows a constructivist paradigm and maintains that a
researcher’s role in the case study process is critical because the researcher and participant work
together to co-construct meaning out of the phenomenon that is being studied (Crabtree &
Miller, 1999). This case study follows a sequential design that has three distinct phases. Phase 1
consisted of a media analysis of three local online newspapers and a document review of five
10
organizations who are responsible for tourism planning and development in CABR. Phase 2
included three online focus groups of CABR residents working in the tourism sector, CABR
residents not working in the tourism sector, and tourism planners/managers (N = 50). Phase 3
consisted of 12 semi-structured interviews with CABR residents to explore the social impacts of
tourism and the stakeholder dynamics of tourism management in CABR. Data collected from
Phases 1–3 were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps for thematic analysis,
which identified emergent themes and patterns across the datasets. Additional details about the
research design, methodology, and data analysis are provided in Chapter III.
Theoretical Frameworks
This dissertation examines the social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve and the stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning through the
lens of three theoretical frameworks: stakeholder theory, responsible leadership, and ecosystem
services. Below, I include a brief introduction of the three theories and their relevance to the
study and provide a more in-depth discussion of the theories in Chapter II. From a leadership
perspective, stakeholder identification and engagement are critical steps toward achieving
sustainable and mutually beneficial collaborations in the tourism industry (Getz & Timur, 2012).
Responsible leadership plays an important role in tourism planning in protected areas as it can be
used “to build and cultivate sustainable and trustful relationships to different stakeholders inside
and outside the organization and to coordinate their action to achieve common objectives (e.g.,
triple- bottom-line goals), business sustainability and legitimacy and ultimately to help to realize
a good (i.e.,, ethically sound) and shared business vision” (Mark & Pless, 2006, p. 103).
Responsible leadership and stakeholder engagement in tourism planning can assist with
facilitating the sustainable management of ecosystem services on both an individual and a
11
community level. Stakeholder theory, responsible leadership, and ecosystem services are
discussed in greater depth in the subsequent sections.
Stakeholder Theory in Tourism
Diverging from traditional business management strategies that hold companies primarily
accountable to shareholders for financial performance, Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory
suggested that values are a critical and core part of conducting business and that distinct
stakeholder interests need to be considered in management decisions and business operations.
According to Freeman et al. (2004), stakeholder theory:
Asks managers to articulate the shared sense of the value they create, and what brings its
core stakeholders together. It also pushes managers to be clear about how they want to do
business, specifically what kinds of relationships they want and need to create with their
stakeholders to deliver on their purpose. (p. 364)
Stakeholder theory is particularly relevant when examining the social impacts of tourism in
protected areas since competing stakeholder interests (e.g., economic development vs.
environmental conservation) add a layer of complexity to tourism planning and management. By
considering a diverse range of stakeholders’ needs, tourism leaders are positioned to potentially
reduce the social impacts of tourism on a host community.
This study evaluated if a collaborative form of stakeholder theory is applied in tourism in
CABR and how (if at all) stakeholders’ interests are considered in the tourism planning process.
This was important to consider as it provided insight about the degree of involvement local
residents’ have in the tourism planning process and if their interests were taken into
consideration. Stakeholder theory also played a significant role in the analysis stage of my
dissertation research in order to understand the social impacts of tourism and the dynamics
12
associated with tourism planning in CABR. After the data collection, I created a Stakeholder
Attitude and Impact Matrix based on the findings to understand tourism stakeholders’ attitude
about the social effects of tourism and the degree of impact that they have in tourism planning.
This helps local tourism leaders determine various stakeholders’ attitude and degree of impact
related to tourism development in the region and to identify potential allies and opponents.
Additional details about the Stakeholder Attitude and Impact Matrix are discussed in depth in
Chapter V.
Responsible Leadership in Tourism
In addition to stakeholder theory, responsible leadership was used as a theoretical
framework to ground this study and to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics in tourism
planning in CABR. As Maak (2007) posited, the “key to responsible leadership is thus the ability
to enable and broker sustainable, mutual beneficial relationships with stakeholders, to create
stakeholder goodwill and trust and ultimately a trusted business in society—that is, one of
multi-stakeholder benefit” (p. 331). Responsible leadership theory asserts that leaders have a
responsibility to hold stakeholder relationships as the center point of the organization and to
operate with ethical values and principles that take all stakeholders into consideration (Pless &
Maak, 2011). In order to understand the stakeholder dynamics in tourism planning, this study
explored if tourism leaders in the CABR employed a responsible leadership strategy that
embraces a stakeholder-centric approach, or if they utilized a different method of leadership in
tourism development.
Ecosystem Services in Tourism
In addition to considering diverse stakeholder perspectives in tourism planning and
management, this study explores the consequences that the tourism industry has on ecosystem
13
services (i.e., benefits humans receive from the natural environment; Simmons, 2013). The way
in which a destination manages its cultural capital and ecosystem services is directly related to
the tourism sector’s ability to reproduce its offerings and the host community’s access to social
and natural resources (Church et al., 2017). Additionally, tourism is dependent on resources from
across all ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning, regulating, supportive, cultural) and has the
ability to stimulate modifications on ecosystem service production which can have positive and
negative impacts on the host community (Church et al., 2017; Probstl-Haider, 2015; Simmons,
2013).
Definition of Key Terms
The following section provides a definition of key terms that are referenced throughout
the study.
• Biosphere Reserves—Protected areas designated by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) that focus on promoting environmental
conservation and sustainable development by improving human connection to nature
(UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Programme, n.d.).
• Ecosystem Services—As defined by the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA),
ecosystem services are “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 1). The four categories of ecosystem services include
supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural.
• Responsible Leadership—“A relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs in social
processes of interaction with those who affect or are affected by leadership and have a
stake in the purpose and vision of the leadership relationship” (Maak & Pless, 2006, p.
103).
14
• Stakeholder Theory—A theory of organizational management and business ethics that
asserts organizations are responsible for creating value for all stakeholders (e.g.,
customers, neighbors, suppliers, etc.), not just financial shareholders (Freeman, 1984).
• Sustainable Development—The UN World Commission on Environment and
Development Summit defines sustainable development as “development, which meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).
• Sustainable Tourism—Tourism that takes into account the current and future social,
economic, and environmental impacts, and considers multiple stakeholders’ needs
including the host community, the industry, the environment, and visitors (CNPA, 2005).
Study Limitations
As with all academic inquiry, this study has several limitations. First, although efforts
were made to invite a diverse representation of age, gender, and race, most participants came
from my professional and personal network, which limited the diversity of respondents. The lack
of diversity and the location specific focus of the study limits the transferability of the results,
although undoubtedly providing an in-depth and novel investigation of CABR will provide new
knowledge which will inform theories and practices on the social impact of tourism in global
Biosphere Reserves. Second, this study relied on self-reported data (as opposed to direct
observations or test results), and there was a potential for respondents, particularly in the focus
group context, to provide socially desirable responses. Questions for the interviews and focus
groups were evaluated to identify potential areas where a participant may be inclined to provide
a socially desirable response and social desirability questions and statements will be minimized.
Third, the online format of the focus groups and interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic
15
prevented the researcher from collecting valuable non-verbal communication cues that are
typically observed in in-person interactions. To address this limitation, Zoom video conferencing
was used instead of telephone focus groups and interviews so I could attempt to observe non-
verbal cues on video.
Positionality of the Researcher
I am an Associate Professor in the Business and Tourism Management Program at Paul
Smith’s College, co-chair of UNESCO’s Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve, and
co-founder of the Adirondack and Appeninno Sustainable Parks and Communities Project. The
Adirondack and Appeninno Sustainable Parks and Communities Project is an international
sustainable tourism initiative between UNESCO’s Appenino Tosco Emiliano Biosphere Reserve,
the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (New York and Vermont, USA), University of
Parma (Italy), the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (South Africa), and Paul Smith’s College
(New York). Entering its sixth year, this initiative gives undergraduate students at Paul Smith’s
College the opportunity to study sustainable tourism in UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves
in South Africa or Italy, and to explore how local government communicates and implements the
United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals within the biosphere. The creation of the
Adirondack and Appenino Sustainable Parks and Communities Project in 2013 initially sparked
my interest in understanding how sustainable tourism is used as a means of promoting
sustainable development in UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves. Through work on this
project and comparing sustainable tourism models in Appenino Tosco Emiliano Biosphere
Reserve, the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve, and the Cape West Coast Biosphere
Reserve in South Africa, I began to see a pattern of challenges and opportunities with tourism in
biosphere reserves.
16
Similar to the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (where Paul Smith’s College is
located and where I live), the Appenino Tosco Emiliano Biosphere Reserve and the Cape West
Coast Biosphere Reserve experience several common rural development issues including ageing
populations, outward migration of youth to cities in search for employment opportunities, loss of
industry, and slowed economic growth. Within this context, tourism is viewed as a
socio-economic diversification opportunity to attract domestic and international travelers and
promote economic growth, while preserving the environment and cultural heritage of the region.
However, tourism is not always a benign industry as it has both positive and negative social
impacts on host communities (Scholtz & Slabbert, 2018).
Given my profession and role within the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve, I
was considered an “insider” to the research context as I live and work in the system being
studied and have an understanding of how it operates (Beebe, 1995). For this reason, it was
critically important for me to be aware of and to take strict measures to account for researcher
bias throughout the study. A detailed description of the measures that were taken to address
researcher bias are provided in Chapter III: Methodology. The following section provides an
overview of the chapters contained in this dissertation study.
Overview of the Dissertation Chapters
Chapter I provided an introduction to the focus of the study, the significance of the
research within the larger context of the tourism industry, the research questions, and the
significance to stakeholder theory, responsible leadership, and ecosystem services in the tourism
sector. This section also discussed the gap in existing tourism literature regarding the social
impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve and the role that this
research can play to address the problem in practice related to tourism planning in the region.
17
Lastly, this chapter included an overview of the study’s limitations and defines key terms related
to tourism, social impacts, and UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves.
Chapter II provides an overview of the literature that will inform my dissertation
research. To begin, the literature defines what sustainable tourism is and its relationship to
sustainable development. Next, the evolution of sustainable tourism is discussed and the current
challenges and opportunities in the field. The social impacts of tourism on host communities is
explored at length including foundational research, methods to measure the social impacts of
tourism, and the social inequalities related to tourism in protected areas. The literature review
also investigates methods to manage tourism in protected areas to mitigate the negative social
impacts and sustainable tourism in UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves. Stakeholder theory,
responsible leadership, and ecosystem services are used a theoretical framework to examine the
dynamics associated with tourism planning.
Chapter III focuses on the methodological approach, methods, and research design. This
chapter discusses the history, application, and philosophical foundations of case study research
as well as case study design and different categories of case studies. It also explicates the single
case study method, protocols, and procedures. Additionally, this chapter provides an overview of
the criticisms and disadvantages of case study research and how positionality (i.e., insiders vs.
outsiders) plays a role in qualitative studies. Transferability, validity, and reliability in case study
research along with the ethical considerations of this method of research are discussed. Lastly, a
detailed summary of the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve the setting for the research is
provided in order to establish a context for the case study.
In Chapter IV, findings from the Phase 1, media analysis and document review, Phase 2,
focus groups (N = 38), and Phase 3, interviews (N = 12) are presented in the sequential order in
18
which the research was conducted. Key themes and sub-themes are presented and discussed for
each phase of research and then compared across all phases. The findings introduce valuable
insights into the social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve and
the complex stakeholder dynamics that influence tourism planning and management in the
region.
Lastly, Chapter V provides a detailed interpretation and discussion of the key thematic
findings. This chapter connects the findings with extant literature on the social impacts of
tourism in protected areas, stakeholder theory, responsible leadership, and ecosystem services in
tourism that were introduced in Chapter II. A conceptual model to analyze the social impacts of
tourism in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves is presented based on the key findings. Following the
discussion of findings, the significance of the study is explained as well as the implications for
scholarship and leadership practice. To conclude, I reflect on the limitations of the study,
recommendations for future research, and personal closing observations.
19
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Relationship Between Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Development
Prior to discussing the characteristics and impacts of sustainable tourism, it is important
to first define the general concept of sustainable development to understand the context in which
sustainable tourism emerged. The term “sustainable development” was coined in 1987 when the
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published a
report titled Our Common Future that featured a section called “The Brundtland Commission”
(WCED, 1987). The Brundtland Commission discussed solutions to the problems of
environmental degradation in order to ensure that future generations were able to meet their own
social, economic, and ecological needs (WCED, 1987).
The UN World Commission on Environment and Development Summit defines
sustainable development as: “development, which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).
According to Harris (2000), there are three core aspects that characterize sustainable
development: social, economic, ecological. Although there are a broad range of definitions for
social sustainability, at its core it refers to when a community encourages citizen participation,
offers reliable social services, upholds political accountability, and promotes equity among all
stakeholders. Economic sustainability involves the capacity of a community or organization to
produce products and services on a consistent basis to continue manageable degrees of financial
growth. Ecological sustainability is the ability of a system to prevent the depletion of
non-renewable resources and to avoid the exploitation of renewable resources such as fresh
water, oxygen, and biomass (Harris, 2000).
20
The 1987 Our Common Future report has been widely criticized for its effort to promote
economic growth in Western technologically advanced regions without taking ecological impacts
into consideration (Adams, 1990). In 1991, the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature’s (IUCN) Caring for Earth report emphasized the need for more sustainable lifestyles in
wealthier, developed countries (IUCN, 1991). Ludwig et al. (1993) argued that wealthier people
and nations live unsustainably due to lack of concern and/or ignorance. According to Ludwig et
al. (1993), “resource problems are not really environmental problems: they are human problems”
(p. 36). Sharpley (2000) posits that nowhere is this more relevant than in the context of the
tourism industry.
Although tourism is generally portrayed as a sector of sustainable development in both
urban and rural areas, tourism was omitted from the broader conversation around sustainable
development in the late 1980s. Wall (1996) points out that tourism was not discussed in the
context of sustainable development during the UN World Commission on Environment and
Development Summit or in the report Our Common Future in 1987 largely because policy
makers’ ignorance and/or tendency to ignore tourism. The consequence of this is a widely varied
understanding and use of the term sustainable tourism (Wall, 1996). Wall (1996) argued that the
concept has morphed into a political buzz word, an ideological perspective, and depending on the
context, can be described as a process, a product, a concept, or a philosophy of tourism practice.
The following section explores the evolution of sustainable tourism from its roots in sustainable
development and the three core components of sustainable tourism—economic (profit),
environmental (planet), and social (people) sustainability, commonly referred to as the triple
bottom line (see Figure 2.1).
21
Figure 2.1
The Triple Bottom Line in Global Tourism
Note: Hall et al., 1997, p. 156. Copyright 1997 by John Wiley and Sons Books. Reprinted with
permission.
Evolution of Sustainable Tourism
A review of literature revealed that the origin and definition of sustainable tourism varies
greatly depending on the source and the context of the discussion. Early literature about the
concept stems from the field of geography, as renowned geographers were interested in
understanding the complex relationships between physical and human environments and the
tourism industry (Butler, 1999). Geographers in the field of tourism, including Mathieson and
Wall (1982), were particularly interested in understanding sustainable development in the
context of tourism to provide greater insight on human and environmental impacts. Early
geographic publications about tourism in the context of sustainable development largely
supported the concept because it reflected the greater geographic mission of preserving the
environment, responsible use and consumption of natural resources, and ecological management
(Butler, 1999). The definitions of sustainable tourism in Table 2.1 illustrate the variance amongst
22
scholars about the core components of the concept, its connection to the surrounding landscape,
and its implementation.
Table 2.1
Definitions of Sustainable Tourism
Author
Definition
[1]
(Eber, 1992, p. 3)
“Sustainable tourism is tourism and associated infrastructures that both
now and in the future operate within natural capacities for the
regeneration and future productivity of natural resources; recognize the
contribution that people and communities, customs and lifestyles, make
to the tourism experience; accept that these people must have an
equitable share in the economic benefits of local people and
communities in the host areas.”
[2]
(World Tourism
Organization, 1993, p. 7)
“Tourism which meets the needs of present tourists and host regions
while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future.”
[3]
(Payne, 1993, p. 252)
“It must be capable of adding to the array of economic opportunities
open to people without adversely affecting the structure of economic
activity. Sustainable tourism ought not interfere with existing forms of
social organization. Finally, sustainable tourism must respect the limits
imposed by ecological communities.”
[4]
(Woodley, 1993, p. 94).
“Sustainable tourism in parks (and other areas) must primarily be
defined in terms of sustainable ecosystems”
[5]
(Countryside
Commission, 1995, p.
2).
“Tourism which can sustain local economies without damaging the
environment on which it depends.”
[6]
(quoted in Bramwell et
al. 1996, p. 10).
“Sustainable tourism is tourism which develops as quickly as possible,
taking into account of current accommodation capacity, the local
population and the environment, and: Tourism that respects the
environment and as a consequence does not aid its own disappearance.
This is especially important in saturated areas, and: Sustainable tourism
is responsible tourism.”
[7]
(WTO, 1996)
“Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of the present tourists
and host regions while protecting and enhancing the opportunity for the
future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such
a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled, while
maintaining cultural integrity essential ecological processes, biological
diversity and life support systems.”
[8]
(English Tourism
Council, 2002)
“Sustainable tourism is about managing tourism’s impacts on the
environment, communities, and the future economy to make sure that the
effects are positive rather than negative for the benefit of future
generations. It is a management approach that is relevant to all types of
tourism, regardless of whether it takes place in cities, towns, countryside
or the coast.”
[9]
(Butler, 1993, p. 29)
“Tourism which is in a form which can maintain its viability in an area
for an infinite period of time.”
[10]
(CNPA, 2005)
“Tourism that takes account of its current and future economic, social
and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the
industry, the environment and host communities.”
23
In addition to geographers generally supporting the early discussion of sustainable
tourism as a means of sustainable development and environmental conservation, travel writers
have also accepted the basic notion that sustainable development is appropriate and “good” for
tourism (Butler, 1999). According to Butler (1999), travel writers believed that if domestic and
international tourists adopted the principles of sustainable tourism, that it would help address the
negative social, economic, and/or environmental impacts typically associated with the rise in
tourism such as overcrowding, traffic, rising housing costs, and ecological degradation. On the
contrary, a few early dissenters (Butler 1993; Wall 1996; Wheeller 1993) had suggested that
sustainable development is not possible in the context of tourism due to the industry’s far
reaching social and ecological impacts.
According to Bramwell and Lane (1993), the two most established elaborators of the
concept, sustainable tourism emerged as a response to several negative tourism impacts,
including ecological degradation and irreversible impacts on societal and cultural traditions.
Since Bramwell and Lane (1993) endorsed the idea of sustainable tourism, sustainability,
generally intended as maintaining an ecological balance by preserving natural resources, has
been viewed as a way to broadly mitigate the negative social, environmental, and economic
impacts of tourism and to maintain its long-term viability. Bramwell and Lane (1993) posited
that sustainable tourism can be used to reduce conflicts among tourists, citizens of the host
destination, and the environment in order to improve and preserve the quality of natural and
human resources.
Building on Bramwell and Lane’s body of research on sustainable tourism, Cater (1993)
identified three primary goals for sustainable tourism: (1) improve living standards in the host
destination in the short and long term; (2) address the demands of a growing body of tourists;
24
and (3) protect the natural environment in conjunction with the first two goals. Similarly, Farrell
(1999) emphasized the need for tourism to implement the “sustainability trinity,” which includes
transparent and long-lasting economic, social, and environmental growth. May (1991) asserted
that the tourism sector is responsible for ensure that the living conditions in the host community,
including environmental and social features, do not suffer as a result of tourism development.
May (1991) believed that tourists are responsible for being stewards of the land even outside of
their own communities, and that the economic benefits of tourism in a region does not mitigate
the potential environmental or social losses that the industry can have on citizens. Butler (1991)
added that tourist destinations are not static environments and instead change over time to
respond to and to be influenced by the evolution in tourism in the region. For tourism to be
sustainable in this context, it is important that planning, policies, education of all stakeholders,
and a commitment to a long-term plan are put in place (Butler, 1991). Hunter (1997) believed
that sustainable tourism must be considered an adaptive paradigm so that it can be adjusted to
address different situations and to meet different destinations’ objectives, especially when it
comes to the use of natural resources.
Locally, nationally, and internationally, government and non-government organizations
are challenged to effectively balance the “sustainability trinity” that Farrell (1999) referred to in
order to promote economic, social, and environmental development. Due to financial barriers,
lack of leadership capacity, poor planning, resistance from locals, and regional contextual
obstacles, there are few tourism destinations that serve as a model for sustainable tourism
(Farrell, 1999). Eccles and Costa (1996) posited that tourism is a continual balancing act for
policy makers and tourism bureaus to address the needs of local citizens, visitors, and the
environment, which are not always in unison.
25
Successful sustainable tourism planning agencies develop a list of principles and
procedures that address the needs of tourists, private and public tourism operators, the host
community, and the protection of the natural, cultural, and constructed resources utilized in the
tourism sector (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Cater, 1993; Clarke, 1997). Pigram (1990) emphasized
that with this framework it is important to reject extremes such as ecological determinism or
economic determinism. Ideally, a tourist system is balanced where people, land, and finances
operate on equal playing fields (Antimova et al., 2012; Buckley, 2012; Farrell, 1992; Høyer,
2000).
Discourse on the Impacts of Tourism
There is an extensive body of literature detailing the impacts of tourism on host
destinations. McKercher (1993) aptly summarized the impacts of tourism on a host community
with the following quote: “Tourism enjoys a love-hate relationship with its host community. It is
both a much sought after and much reviled activity” (p. 6). On the positive side of the spectrum,
tourism can generate jobs, act as an economic driver, and accrue income and tax revenue which
can lead to regional development (Grey et al., 1991; Northcote & Macbeth, 2006). However, on
the opposite end of the spectrum, tourism has been referred to as a pariah that negatively impacts
host societies, with both short- and long-term ecological damage and cultural erosion and
aggravating socio-economic inequalities (Rosenow & Pulsipher, 1979). In order to assess
tourism impacts on host communities, scholars typically categorize impacts into three main
categories: economic, social, and environmental impacts (Butler, 1991; Okeiyi et al., 2005;
Pigram, 1990). For the purpose of this review of literature, the primary focus will be on the
social impacts of tourism and, later in this dissertation, its implications for the CABR.
26
Social Impacts of Sustainable Tourism on Host Communities
Simply stated, the social impacts of tourism on host communities are associated with the
“human impacts” that the sector can have on a destination (Hwang et al., 2012; Miller et al.,
2010). According to Zhuang et al. (2019), the social impacts of tourism relate to the host
residents’ quality of life and if/how tourism alters traditional cultural norms, values, and
identities in the region. Social impact research related to tourism has progressed through four
primary stages: Stage 1: definitions and concept development; Stage 2: model development;
Stage 3: instrument design and development; and Stage 4: instrument testing and refinement (see
Figure 2.2; Deery et al., 2012). The following section discusses the foundational research on the
social impacts of tourism on destinations and the tools that are used to measure them.
Figure 2.2
Stages of Development in Social Impacts of Tourism Research with Examples
Note: Deery et al., 2012, p. 65
Foundational Research on the Social Impacts of Tourism
The social impacts of tourism on host communities have been widely researched by
scholars since the 1970s. Seminal tourism impact researchers including Jafari (1974), Doxey
(1975), Butler (1980), Mathieson and Wall (1982), and Ap (1992) have laid the groundwork for
tourism impact studies and have shaped the current conversation around the social impacts on
host communities. Jafari (1974) was one of the first scholars to discuss the social and economic
27
“costs” of tourism development on a host community and, specifically, in developing countries.
Jafari’s (1974) foundational work acknowledged that at the time, most tourism studies praised
the positive economic benefits of tourism on host communities but failed to address the negative
long-lasting social “costs” associated with tourism development.
Similar to Mathieson and Wall (1982), Jafari (1974) noted that tourists do not visit a
destination as an equal to local residents, especially in developing countries. Jafari (1974)
explained that tourists often visit regions in a position of wealth and privilege to observe
residents instead of spending time with them and/or living as natives. Jafari (1974) stated that
“On many occasions, tourists do not really care about the destinations and their socio-cultural
attributes anyway. They just want to be away from home” (p. 242). This creates a social-cultural
and economic divide that some academics refer to as a modern form of colonization
(Bandyopadhyay, 2011; Pizam, 1978). There is typically a difference in income level between
the tourists and majority of local residents, especially in developing countries (Bandyopadhyay,
2011; Jafari, 1974).
The tourism industry runs the risk of creating a tendency in host destinations to cater to
affluent foreigners and to use resources that are not available to the local residents (Jafari, 1974).
These dynamics fuel resentment and negative feelings towards tourists in host communities
(Pizam, 1978). Conversely, there is also a risk for privileged tourists who believe they are acting
in the best interest of a host community to provide “handouts” that are unsustainable in the
longrun as they do not address the root causes of the deeper social and economic issues that may
exist in under-privileged areas (Wondirad et al., 2019). Wondirad et al. (2019) acknowledged
that there is potential for neo-colonialism influences as a result of tourism in developing
countries, and that non-government organizations (NGOs) who work in the ecotourism sector
28
should focus on addressing the basic challenges to ecotourism development instead of issuing
short-term “handouts.”
Jafari (1974) argued that in an attempt to meet tourists’ tastes and preferences, tourism
destinations are forming “tourist ghettos” (p. 242), where visitors only interact with other tourists
and there is no community participation. “Tourist ghettos” form a superficial and short-lived
relationship between the visitor and the local inhabitants that tends to favor the preferences and
needs of the visitor (Jafari, 1974). Jafari (1974) and Pizam (1978) asserted that modern tourism
falls short of its intended goal to allow humans to visit each other in order to develop a shared
understanding, friendships, and peace. Instead, Jafari (1974) contested that tourism exacerbates
xenophobia (contempt for foreigners) in host communities for several reasons, including the
commoditization of local cultural and religious traditions and the host government’s tendency to
prioritize tourists’ interests in exchange for tourism expenditures. Jafari’s (1974) provoking
research raised questions about the experience of local residents and the long-term social impact
of tourism on a host community.
Tourism Irridex: A Tool to Measure the Social Impact of Tourism
In addition to Jafari (1974), another early researcher to explore the social impacts of
tourism on host communities was Doxey (1975). Building on Jafari’s (1974) research, Doxey’s
(1975) seminal work introduced a tourism impact framework to study the relationship between
the shifting attitudes of host communities and the degree of tourism development in the region.
Doxey’s (1975) model posited that host communities’ attitudes towards tourists transitions
through a series of four stages of irritation as tourism develops:
29
1. euphoria: tourists are welcomed,
2. apathy: tourists are taken for granted and the relationship between tourists and
hosts is formalized,
3. annoyance: residents become annoyed with the presence of tourists, and
4. antagonism: residents openly express their irritation with tourists and a power
struggle develops. (see Table 2.2)
Table 2.2
Doxey’s Stages of Tourist Irritation with Social and Power Relationships.
Social Relationships
Power Relationships
Euphoria
Visitors and investors welcome
Little planning or formalized control
Apathy
Visitors taken for granted.
Formal relationships between
hosts and guests
Marketing is the prime focus of plans
Annoyance
Residents misgivings about
tourism
Planners attempt to control by
increasing infrastructure
Antagonism
Irritations openly expressed
Power struggle between interest groups
Note: Adapted from Doxey’s (1975) Tourism Irridex (Shariff & Tahir, 2003). Licensed under
CC by 4.0.
Doxey’s (1975) work introduced the social impact tool called an Irridex, which is an
abbreviation for Irritation Index, and explains how residents’ responses towards tourists change
based on the cycles of destination development. The paradigm posits that when tourism
development is in the nascent stage, residents’ attitudes tend to be positive, and in the later stages
of development, host communities’ attitudes shift to irritability due to power struggles that
emerge between tourists and residents (Doxey, 1975). Doxey’s (1975) model was particularly
useful in the field of tourism development and planning as it provided insight into residents’
feelings towards tourist as the industry grew in the region. However, at the time of its launch, it
appears that Doxey’s (1975) model was discussed and applied more in the academic field than it
30
was in the practitioner sphere which vastly limited the practical applications of the Irridex. As a
practical application, the Irridex provides valuable foresight for tourism planners to anticipate
and understand the feelings that locals can develop as tourism grows in a host community.
Although Doxey’s model does not offer a strategic solution of how to address the irritation that
may ensue with tourism development, the understanding about the evolution of these feelings
lead to further research that provided a more in-depth understanding of the complex social
relationship between hosts and tourists.
Doxey’s (1975) model introduced several important considerations related to the
interactions between residents and tourists that continue to be widely used by scholars and
practitioners today. However, there have been several critiques of Doxey’s (1975) Irridex model
over the last three decades. Fridgen (1991) claimed that the Irridex is a “unidirectional model”
based on the false assumption that local residents in a host community all share the same
attitudes towards tourism development. Similarly, Cordero (2008) asserted that the Irridex model
overlooks the diverse opinions about tourism that exist within a host community, and it fails to
account for the multidimensionality of tourism impacts. Zhang et al. (2006) added that the
Irridex disregards important distinguishing factors that exist among community members,
including demographic and socio-graphic characteristics. Residents living in a host community
can be composed of different nationalities which vary in values and traditions that may influence
their acceptance or rejection of tourists in the region (Zhang et al., 2006). Although the model
provides insight on citizens’ attitudes toward tourism, there was not an explicit explanation on
the relationship between citizens’ attitudes and tourism impacts until Ap (1992) applied the
social exchange theory in a tourism context. Prior to Ap’s (1992) research, Butler (1980)
discussed how tourism life cycle factors into the tourism impact on the host community.
31
Social Impacts: Tourism Life Cycle and Tourist Types
Another important consideration when assessing the social impact of tourism on host
communities is the stage of the tourism life cycle. According to Butler (1980) and Plog (1974),
the stage of the tourism life cycle influences the way that tourists and citizens in a host
community interact and, ultimately, what type of tourist visits the destination. Butler (1980)
adapted the product life cycle model to the tourism industry to create a well-known model called
the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC). Butler’s (1980) TALC model introduced six stages of the
tourism area life cycle based on the product life cycle that is commonly referred to in economic
sectors (see Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3
Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC)
Note: Butler, 1980, p. 3. Licensed under John Wiley and Sons. Used with permission.
32
According to Butler (1980), the six stages of TALC are exploration, involvement,
development, consolidation, stagnation, and decline or rejuvenation (see Table 2.3).
Table 2.3
Stages of Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle Model (1980)
Tourism Stage
Explanation
[1] Exploration
• Small number of tourists follow irregular patterns
• No tourism facilities or infrastructure
[2] Involvement
• Rise in visitor numbers
• High level of tourist and resident interactions
• Minimal tourism facilities
[3] Development
• Defined as a tourism market
• Advertised as a tourism destination
[4] Consolidation
• Decline in rate of increase in number of tourists
• Tourism is a significant part of the local economy
• Strategies developed to extend tourist market and
seasons
[5] Stagnation
• Tourist number reach peak levels
• Carrying capacity level is reached, creating
social, economic and environmental issues for the
host destination
• No longer a trendy destination
[6] Decline
or
Rejuvenation
• Destination struggles to compete with newer
tourism areas
• Loses appeal among vacationers
or
• Unlikely, but rejuvenation can occur if there is a
complete change in attraction in the destination
Note: Licensed under John Wiley and Sons. Used with permission.
Butler’s (1980) TALC model aligns with Plog’s (1974) typology of tourists as it
illustrates the type of tourists who visit a destination as the destination changes and adapts to
tourist demand. Plog (1974) described tourist types on a spectrum ranging from “venturer”—first
to explore an unchartered tourist destination, independent, authentic interaction with locals,
avoids mass tourism destinations—to “dependable”—prefer well-known and easy to access
tourist destinations, like structure and routine, risk averse and comfortable in guided group tours
(see Figure 2.4). Plog’s (1974) typology of tourists can be mapped on Butler’s (1980) TALC
33
model to assist tourism planners and developers with understanding the life cycle of the tourism
destination as well as the type of tourists a host community can expect (see Table 2.4).
Figure 2.4
Psychographic of Personality Types for Tourists
Note: Plog, 1974, p. 16. Copyright 1974 by Sage Publications. Reprinted with permission–gratis
reuse.
Table 2.4
Adapted from Butler’s (1980) TALC Stages and Plog’s (1974) Tourist Types
Butler’s 1980 TALC
Stages
Plog’s (1974) Tourist
Type
[1] Exploration
Venturer
[2] Involvement
Near venturer
[3] Development
Mid-centric
[4] Consolidation
Mid-centric
[5] Stagnation
Near dependable
[6] Decline
or
Rejuvenation
Dependable
Note: Butler (1980) Licensed under John Wiley and Sons. Used with permission. Plog (1974)
copyright 1974 by Sage Publications. Reprinted with permission–gratis reuse.
34
Additionally, Butler’s (1980) and Plog’s (1974) work helps to explain a host
community’s response to tourism. For example, in Butler’s (1980) exploration stage when
Plog’s (1974) venturers visit a destination, some citizens in the community may feel
uncomfortable with new tourists. During the involvement stage with near venturer tourists,
residents tend to contribute to developing the tourism destination and adding new facilities
(Butler, 1980; Plog, 1974). In the development stage with mid-centric tourists, some residents
may feel alienated because of external tourism businesses and outside investments in the
community (Butler, 1980; Plog, 1974). Consolidation stage is when mid-centric tourists visit a
destination and the local residents become tired of the increase in tourists and tourism
development strategies (Butler, 1980; Plog, 1974). In the stagnation stage with near dependable
tourists, residents tend to negatively view tourism and tourists due to the peak number of tourists
and large disturbing infrastructure. Lastly, in the decline or rejuvenation stage of a tourism life
cycle when dependables visit, the majority of citizens negatively view tourism and tourists in the
area. Although Butler’s (1980) and Plog’s (1974) work provided critical foundational models for
understanding the lifecycle of a tourist destination and personality types for tourists, there are
more recent and comprehensive tourism models that are linked to sustainable development and
were used for mapping purposes in this study.
Szromek et al. (2020) provided a modified version of Butler’s (1980) TALC model by
overlaying it with key concepts from sustainable development (see Figure 2.5).
35
Figure 2.5
Sustainable Development and Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC)
Note: Szromek et al., 2020. Licensed under MDPI Open Access.
This updated model was used in this dissertation study to map the key findings from
Phases 1–3 to determine what stage the destination is according to the TALC model and in
relation to sustainable development. Szromek et al.’s (2020) model indicates how an increase in
the number of tourists can lead to increased stress and ecological damage in a host community.
Overtime, as the number of tourists grow, there is also an emphasis placed on maintaining the
ecological integrity of a destination (Szromek et al., 2020). A detailed discussion of the mapped
findings from Phases 1–3 is provided in Chapter V.
Social Carrying Capacity in Tourism
When discussing the social impacts of tourism on a host destination, the concept of social
carrying capacity is frequently referenced by scholars. “Social carrying capacity can be defined
objectively from the tourists’ point of view as the level of tolerance of the host population for the
presence and behavior of tourists in the destination area; or subjectively as the degree of
36
crowding users (tourists) are prepared to accept by others (other tourists)” (O’Reilly, 1986, p.
256). Murphy (1983) introduced an early model to determine a destination’s social carrying
capacity and tourist-resident relationships (see Figure 2.6). The stages of Murphy’s (1983) model
reflect the rising tensions between residents and tourists as the limits to social carrying capacity
are reached. The findings from Phases 1–3 for this study are mapped onto Murphy’s (1983)
model in Chapter V to assess the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve’s current social
carrying capacity.
Figure 2.6
Murphy’s (1983) Tourist-Resident Relationship Model
Note: Licensed under Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.
37
O’Reilly (1986) was a seminal scholar of social carrying capacity in tourism and argued
that the economic, physical, and social impacts of tourism on a destination were a result from
interactions between tourists and the local population, and each segment of impacts had its own
limits. O’Reilly (1986) posited that social, economic, and physical carrying capacities vary
greatly by destination and depend on the tourism goals for each region. For example, protected
areas such as national parks and biosphere reserves tend to have lower physical and social
carrying capacities due to their core goals of environmental conservation and protecting
biodiversity. Saveriades (2000) noted that the concept of carrying capacity is most easily applied
to designated natural areas such as national parks and wilderness regions that have established
boundaries and policies to restrict use and are managed by one authority. This notion is
particularly interesting in the context of this study considering that the Adirondack Park is a state
park and a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, but it does not have boundaries or policies that are
managed by one authority, which adds a level of complexity to measuring and managing the
social carrying capacity of tourism in the CABR. O’Reilly (1986) emphasized that physical and
environmental carrying capacities are affected by tourism management techniques in a host
community.
There are vast differences in opinion about the level of visitor use that carrying capacity
can sustain across tourism and recreation literature and if/how that influences a host society.
Cole (1985) argued that physical damage to a destination typically occurs at low levels of use
and claimed that marginal damage declines as visitor use increases. Saveriades (2000) posited
that the social carrying capacity of a destination is “the maximum level of use (in terms of
numbers and activities) that can be absorbed by an area without an unacceptable decline in the
quality of experience of visitors and without an unacceptable adverse impact on the society of
38
the area” (p. 149). According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO),
overtourism occurs when the impacts of tourism on an area has significant negative influences on
residents’ perceived quality of life and/or the quality of the tourism experience (UNWTO, 2019).
Stankey and Schreyer (1985) believed that there is no such thing as an optimal carrying
capacity for a destination as several potential carrying capacities exist in one destination and
depend on the tourism ecosystem, goals, resiliency of the area, and the type of tourist activity.
Saveriades (2000) asserted that there are two core components related to social carrying capacity
that are important for tourism planners and managers to consider when assessing visitor use: (1)
the quality of experience that visitors will accept before finding alternative destinations and (2)
the level of tolerance the host population has to the presence of visitors. Figure 2.7 is a model
that Saveriades (2000) introduced to determine the sociological carrying capacity of a
destination. Peeters et al. (2018) explained that global destinations are seeking innovative
methods to identify and measure social carrying capacity before overtourism occurs to prevent
social, cultural, and ecological damage. Tokarchuk et al. (2020) asserted that the social carrying
capacity of an area is often measured in scholarly literature by the perceived impacts of tourism
on residents’ lives. This study explores the social impacts of tourism through a similar lens as it
uncovers the perceived impacts of tourism on residents’ lives and the overall community in
which they reside.
39
Figure 2.7
Model for Determining Sociological Carrying Capacity
Note: Saveriades, 2000.
Measuring Social Impacts of Tourism with the Social Exchange Theory
The social exchange theory is a psychological and sociological theory that examines the
social interaction of two parties using a cost-benefit analysis to determine the benefits and
perceived risks (Homans, 1961). Social exchange theory is incorporated into a wide variety of
disciplines including anthropology, business, citizenship behavior, and online social networking
(Perdue et al., 1990). This theory can be used to analyze a wide variety of human interactions
including professional relationships, friendships, romantic relationships, and even tourism
exchanges between travelers and the host community (Gursoy et al., 2002). The social exchange
theory is a common theory that tourism scholars use to understand and measure the social
impacts of tourism on a host community (Gursoy et al., 2002). In the tourism context, this theory
40
examines what a host community has to “give up” (the cost) in order to accommodate tourists in
their region (Ap, 1992). And, on the other hand, what are the benefits that the host community
receives from accommodating tourists in their area? If the cost of the relationship outweighs the
rewards, this could lead to imbalances and conflicts in the interactions such as a significant
amount of money or effort is invested but not reciprocated (Homans, 1961).
Sutton (1967) was one of the first researchers to use the social exchange theory to explain
the social interaction between travelers and host communities. According to Sutton (1967), the
interaction between traveler and host is typically imbalanced or asymmetrical in character in that
one party does not feel as if the benefits outweigh the negative aspects. For example, to
accommodate travelers, hosts can be faced with traffic, higher housing costs, and increased waste
(Perdue et al., 1990). The interaction "may provide either an opportunity for rewarding and
satisfying exchanges, or it may stimulate and reinforce impulses to exploitation on the part of the
host and, to suspicion and resentment on the part of the visitor" (Sutton 1967, p. 221).
Pearce (1982) supported Sutton’s (1967) idea that misalignment was the cause of hosts’
negative experience and perceptions of visitors. Pearce (1982) posited “that marked asymmetry
of frequent, transitory contact with the opportunity for exploitation and interaction difficulties
due to large cultural differences are the important elements shaping a negative host reaction to
tourists” (p. 85). Mathieson and Wall (1982) further maintained Peace and Sutton’s theory that
the visitor-host encounter tends to be unequal and can result in negative impacts for either the
tourist or the host. Farrell (1982) aptly pointed out that not all imbalanced exchanges favor the
visitor. Tourists are susceptible to being taken advantage of due to a lack of knowledge about the
area they are visiting (Farrell, 1982). This imbalance between host and visitor can result in
41
tourist “rip offs” such as “tourist menus” that are priced higher than typical menus or lodging
accommodations offered at higher rates for visitors (Farrell, 1982).
Nash (1989) suggested that tourism is a transactional experience between tourists and
hosts, and that the relationship must include a degree of understanding between the two parties to
avoid conflict. Ap’s (1992) research on the social exchange theory suggests that when the
exchange of resources (in terms of power) between locals and tourists is high and balanced, the
impacts of tourism are positively viewed by the residents. On the contrary, if the exchange of
resources is imbalanced and low (i.e., the exchange favors the visitor), residents perceive the
impacts of tourism to be negative (Ap, 1992).
The social exchange theory exerts there should be a form of compensation when an
individual or population is required to tolerate unwanted activities (Devan, 2006). For example,
residents living in high-volume tourism communities may have to live with negative impacts of
visitors exacerbated by tourism activities, such as excessive use of facilities, longer waits in
stores, traffic, and even crime (Godfrey & Clarke, 2000). Andereck et. al (2005) posited that with
the social exchange theory host citizens who receive positive economic contributions from
tourism perceive greater tourism benefits and were more knowledgeable about tourism impacts.
Several researchers including, Andereck et al. (2005) and Sharpley (2000), discussed the
deficiencies of the social exchange theory, indicating that other variables such as local attitudes
and identity of place can also impact citizens’ perceptions of outside visitors. Although the
social exchange theory in tourism provides insights as to what residents have to give up in order
to accommodate visitors, I agree with Sharpley (2000) that the theory fails to take into account
other important variables, such as locals’ attitudes, when considering the exchange between
tourists and locals.
42
Considering that host residents tend to receive a minimal amount of tangible benefits
from tourism, but continue to support the industry, it is possible that some benefits are indirect
and/or intangible in nature (Richards & Palmer, 2010). An issue with the social exchange theory
is that it fails to distinguish between the tangible and intangible social impacts of tourism
(Scholtz & Slabbert, 2018). If intangible benefits are not taken into account, it is challenging to
accurately determine the degree of imbalance or asymmetry that actually exists between host
citizens and tourists (Scholtz & Slabbert, 2018). Thus, when analyzing social impacts of tourism
and the perceived balance (or imbalance) between host and tourist, it is critical to define and
incorporate both tangible and intangible benefits to have an accurate measurement.
Scholtz and Slabbert (2018) defined the word tangible as “something one can possess as
physical property, such as a higher income’ while ‘intangible’ refers to something which does
not have a physical presence” (p. 109). Wren (2003) posited that intangibles tend to be more
challenging to see or measure, but still have value. According to Scholtz and Slabbert (2018), in
the tourism context an intangible can be something that is experienced, but is typically difficult
to measure and cannot be purchased. Intangible examples in tourism include community pride,
goodwill, and the efforts of a host community to protect their cultural heritage (Chan, 2019;
Wren, 2003). Scholtz and Slabbert (2018) believed that there may be more intangible social
impacts of tourism on a host community than previously acknowledged since they are
challenging to measure and often go undocumented (see Table 2.5). Due to their highly
controlled land use management policies and conservation practices, protected areas serve as
effective regions to measure the social (tangible and intangible impacts), economic, and
environmental impacts of tourism on host communities. The following section provides an
43
overview of the social impacts of tourism in protected areas and specifically, in UNESCO Man
and Biosphere Reserves.
Table 2.5
The Positive and Negative Social Impacts of Tourism on a Host Destination
Positive Social Impacts of Tourism
Negative Social Impacts of Tourism
• Tourism benefits a local community by strengthening
social customs and values (Zhuang et al., 2019)
• Positive social impacts of tourism involve six
categories: the increase of local events, preservation
of cultural heritage traditions, improvement of
infrastructure and facilities, increase in youth
collaborations, and a reduction of citizen migration
from rural communities to cities (Zaei & Zaei, 2013)
• Tourism enhances the overall image of a region and
improves recreational activities as well as the quality
of life among residents (Zamani-Farahani & Musa,
2012)
• Tourism promotes modernization in societies
including new clothing, cuisines, as well as faster and
more efficient transportation systems (Chen, 2014)
• Tourism generates well-being and prosperity in a
host community by impelling town managers to
upgrade recreational facilities and infrastructure to
accommodate tourists (Ismail et al., 2011)
• Alternative economic revenue, independence,
community pride, goodwill, gender inclusion and
equality (Archer et al., 2005; Chan, 2019; Wren,
2003)
• Resettlement of indigenous communities, collapse of
the traditional family structure and relations, racial
discrimination, enclave tourism, and a significant rise
in crime and prostitution (Mbaiwa, 2003)
• Tourism commercializes traditional culture and
exacerbates income inequality amongst residents that
leads to contradictions within the community and
ultimately, ill-will between local residents and
visitors (Ramchander, 2003)
• Erodes family and cultural values and can lead to an
increase in crime (Sinclair-Maragh et al., 2015)
• Encourages deviations from traditional dietary habits,
unhealthy drinking rituals, violates dress codes,
disrespects religious activities, and disrupts
interpersonal relationships with family, elders, and
the community at large (Sroypetch, 2016)
Social Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas
Over the last fifteen years, a significant number of researchers have examined the social
impacts of tourism in protected areas. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated
and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of
nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008). According to
Spenceley and Snyman (2017), an increasing number of international travelers are attracted to
44
protected areas as tourism destinations. As Eagles et al. (2002) stated, “Protected areas need
tourism, and tourism needs protected areas” (Preface). However, the relationship of tourism and
protected areas is often complex and quite adversarial since protected areas often have pristine
biodiverse landscapes that are protected by the local community, and frequently visited by
tourists seeking outdoor recreation, cultural experiences, wildlife viewing, and/or leisure.
Several researchers have explored how tourism in protected areas can create both positive
and negative environmental, social, and economic impacts in a host community (Eagles et al.,
2002; Leung et al., 2018; McCool, 2009; Mitchell & Ashley, 2010; Snyman, 2014). Over the
past decade, literature in this area focused on key themes related to sustainable tourism including
the economic impacts of tourism (Lapeyre, 2011; Nielsen & Spenceley, 2011; Snyman, 2012,
2014; Spenceley, 2010; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008), the social impacts of tourism (Deery et al.,
2012; Esteves et al., 2012; Mbaiwa, 2003), and the environmental impacts tourism has in
protected landscapes (Buckley, 2010; Eagles et al., 2013; Mbaiwa, 2003). Another topic of
interest among scholars in the last decade is exploring the impacts of visitation on tourism and
conservation and identifying methods to maximize the benefits in protected areas (Spenceley &
Snyman, 2017).
Whitelaw et al. (2014) explained that the relationship between tourism and protected
areas is often at odds because of the notable economic emphasis of tourism and the contrasting
conservation focus of protected areas. Eagles et al. (2002) claimed that governments in protected
areas can exacerbate social problems related to tourism, such as congestion, waste, and crime, if
they prioritize short-term economic gains and fail to recognize the needs of the local community.
For tourism development in protected areas to be sustainable, tourism activities should support
the protected area’s principal goal of conserving biodiversity and address the needs of the local
45
community (Spenceley et al., 2017). Whitelaw et al.’s (2014) and Spenceley et al.’s (2017)
research on tourism in protected areas are particularly important to consider in this study since
the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve is a protected area with strict land use regulations
that focus primarily on environmental conservation.
Social Inequalities Related to Tourism in Protected Areas
Eagles et al. (2002) argued that the negative social impacts of tourism occur most
frequently in protected areas where citizens are not given choices about tourism development
and have no control over their involvement in the development process. If citizens are going to
be impacted from tourism and experience a cultural change because of it, those citizens should
have the right to decide whether the change is acceptable (Eagles et al., 2002). When there is a
significant contrast between the wealth of the tourists and the poverty of the host community,
local communities are vulnerable to exploitation as they lack the power to influence tourism
development strategies and its resulting social impacts (Scheyvens, 2011). Eagles et al. (2002)
asserted that it is the responsibility of the protected area manager and tourism providers to ensure
that voices of the less fortunate community members are listened to and its needs are considered
in tourism development. Unfortunately, due to the lure of short-term economic gains of tourism
in protected areas, this is not always the case.
Snyman (2014) posited that lower income households are often less supportive of
protected areas and tourism due to needs theories. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, such
theories claim that an individual’s basic human needs are addressed before higher needs such as
tourism initiatives, conservation, and supporting the community (Emptaz-Collomb, 2009).
Therefore, it would be beneficial for organizations or individuals responsible for these types of
initiatives to first focus on improving the lives of local residents by increasing access to quality
46
food, shelter, healthcare, education, and transportation (Emptaz-Collomb, 2009). Over time, this
would establish a more supportive environment for both conservation and tourism projects and
would assist with improving the longevity of such efforts (Snyman, 2014). Snyman (2014)
stressed that non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and private companies can
all contribute to the effort of improving local communities through infrastructural and other
community-development projects that place the needs of residents first. I concur with Snyman
(2014) that the needs of residents should be placed first in a tourism community and considered
how tourism leaders in CABR can improve their efforts to address community needs.
Managing Tourism in Protected Areas to Mitigate Social Impacts
Eagles et al. (2002) posited that the rising interest in ecotourism and sustainable tourism
among scholars and practitioners reflects the increased social concern about the impacts of
tourism on the local community and the environment. The management of sustainable tourism in
protected areas requires several tradeoffs between conserving the local environment and the
social-cultural values of the region, while permitting tourists to access and enjoy these assets
(McCool, 2009). McCool (2009) believed that two conditions are essential to implement
effective tourism management in protected areas: (1) community agreement on goals for
sustainable tourism development and (2) scientific agreement between the causes and effects of
sustainable tourism in the area. However, as Spenceley and Snyman (2017) added, these two
conditions are not easily accessible due to competing stakeholder interests and a wide variety of
sustainable tourism management styles in protected landscapes.
Spenceley et al. (2019) posited that the successful development of tourism in a protected
area requires tourism managers to be able to plan, develop, and maintain the quality of the
tourism products over the long term. In the absence of long-term sustainability of tourism
47
products, the likelihood of negative environmental, economic, and social impacts on the host
community increases (Spenceley et al., 2019). The tourism potential of protected areas can vary
greatly based on location, market demand, accessibility, proximity to other larger tourist areas,
infrastructure, and marketing, which creates challenges for developing tourist regions (Spenceley
et al., 2019). Managing a protected area tourist destination in a way that minimizes the risk to
the host community depends on the legal and political climate that protects the natural
environment, the demand for tourism, the resources and staff available, and overall tourism
management strategy (Eagles et al., 2002). According to Moore and Weiler (2009), it is critically
important that the tourism development model and management approach selected in protected
areas are sustainable over an extended period of time as short-sighted strategies can have
detrimental social and ecological consequences. In selecting an appropriate tourism management
strategy in a protected area, the decision rests on current government policies as well as the
capacity and needs of the regional tourism authority (Moore & Weiler, 2009).
Spenceley et al. (2019) discussed two standard management approaches for delivering
tourism services in protected areas—insourcing and outsourcing. Insourcing refers to when the
tourism authority in a protected area employs its own resources and staff to manage tourism
development (Spenceley et al., 2019). Outsourcing is when the authority selects an outside
contractor such as for-profit/private company, non-profit organization, local community
organization, a government department, or a joint-venture company (Eagles, 2008, 2009; More,
2005;). Each of these management approaches presents potential issues in tourism development
in protected areas and, in turn, poses social risks to the local community (Spenceley et al., 2019).
For example, Spenceley et al. (2019) discovered that when tourism management is insourced,
there is a significant lack of professional training and management of tourism concessions (e.g.,,
48
accommodations, restaurants, stores), license and permitting policies, and contracts for tourism
in protected areas. Ultimately, this lack of training and skills can lead to considerable negative
(likely unintended) social, economic, and environmental impacts on the host destination.
Alternatively, if a host destination elects to outsource tourism development and
management to an outside contractor, this holds its own potential risks to the host community
Spenceley et al., (2019). According to Spenceley (2008) and Spenceley and Meyer (2016),
outsourced contractors have the challenging task of managing the community’s expectations in
order to ensure success and long-term sustainability of a tourism management model.
Considering the wide variety of stakeholder interests and expectations that exist in a host
destination, this task can be daunting and again lead to impacts on the local community.
There are a wide variety of global protected area designations ranging from national
parks, geo-parks, UNESCO World Heritage Sites, to nature reserves that vary in characteristics,
application process, reporting procedures, management, and monitoring. One of UNESCO’s
lesser-known protected area designations is their Man and Biosphere Reserve Program, which
works closely with the tourism sector in order to promote economic development in what would
otherwise be economically depressed rural landscapes. The next section discusses UNESCO’s
Man and Biosphere Reserve Program and its relation to sustainable tourism and the social
impacts that it has on host communities in biosphere reserves.
Sustainable Tourism in UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves
Global destinations struggle to establish and maintain the delicate balance between
economic development and environmental conservation when developing and implementing
tourism policy. Business owners who earn a profit from tourists are often at odds with locals and
environmental groups who advocate to protect the environmental and social landscapes from
49
visitor impact. By design, UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves are designated regions where
sustainable development strategies aim to resolve inherent conflicts between environmental
protection, economic growth, and social justice (Nolte, 2004). In Biosphere Reserves, tourism
planning and management provides opportunities and challenges to conserve biodiversity in flora
and fauna (Nolte, 2004). Opportunities in biosphere reserves to conserve biodiversity arise from
external funding and land use planning that facilitates environmental protection and natural
resource management in relation to tourism impacts (Nolte, 2004). Challenges in conserving
biodiversity in the context of tourism arise due to tourism impacts such as soil degradation,
transference in wildlife habitats, and water quality (Nolte, 2004). Ideally, tourism in these fragile
and biodiverse landscapes is planned with all stakeholders in mind and brings disparate voices to
the table in order to develop a long-term sustainable tourism system (Nolte, 2004).
UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves are touted as models of sustainable tourism due
to the pristine nature of the landscapes, the likelihood that visitors will travel to these
destinations for outdoor activities, and tourisms’ ability to generate economic growth in rural
bucolic areas. However, there is a limited amount of research examining the impacts of tourism
in biosphere reserves in order to understand the social and cultural influences that tourism has on
these sites. Extant literature on the social impacts and/or cultural impacts of tourism in biosphere
reserves consist predominately of case studies that lack transferability to other biosphere due to
specific social/cultural contexts that would not apply in other tourism destinations. For example,
Catibog-Sinha and Wen (2008) discussed sustainable tourism planning and management in the
Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve in China, but due to political landscape in the region that
allows for more collaborative tourism planning and policy, the findings from this study cannot be
applied to a more individualistic society such as the United States.
50
Heinrup and Schultz (2017) discussed how Swedish Biosphere Reserves implement the
UN’s 17 SDGs to advance and improve community-based tourism (CBT) strategies across the
country. CBT focuses on involving citizens from host destinations in the planning and
management of tourism development in an effort to create a more sustainable industry (Hall,
1996). There are several views and approaches to CBT that reflect the Swedish Biosphere
Reserve strategy. For example, Pearce (1992) believed that consensus-based decision making
and local control of tourism development creates a more equitable flow of benefits to all
stakeholders involved in CBT. Similarly, Murphy (1988) suggested that tourism planning should
integrate residents’ values and visions of the future, while Haywood (1988) argued that in order
for tourism to be successful, the local community must be healthy and thriving first.
The Lake Vnern Archipelago Biosphere Reserve in Sweden adopted what they refer to
as a “potluck” approach to CBT that includes a wide variety of diverse stakeholders who were
asked to develop a common vision for what they want tourism to look like in their region
(Heinrup & Schultz, 2017). By integrating community members and a vast range of interests in
tourism planning, the sustainability of their tourism model remains strong and was intentionally
built to support the 17 SDGs, visitors, and their local community (Heinrup & Schultz, 2017).
However, due to significant social, economic, and racial inequalities, global biosphere reserves
struggle to implement “potluck” CBT models as the one depicted in the Swedish network of
biosphere reserves.
Lyon and Hunter-Jones (2019) used a critical discourse analysis to examine the
sustainable development and tourism discourses related to SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 8
(decent work and economic growth), and SDG 15 (life on land) in the Waterberg Biosphere
Reserve in South Africa, and unlike the Swedish Biosphere Reserve Program, unequal power
51
distributions related to sustainable tourism development were uncovered. Instead of equally
integrating all community voices into the decision-making process, the Waterberg Biosphere
Reserve’s tourism strategy consisted of top-down planning and power disparities based on social,
economic, and racial conditions (Lyon & Hunter-Jones, 2019). This study discussed the
importance of incorporating the voices of under-privileged citizens in sustainable tourism and the
struggle to bring these voices to the table when critical decisions are being made to advance
sustainable development and the SDGs (Lyon & Hunter-Jones, 2019). As Novelli and Gebhardt
(2007) stated, CBT models are a critical ingredient to improving tourism’s contribution to
national development, particularly in developing countries. They highlight that in order to create
a more inclusive and participatory tourism development strategy, it is important that all
stakeholders have a similar degree of understanding about tourism in the region and its
implications.
Aside from Lyon and Hunter-Jones’s (2019) study, current literature that explores the
social impacts of tourism in biosphere reserves typically fails to acknowledge the inherent power
dynamics and layers of privilege that are behind the tourism policy and planning in biospheres.
As Scheyvens (2011) discussed, tourists and tourism planners often experience a different lived
reality than that of the local population in rural pastoral landscapes. With an influx of second-
home-owners anxious to escape to “paradise” and locals struggling to pay rent because of rising
housing costs due to the increase in short-term vacation rentals (e.g., Airbnb, VRBO), rural
tourism destinations such as biospheres present a complex conflict and power dynamic between
residents and visitors (Scheyvens, 2011). In biosphere reserves, the low-income residents who
are most negatively impacted by tourism development rarely have a seat at the table when
tourism policy is discussed. Additionally, these same residents are forced to compete with high-
52
income visitors for a common pool of resources available in the community that can result in a
“tragedy of commons” if not strategically planned for using a bottom-up approach that considers
the diverse interests of all stakeholder groups (Briassoulis, 2002).
Church et al. (2017) stressed that the way a destination manages its resources and
ecosystem services (i.e., benefits humans receive from the natural environment) has a direct
bearing on the tourism sector’s ability to reproduce its offerings and also a community’s access
to resources. Additionally, tourism is dependent on resources across the full range of ecosystem
services (i.e., provisioning, regulating, supportive, cultural) and can stimulate change on
ecosystem service production, which can have positive and negative impacts on the host
community (Church et al., 2017). As research about the social impacts of tourism in UNESCO
biosphere reserves develops, it may be beneficial to explore the power dynamics between
residents, tourism policy makers, and tourists that Scheyvens (2011) mentions, and to consider
the limited common pool of resources that are available in host destinations as well as the
ecosystem services that Church et al. (2017) discuss. The following section provides an overview
of the three leadership theories related to tourism planning and management that were used as a
theoretical lens for this study.
Leadership Approaches in Sustainable Tourism
Stakeholder Theory in Tourism
Leading in a global and increasingly interconnected world simultaneously creates
significant challenges and opportunities for leaders in the tourism sector to participate in ethical
planning and to consider diverse stakeholder interests. In practice, stakeholder theory focuses on
two central questions: “What is the purpose of the firm?” (Freeman et al., 2004, p. 364) and
“What responsibility does management have to stakeholders?” (Freeman et al., 2004, p. 364).
53
Over the past two decades, stakeholder theory has evolved significantly from the initial idea that
stakeholders were part of the company milieu to now understanding that stakeholder interests are
a critical and core component of the company mission and future progress of an organization
(Maak & Pless, 2006).
Gunn (1994) applied stakeholder theory to the tourism context and asserted that one of
the keys to successful implementation of sustainable tourism development in a community is
support from diverse stakeholders including residents, community leaders, business owners,
tourists, and tourism operators. In the tourism sector, a stakeholder is defined as “any group or
individual who can affect or is affected by” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46) tourism development in a
region. The effort to engage stakeholders in the planning and implementation of sustainable
tourism models is an attempt to resolve two primary issues related to traditional tourism
development models (Byrd, 2007). First, tourism planning and development processes are
typically top-down, where decisions are made by experts and fail to assess and to integrate the
community’s needs. This approach to tourism planning excludes community stakeholders and
often results in resistance from local residents due to the fact that tourism is not reflective of
community interests and opinions (Byrd, 2007). Second, tourism decision-making procedures are
perceived to have competing internal interests, which again are not reflective of the residents’
needs and interests (Byrd, 2007).
In tourism literature, two distinct schools of thought have emerged pertaining to
stakeholder theory. In the first school of thought, the organization responsible for tourism
development considers stakeholders’ interests and creates policies based on the stakeholders’
level of influence and power (De Lopez, 2001; Hunt & Haider, 2001). In this scenario,
stakeholders with more power are given more consideration than those with less, creating a
54
stakeholder hierarchy based on power dynamics. The second school of thought is centered on the
idea of collaborative thinking among stakeholders to co-create tourism policies (Jamal & Getz,
1995; Yuksel et al., 1999). Based on the normative approach to stakeholder theory, this idea
asserts that equal consideration should be given to each stakeholder group without one being
given priority over others (Sautter & Leisen, 1999). The collaborative approach in tourism
development is seen as an educational and empowering process in which stakeholders are
involved in the planning, problem solving, and implementation of tourism planning in their
community (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Tosun (2001) asserted that the primary objective of
collaborative stakeholder planning in tourism development is to balance power between all
stakeholder groups. According to Byrd (2007), two questions should be considered in order to
fully integrate stakeholders into tourism planning strategies:
1. Who should be considered stakeholders in tourism development, and
2. How should planners and developers involve the identified stakeholders in the
development of tourism? (p. 7).
This study explored if a collaborative form of stakeholder theory was applied to planning
and managing tourism in CABR, and how (if at all) stakeholders’ interests are considered in the
tourism planning process. This was important to consider as it provided insights about the level
of involvement local citizens had in the tourism planning process and if their interests were taken
into consideration. Stakeholder theory also played a significant role in the data analysis stage of
this study in order to understand the social impacts of tourism and the dynamics associated with
tourism planning in CABR. After the document review and focus groups, I created a Stakeholder
Attitude and Impact Matrix based on the findings to map tourism stakeholders’ attitude about the
social impacts of tourism and the level of impact that they have in tourism planning. A visual
55
representation of key stakeholders’ support or opposition of tourism and their level of influence
on tourism planning is beneficial for tourism planners to consider as they plan future tourism
development. Additional details about the Stakeholder Attitude and Impact Matrix are discussed
in Chapter V.
Responsible Leadership in Tourism
In addition to stakeholder theory, responsible leadership was used as a framework to
examine the social impacts of tourism in CABR and the stakeholder dynamics that influence
tourism leaders in the region. A notable characteristic of a responsible leader is she/he is able to
cultivate sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders who have shared
objectives and a shared vision for the future of the organization that are centered on ethical
principles (Pless & Maak, 2011). Due to the power that shareholders hold in a typical
organizational model that is primarily focused on economic gains, employing responsible
leadership and fostering sustainable and mutually beneficial stakeholder relationships can be
challenging for leaders to implement on an organizational and community level (Maak, 2007). It
is critical for responsible leaders to manage with integrity, “to walk the talk,” and to consider
“profits with principles” (Roddick, 1991, p. 2). Recognizing and actualizing the triple bottom
line (social, economic, and environmental) approach to business and financial management is a
significant step that leaders should take to move closer to creating a stakeholder-centered style of
responsible leadership that creates values for all stakeholders (Elkington, 1998).
In the tourism sector, responsible leadership and stakeholder theory are discussed in the
context of destination leadership and establishing leadership networks in destinations to promote
sustainable tourism practices (Zehrer et al., 2014). Although Zehrer et al. (2014) did not
explicitly discuss responsible leadership theory and stakeholder theory, the authors did
56
emphasize the need for tourism leaders to create a network of strong relationships within the
community to help shape a cooperative tourism model that considers a variety of stakeholders’
needs. According to Hoppe and Reinelt (2010), a leadership network is “a network connecting
leaders who share common interests and who have a commitment to influencing a field of
practice or policy” (p. 601).
Establishing a leadership network that practices cooperative planning and who involves
the local community in tourism planning and management is a critical part in creating and
maintaining a sustainable tourism destination (Zehrer et al., 2014). Leadership networks shape a
destinations’ core services (including ecosystem services), innovation capability, and strategies
for planning and managing sustainable social, environmental, and ecological landscapes (Koh,
2000). Unlike stakeholder theory, leadership networks establish a clear hierarchy of power in
which the tourism leaders cooperate to plan and implement tourism policies while the other
actors in the leadership network are considered “followers” (Zehrer et al., 2014, p. 61). In my
dissertation research, I aimed to gain a deeper understanding if tourism leaders in the CABR
employed a responsible leadership strategy that embraces a stakeholder-centric approach, or if
they utilize a cooperative leadership network that has more of a hierarchical framework with
citizens as followers of the leadership group. This was important to understand as it provided
insights into the level of involvement and degree of influence that citizens have over tourism
planning and management, and in turn, the social impacts that tourism has on the region.
Additionally, I was curious to see if responsible leadership could be employed by tourism leaders
in the region to potentially assist with mitigating the negative social impacts of tourism.
57
Ecosystem Services in Tourism
In addition to considering diverse stakeholder perspectives in tourism planning and
management, this study will explore the consequences that the tourism industry has on
ecosystem services (i.e., benefits humans receive from the natural environment) (Simmons,
2013). The way in which a destination manages its cultural capital and ecosystem services is
directly related to the tourism sector’s ability to reproduce its offerings and the host community’s
access to social and natural resources (Church et al., 2017). Additionally, tourism is dependent
on resources from across all ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning, regulating, supportive,
cultural) and has the ability to stimulate modifications on ecosystem service production, which
can have positive and negative impacts on the host community (Church et al., 2017;
Probstl-Haider, 2015; Simmons, 2013).
Church et al. (2017) discovered that despite the interconnectedness and innate synergies
that exist between sustainable tourism management and ecosystem services, tourism researchers
are often excluded from ecosystem service assessments by organizations such as the United
Nations. According to Simmons (2013), changes in ecosystem services can affect human
well-being including health, social and cultural relations, and safety and security. Tourism and
short-stay visitors place significant pressure on ecosystem services in a local community
(Simmons, 2013) and should be considered in long-term tourism planning to protect the assets of
the human and natural environment. Currently, there is a limited body of research examining the
social impacts of tourism and stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in
UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. This study will explore residents’ perceptions about the social
impacts of tourism and will take into account the complex issues that exist in sustainable tourism
planning related to stakeholder theory, responsible leadership, and ecosystem services.
58
Summary of Literature Review
This critical review of literature provided a detailed discussion about the evolution of
sustainable tourism, discourse on the impacts of tourism on host communities, foundational and
current research on the social impacts of tourism, methods to measure social impacts of tourism,
the social impacts of tourism in protected areas including UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, and
lastly, leadership approaches to promote sustainable tourism. The extensive body of literature on
the social impacts of tourism on host communities revealed that the social impacts of tourism can
be difficult to measure, track, and manage for a wide variety of reasons. The social impacts of
tourism can be difficult to measure and track due to limited time and resources in host
destinations to conduct studies on this topic, and because social impacts can be both tangible and
intangible in nature, which make it more challenging to measure.
The literature also showed that the social impacts of tourism are complex and can be
challenging to manage, particularly in protected areas such as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
because of competing stakeholder interests (e.g., environmental conservation vs. economic
development). When tourism is promoted to stimulate economic growth in protected areas
without considering the environmental or social consequences, vast socio-economic inequalities
arise in the host community and the ecological and socio-cultural integrity of the region is placed
at risk. These takeaways are important to consider in the context of this study as they provide
insights into the challenges and opportunities that destinations and tourism leaders face with
identifying and managing the social impacts of tourism.
There is a growing body of scholarship that examines the social impacts of tourism in
protected areas, but there is a notable gap in literature pertaining to the social impacts of tourism
in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. This study aims to fill this gap and to provide insights into the
59
stakeholder dynamics that influence tourism planning in one of the largest biospheres in the U.S.,
the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve. In Chapter III, I explore and explain the
qualitative methodology that was used in this study and the justification for using it to examine
the social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve and the
stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in the region.
60
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
In this chapter, I provide an overview of the research questions that guided this study, the
ontological and epistemological approach, the methodology, research design and research
procedures, along with an explanation of the ethical considerations and the means taken to
ensure rigor and quality throughout the study, as well as my positionality as a researcher.
Research Questions
For this study, I aimed to understand the social impacts of tourism in the CABR and the
stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in the region. Thus, I identified the
following research questions to guide my path of inquiry:
1. What are the social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve?
2. What are the stakeholders’ dynamics that influence tourism planning in
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve?
This exploratory case study consisted of three sequential phases and four data collection
methods: Phase 1, media analysis (76 online articles) and document review (16 documents),
Phase 2, three online focus groups (N = 38), Phase 3, semi-structured interviews (N = 12).
Findings from each phase of the data collection were used to inform the next phase of research
and are described in greater detail later in the chapter. The following section begins with a
discussion of my ontological and epistemological approaches to research.
Ontological and Epistemological Approach
This study followed a constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology. Ontology
refers to one’s perception about the nature of reality, and epistemology explains how knowledge
is created (in this case, between researcher and participant). A constructivist approach upholds
the view that people construct their own realities and seek to understand their world and create
61
subjective meanings from their lived experiences (Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell
(2014), a person’s subjective meanings are greatly influenced by cultural and historical norms
and interactions they share with others. Similar to constructivism, interpretivism places a focus
on individual interpretations of lived experiences and events, and on gaining knowledge of
reality from a participants’ point of view (Bakker, 2012). An interpretivist approach to research
maintains that knowledge is co-created between the participant and the researcher (Creswell,
2014). During the data collection and analysis phases of this study, the interpretivist approach
helped me process the surface level meanings that participants discussed and to pose additional
questions to see if there were deeper meanings that were not explicitly mentioned. Constructivist
and interpretivist approaches are commonly used in qualitative research to make meaning from
the data and to generate new knowledge. The following section provides an overview of the
qualitative approach that was selected for this study and the rationale for that selection based on
the research questions.
Qualitative Research
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the social impacts of tourism, the dynamics of
sustainable tourism planning, and the contextual details that may influence these topics, I
selected a qualitative methodology. Qualitative research uses an open-ended inductive approach
to analyzing data through words instead of numbers to understand the research topic and the
related environment (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative studies allow for a deep exploration of
peoples’ experiences about a particular topic (e.g., social impacts of tourism) and aim to
understand the how and why of the human experience (Creswell, 2014; Johnson & Christensen,
2014). For example, a scholar interested in exploring charisma in servant leadership could
interview servant leaders who identify as charismatic and ask them questions about their work.
62
The interview questions would be open-ended to allow the participants to share their experiences
and to provide insights into the how and why of their lived experiences. In qualitative studies, a
researcher may decide to ask follow-up questions, for examples, and/or clarifications. This
allows the researcher to gain a deep understanding of the participants’ experiences and to provide
important contextual details that may be missed in a quantitative study. In qualitative research,
saturation is reached when a clear pattern of themes emerges and this will ultimately determine
the number of participants for the study. Depending on the nature of the study, typically, a
sample set of 15 to 20 participants is considered an adequate sample size to reach saturation
(Cunliffe, 2011). In this study, saturation was reached in Phase 3 after the third interview, but the
remaining nine interviews were carried out since they were already scheduled.
Limitations of Qualitative Research
Although qualitative studies allow for an in-depth understanding of the research topic and
lived human experience, there are several limitations to this method of inquiry. The first
limitation is that qualitative research typically has a small sample size making it less likely that
the participant group is a representative sample (depending on the population). As such, findings
from qualitative studies are often limited in generalizability (Creswell, 2014; Cunliffe, 2011).
Second, in order to collect, thoroughly analyze, and code data in qualitative studies it is often
necessary to convene a research team to reduce researcher bias by incorporating multiple
perspectives. Convening a research team can be cost prohibitive and require advanced
scheduling. For this study, the research team consisted of two faculty from the college where I
teach, who assisted with the data collection and analysis, which is discussed further later in the
chapter. Third, qualitative research can be time consuming and results in large quantities of data
and documentation that require extensive data analysis. As Creswell (2014) emphasized, it is
63
important to select a research method that matches the line of inquiry rather than attempting to
align the line of inquiry to a pre-determined method. Details about how I addressed the inherent
limitations to qualitative research including the sample size and the large quantity of data from
four data sets are discussed later in Chapter III.
Research Approach and Justification
The primary focus of this study was to understand the social impacts of tourism in the
CABR and the stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in the region. This single
case study could use a quantitative approach with an online survey that has a mix of
closed-ended and open-ended questions to gather information about this topic from a wide range
of participants. However, research about the social impacts of tourism often refers to both
tangible and intangible characteristics (Scholtz & Slabbert, 2016) that are challenging to quantify
and/or to describe within the confines of a survey question or quantitative approach. As Wren
(2003) posited, the intangible impacts of tourism tend to be more challenging to see or measure,
but still have value and should be taken into consideration when examining the overarching
context of the social impacts of tourism. Examples of intangible social consequences of tourism
include community pride, goodwill, and efforts of a host community to preserve their traditional
cultural heritage (Chan, 2019; Wren, 2003).
Similar to the intangible social impacts of tourism, the dynamics of tourism planning
stem from participants’ lived experiences and are best discussed in a qualitative format to
provide an in-depth understanding and to incorporate important contextual factors that could be
missed in quantitative inquiry. Although elements of these topics could be integrated into a
survey question or quantitative study, in this setting a quantitative approach would not allow for
an in-depth understanding of the lived human experience as well as a detailed explanation about
64
how and why the intangible social impacts of tourism occur and the stakeholder dynamics related
to tourism planning. Additionally, if an online survey was conducted on this topic, the researcher
would not be present during the time the survey is completed and would not have the opportunity
to ask follow-up questions about a participant’s response or lived experience.
To explore the tangible and intangible social impacts of tourism in CABR and the
stakeholder dynamics related to tourism planning, a qualitative approach was necessary so that
participants were given the opportunity to explain their lived experiences and perceptions. By
nature, research topics related to the social impacts of tourism and the dynamics of tourism
planning call for in-depth explanation and follow-up questions to provide insight into the
complexities involved in each area. As such, the overarching method of this research was a
single exploratory case study that consisted of four phases of data collection: online media
analysis, document review, three online focus groups, and 12 semi-structured interviews.
Defining Case Study Research
According to Yin (1994), “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 13). Case studies allow the researcher to
explore organizations, individuals, communities, or programs using several data sources (e.g.,
interviews, observations, documents) to understand particular occurrences of a phenomenon
(Yin, 1994). This method is valuable for social science research as it deconstructs and
reconstructs phenomena and allows the researcher to develop theories, evaluate programs, and to
design interventions because of its flexible nature (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Case methods provide
valuable insight into real-life phenomenon by exploring a comprehensive contextual analysis of
events, conditions, and relationships related to the topic of study (Zainal, 2007). Context in case
65
study research is particularly important because the boundaries between the phenomenon and
context are not typically evident (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Yin (1994) posited that case study
research is most useful when investigating a “how” or “why” question about a group of events
that the researcher has little to no control.
History and Application of Case Study Research
Case study research emerged out of the quest to find a more comprehensive and in-depth
analysis of a situation that integrates contextual evidence in ways that quantitative methods fail
to do (Tellis, 1997). With case study methods, a researcher is able to gain a deeper understanding
of the social and behavioral conditions through the participants’ viewpoint and goes beyond the
quantitative statistical findings to explain how and why certain situations occur (Zainal, 2007).
To improve rigor, generalizability, internal validity, and the potential for theory building, a case
study can incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data that explain both the process and the
outcome of a certain phenomenon (Tellis, 1997). Case study research is particularly effective
when a researcher is attempting to explore a complex issue that requires a holistic and in-depth
investigation that cannot be understood with quantitative statistical analysis (Zainal, 2007). Case
studies are frequently used in the social sciences to investigate topics including community-
based issues such as poverty, unemployment, drug addiction, and illiteracy (Johnson, 2006),
education (Gulsecen & Kubat, 2006), sociology (Grassel & Schirmer, 2006), and government,
management, and law (Zainal, 2007).
Philosophical Foundations of Case Study Research
Yin (2003) and Stake (1995) both formulated their approach to case study research using
a constructivist paradigm. As previously stated, constructivists believe that truth is relative and
dependent on one’s unique perspective and that reality is socially constructed. According to
66
Crabtree & Miller (1999), this paradigm “recognizes the importance of the subjective human
creation of meaning, but doesn’t reject outright some notion of objectivity. Pluralism, not
relativism, is stressed with focus on the circular dynamic tension of subject and object” (p. 10).
Epistemologically, as part of the constructivist paradigm, a researcher’s role in the case study
process is critical because the researcher and participant work together to co-construct meaning
out of the phenomenon that is being studied (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). Ontologically, as part of
a constructivist paradigm, multiple unique realities exist because they are constructed by
individuals (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). One benefit (and potential risk) of this paradigm and case
study research is that there is a close connection between the researcher and the participant that
enables participants to share their personal stories and views of reality so that the researcher can
gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ actions (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). This poses a
potential risk if a researcher is unable to distance his/herself from the participant enough to
maintain a unique perspective on the topic being explored.
Case Design and Categories
There are several approaches to case study design and different categories of case studies.
Single case studies are an effective research tool for longitudinal observations, but have been
criticized for lacking generalizability (Rowley, 2002). It is important to note that in all case study
research, generalization of results is based on theory rather than sample populations (Yin, 1994).
A multiple-case study design replicates the case with pattern-making to link multiple pieces of
information from the case to a theoretical proposition in order to support previous findings
(Rowley, 2002). Pattern-making helps increase the level of confidence in the rigor of the case
method (Zainal, 2007). Although resources did not permit for a multiple-case study design for
67
this particular study, it would be a beneficial research design to consider for future explorations
to employ pattern-making to increase rigor.
Yin (1984, 1994, 2003) and Stake (1995) discussed a variety of categories of case study
research. Definitions of the different categories of case studies are provided below in Table 3.1.
For this study, an exploratory case study method was selected since there is not a clear single set
of outcomes relating to the social impacts of tourism in CABR and the stakeholder dynamics
related to tourism planning in the region.
Table 3.1
Definitions of Different Types of Case Studies
Explanatory
This type of case study would be used if you were seeking to answer a
question that sought to explain the presumed causal links in real-life
interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental
strategies. In evaluation language, the explanations would link program
implementation with program effects (Yin, 2003).
Exploratory
This type of case study is used to explore those situations in which the
intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes (Yin,
2003).
Descriptive
This type of case study is used to describe an intervention or phenomenon
and the real-life context in which it occurred (Yin, 2003).
Multiple-case studies
A multiple-case study enables the researcher to explore differences within
and between cases. The goal is to replicate findings across cases. Because
comparisons will be drawn, it is imperative that the cases are chosen
carefully so that the researcher can predict similar results across cases, or
predict contrasting results based on a theory (Yin, 2003).
Intrinsic
Stake (1995) uses the term intrinsic and suggests that researchers who
have a genuine interest in the case should use this approach when the
intent is to better understand the case. It is not undertaken primarily
because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a particular
trait or problem, but because in all its particularity and ordinariness, the
case itself is of interest. The purpose is NOT to come to understand some
abstract construct or generic phenomenon. The purpose is NOT to build
theory (although that is an option; Stake, 1995).
Instrumental
Is used to accomplish something other than understanding a particular
situation. It provides insight into an issue or helps to refine a theory. The
case is of secondary interest; it plays a supportive role, facilitating our
understanding of something else. The case is often looked at in depth, its
contexts scrutinized, its ordinary activities detailed, and because it helps
the researcher pursue the external interest. The case may or may not be
seen as typical of other cases (Stake, 1995).
Collective
Collective case studies are similar in nature and description to multiple-
case studies (Yin, 2003).
Note: Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 547. Licensed under CC by 4.0.
68
Criticisms and Disadvantages of Case Study Research
Despite the several advantages of using case study research to understand the contextual
underpinnings of a phenomenon, case studies have been subject to a variety of criticisms. Yin
(1984) explained three primary criticisms of case study research. First, case studies are often
accused of lacking rigor because case study researchers permit misleading evidence and/or
biased perspectives to influence the findings and related conclusions. Second, due to the small
number of subjects typically involved in case study research (i.e., a single case), this method
lacks generalizability. Yin (1984) posited that it is unfeasible to generalize findings from a single
case. Third, case studies can be challenging to conduct, time consuming, and tend to produce a
high volume of documentation. For example, longitudinal or ethnographic case studies produce a
significant amount of data over a long period of time and can be challenging to systematically
organize and manage for an investigator. As a single case study, this study lacks generalizability
and led to a high volume of documentation, as Yin (1984) posited.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability of a study are the core components that determine whether
research can lead to the generation of new knowledge and integration into the knowledge base of
a particular field (Rowley, 2002). Case studies have been criticized for lacking rigor and
objectivity in comparison to other social research methods, so it is important to demonstrate that
these components have been thoroughly considered. In order to determine the quality of
empirical social research, four tests are commonly used: construct validity, internal validity,
external validity, and reliability (see Table 3.2). For this study, construct validity was employed
to reduce subjectivity by inviting colleagues to assist with the focus group moderation and data
analyses for Phases 1–3. The data collection questions that were used in the focus groups and
69
interviews were connected back to the two original research questions. Detailed documentation
of the data collection procedures and data analyses of the study were compiled during each phase
of research to improve reliability and are provided later in this chapter.
Table 3.2
Four Tests Used to Determine the Quality of Empirical Social Research
[1] Construct
validity
Identifying and attempting to reduce subjectivity, connecting data
collection questions and measures to research questions and
propositions.
[2] Internal
validity
When a researcher establishes a causal relationship in which
particular conditions lead to other conditions, separating the
conditions from false relationships. (Only used for explanatory and
causal studies, not exploratory or descriptive).
[3] External
validity
Establishing the purview in which findings can be generalized in
other settings.
[4] Reliability
The researcher is able to demonstrate with detailed documentation
of procedures that the operations of a study (i.e.,, data collection)
can be replicated with the same results.
Note: Adapted from (Rowley, 2002, p. 21). Licensed under Emerald Publishing Limited 2002.
Reprinted with permission.
Ethical Considerations in Case Study Research
Since case studies often draw from several data sources, there are a considerable amount
of ethical considerations associated with case study research (Pearson et al., 2015). As
previously mentioned, case researchers often work closely with participants over a period of time
in face-to- face interactions and can develop close relationships which present ethical concerns
including respect for privacy, establishing honest and open dialogue, and avoiding
misrepresentations. A large amount of detailed data is collected during this process and can
entail very personal stories, which increases the potential of participants’ identities inadvertently
being exposed unless preventative measures are taken. Additionally, there are three primary
70
ethical concerns that should be considered in qualitative research, and specifically case-centered
studies: anonymity, confidentiality, and informed consent.
Anonymity and confidentiality are widely contested terms in research ethics that are
interpreted differently across literature. Vainio (2013) posited that “anonymity is one way to
apply confidentiality” (p. 687). The American Psychological Association (2002), British
Sociological Association (2004), and National Advisory Board on Research Ethics (2009)
defined anonymity as the process of not disclosing the identity of research respondents. Whereas
Sanjari et al. (2014) avowed that anonymity means that the researcher does not collect unique
identifiers of the participants (e.g.,, name, address, email, phone, etc.) and/or does not collect
general identifiers that combined would reveal the identity of the participant.
Although the term confidentiality is frequently used interchangeably with anonymity, the
two concepts differ in qualitative research involving human subjects (Sanjari et al., 2014).
According to Wiles et al. (2008), confidentiality in research “means not discussing information
provided by an individual with others, and presenting findings in ways that ensure individuals
cannot be identified, chiefly through anonymization” (p. 418). For this study, participants’
personal data were kept confidential in the write- up by anonymizing participants’ names with
numerical references. For example, Participant F3.1.
Informed consent (see Appendix A) is a critical part of the research process and requires
that the investigator informs the participants of all aspects of the study in advance of their
participation to give individuals the option to consent or refuse participation based on the
purpose, process, and use of the study (Sanjari et al., 2014). This step ensures transparency and
reduces the chance of unnecessary harm (e.g., social, economic, physical, and/or psychological)
to respondents. During the informed consent step, I disclosed the nature of the study, the
71
respondents’ role in the research process, the goals of the study, and how the information would
be used and disseminated. With informed consent, participation was completely voluntary and
respondents had the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
Positionality: Insiders vs. Outsiders in Qualitative Research
Positionality plays a significant role in qualitative research, and particularly in one-on-
one semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In his discussion of rapid appraisal, Beebe
(1995) made a distinction between an insider’s and an outsider’s perspective in qualitative
research and the importance of understanding both viewpoints when collecting data. In
qualitative research, rapid appraisal is a strategy to developing a preliminary understanding of a
situation in which insider and outsider perspectives are factored into the equation (Beebe, 1995).
Beebe (1995) explained that rapid appraisal consists of three main concepts: “1) A systems
perspective; 2) Triangulation of data collection; 3) Iterative data collection and analysis” (p. 42).
In rapid appraisal, a multidisciplinary team including insiders (people who operate in the system
being studied) and outsiders (who are outside of the system that is being studied, but have an
understanding of it) should be gathered in order to gain a deeper understanding of the situation
being examined from multiple perspectives (Beebe, 1995). On a rapid appraisal team, outsiders
are able to contribute valuable information about other systems and to identify possible options
and obstacles that may otherwise be overlooked by an insider (Beebe, 1995). Including insiders
on a team is beneficial for several reasons, including they have the greatest understanding of the
system at work and allow the researcher to keep people as the central focus in order to
understand the context and the phenomenon being studied (Beebe, 1995).
Considering my role as the co-chair of the CABR and my experience in the tourism
sector in the region, by Beebe’s (1995) standards, I would be considered an insider. As such, it
72
was critically important that I included outsiders from the system that I studied for my
dissertation work in order to provide a diverse range of perspectives and insights. Additionally, it
was beneficial to add insiders that varied in age, gender, and/or race from me to provide
alternative views on the inside of the tourism system in the CABR. However, insider researchers
need to be particularly careful about researcher bias as one’s personal experiences and values
may influence the research questions, design, and/or data collection (Chavez, 2008). The
following section provides an overview of the case context in which the study was conducted.
Case Study Context: Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve
The first biosphere reserves in the United States (U.S.) were designated by UNESCO in
1976 and were managed by the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, or the U.S.
Agricultural Research Service (Gregg, 1994). The national parks encompassed in the greater
boundaries of the biosphere were strictly protected core zones for conservation and established
benchmarks for monitoring environmental change against the effects of human activities in the
surrounding buffer and transitions zones. Natural resource policies in America promoted
bioregional cooperation to conserve biodiversity while addressing the human need for economic
and social development.
The setting for this case study is the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (CABR),
which received the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve designation in 1989. The expansive
CABR region is 3,990,000 hectares and includes 22 counties in north central New York and
northwestern Vermont with a cooperative management agreement extending across the Canadian
border (Bibles, 1995). The transboundary site is the largest and most populous biosphere reserve
in the contiguous United States and the fourth largest in the world. The core protected zones of
the CABR include New York's Adirondack State Park (2.4 million hectares), Vermont's Camel's
73
Hump and Mount Mansfield State Natural Areas (3,704 hectares), and a portion of the Green
Mountain National Forest (7,462 hectares). The Adirondack State Park contains the largest
designated track of wilderness land in the eastern United States. The size and scope of the CABR
creates significant management challenges for the site leaders due to the diversity in land
management, natural resources, cultural heritage, and economic development approaches across
its geographical boundaries.
CABR’s designated boundary includes a mosaic of federal, state, local, and privately
owned land and demarcates a vast area of managed use (Chilson, 2006). The Adirondack High
Peaks Region and Green Mountains are key features of the biosphere, along with Lake
Champlain, the sixth largest lake in the United States (Bibles, 1995). Due to its biodiverse
forest, mountainous topography that is ideal for outdoor recreation, and bucolic landscape, the
primary economic drivers in the Adirondack region and the New York side of Lake Champlain
are tourism and forestry. The Adirondack State Park is widely recognized as the “Great
Experiment” in conservation that provides a unique model where people and protected lands
co-exist (Chilson, 2006). Groups from as far away as Asia visit the region in hopes that they can
learn something from the Adirondack’s approach to balancing human and ecological needs
(Holmlund, 2014).
The economy on the Vermont side of the biosphere is more diverse and incorporates a
mixture of farming, forestry, tourism, light manufacturing, and the production of unique
agricultural products. The population of the biosphere is relatively small (approximately 400,000
residents) in comparison to the size of the designated territory. However, CABR is within a
24- hour drive of 60 million people living in the United States and Canada, making it an ideal
tourist destination by car (Holmlund, 2014). Although there is not a reported number of annual
74
tourist arrivals in the collective biosphere reserve territory, the Adirondack region alone receives
approximately 8 million tourists per year (“About the Adirondack Park,” n.d.), creating
significant pressure on the social and natural resources in the region.
Mission, Vision, and Goals of the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve
According to the 2019 Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve Strategic Plan,
CABR’s mission is:
To serve as a collaborative network in the Champlain-Adirondack region that empowers
citizens to build a thriving, equitable and resilient society that conserves biological
diversity and promotes sustainable uses of natural resources in the face of a warming
climate and other environmental changes (Houseal, 2019, p. 3).
CABR’s Vision is to “Inspire a positive future for the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve
by celebrating and connecting people and nature today” (Houseal, 2019, p. 3).
In addition to the four primary objectives established by the UNESCO Man and
Biosphere Program, the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve Steering Committee
consisting of 12 full-time residents of the biosphere reserve in New York and Vermont
established five marquee issues to focus on during the next five years as part of their 2019
Strategic Plan:
[1] To establish CABR as a Biosphere Reserve Collaboration Network; ‘A network of
networks’;
[2] To develop a ‘bioregional’ approach for CABR in the face of global climate change;
[3] To position CABR as an international responsible tourism destination;
[4] To act as a smart conduit for grant money;
[5] To become a research aggregator and originator. (Houseal, 2019, p. 4)
CABR’s Primary Challenges
Since CABR received the UNESCO Man and Biosphere designation in 1989, it has faced
a series of significant challenges that have prevented it from fully actualizing. Due to strict land
use policies stemming from the Adirondack Park Agency and New York State’s Department of
Environmental Conservation, the Adirondack Park has an extensive history of conflict over the
75
role of the state in regulating local land use (Bibles, 1995). Around the time that CABR was
nominated for UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program, the land use conflicts in the Adirondacks
escalated because New York State published a vision for the future development of the
Adirondack Park that local citizens disagreed with. An outspoken group of Adirondack citizens
who were concerned about an infringement on their property rights believed that the BR
designation would only increase government land use restrictions (Bibles, 1995). As a result,
skepticism and resistance to the UNESCO CABR designation spread across the Adirondack
region and into Vermont. In 1996, CABR was listed as “inactive” by the ICC due to dormancy
resulting from the spreading resistance. In 2016, as part of UNESCO’s periodic review process
for the Biosphere Reserve Program, CABR appointed two new chairs and a Steering Committee
in an attempt to reinvigorate the designation and to promote bioregional strategies to support
climate change (Houseal, 2019). In an effort to ease public anxiety about the notion of living in a
“reserve” (i.e., a no-person allowed area) and to be more welcoming, in 2019 the CABR Steering
Committee voted to change the name from Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve to
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Network (CABN; Houseal, 2019).
Other issues facing the successful implementation of CABR is that area land managers
such as the Vermont Nature Conservancy and Adirondack Park Agency have failed to garner
public interest and support for the biosphere reserve program as a vehicle to facilitate
partnerships between citizens and local governments for resource conservation and development
(Bibles, 1995). Additionally, the large size and political and social differences that exist between
New York and Vermont have contributed to the challenges in creating a single, comprehensive
BR program. Although the initial nomination and planning process for CABR involved several
state and federal agencies and university scientists, the benefits of the BR designation have yet to
76
be communicated effectively (or demonstrated convincingly) to the public. Considering that
some citizens view the designation as a threat and others question the need for another
government program, implementing the BR concepts will require a phased approach and
commitments by the CABR Steering Committee to increase public education and participation in
planning BR activities in order to meet local needs (Houseal, 2019). Lastly, one the of the most
significant obstacles for CABR is the lack of funding for the BR program from local, state, and
federal agencies (Chilson, 2006).
Research Design
Key Findings from Pilot Study to Inform Research Design
Prior to this study, a pilot study consisting of two semi-structured interviews was
conducted to do an exploratory investigation of the two research questions outlined earlier in the
chapter and to hone my semi-structured interviewing skills. Key findings from the pilot study
were used to inform the research design for this study and to develop a focus group facilitation
guide for Phase 2 (see Appendix B). The first finding from the pilot study was that there was a
rich narrative in the local newspapers that discussed the impacts of tourism on the region. This
led to the development of the Phase 1 online media analysis of three local newspapers that is
discussed in greater detail later in the chapter. The second finding from the pilot study that
influenced the research design was that there is a level of knowledge about the impacts of
tourism in the region among tourism planners, and that work is being done to address this. This
finding led to introducing a document review in Phase 1 that explored the materials and
information from the five key organizations in the Adirondacks who are responsible for tourism
planning and management to gain an understanding of what efforts are being made to address the
social impacts of tourism.
77
The pilot study indicated that residents who live in the CABR may not know what a
UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve (MAB) is and/or that they live in one. This lack of
knowledge is common amongst citizens who live in biospheres across the world typically due to
low communication budgets and low marketing expertise within the MAB Program, as well as
the challenge with conceptually explaining what a biosphere reserve is and the benefits to the
local community. The lack of knowledge about the MAB Program is an important factor in my
research question and influenced my research design since my plan was to discuss the social
impacts of sustainable tourism in the context of the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve.
In order to address this issue, I framed the focus group and interview questions according to the
Adirondack region (a term citizens are familiar with), instead of referring to it as the Champlain-
Adirondack Biosphere Reserve.
Questions from category one of the pilot study, “Regional Values,” revealed that
participants highly valued living in a protected area, the connection to nature, access to outdoor
recreation, and the sense of community that exist within CABR. It is important to consider
regional values when discussing the context of the social impacts of tourism in the CABR
because regional values provide insight into the social milieu of the area and how tourism may
potentially influence this. Therefore, if tourism influences any of these values (positively or
negatively), tourism planners and managers should consider what (if at all) should be done to
support instead of destabilizing these values. As such, questions for the Phase 2 focus groups and
Phase 3 interviews took these findings into consideration.
After interviews were conducted and analyzed in the pilot study, I recognized that the
wording on some of the questions was unclear and/or unfamiliar to the participants, which made
it challenging for them to respond. For example, the question “Are there issues (environmental,
78
economic, and/or social) associated with tourism in the region?” This question was unclear and
rephrased as “What are the negative effects of tourism in CABR?” Additionally, the question
“In your opinion, what are the primary social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve?” needed further explanation as the phrase “social impact of tourism” is not a
concept that the general public is familiar with and would know how to articulate. As such, I
reworded the question to incorporate a brief explanation of what a social impact of tourism is
such as crime, overcrowding, pride in cultural heritage, increased diversity, etc. Also, the term
“impact” has a negative connotation so I have to be mindful of using this if I am interested in
hearing about both positive and negative social influences of tourism in CABR. Due to time
constraints and participants elaborating on other topics during the pilot study, not all of the
research questions that were planned in the original interview guide were answered during the
interviews. For my dissertation work, I had to be purposeful about timing questions and keeping
participants focused on specific questions.
Lastly, the pilot study revealed an important consideration pertaining to participant
sampling. Initially, I planned on using purposive sampling with the assistance of the CABR’s
Board of Directors to recruit participants for the study, but the pilot study revealed that several of
the board members have particular views on tourism in the biosphere and may recommend
participants who also share their views. Thus, I had to be mindful of this possibility and built in
alternative sampling strategies, including snowball sampling, in order to mitigate the potential of
a biased sample. The following section provides an overview of the three research phases that I
used for my dissertation work that were informed by the findings from the pilot study.
79
Research Phases
An exploratory case study was conducted in three sequential phases using a qualitative
approach consisting of Phase 1, online media analysis and document review, Phase 2, three
online focus groups (N = 38), and Phase 3, semi-structured interviews (N = 12). Information
from each phase of the research was used to inform data collection and analysis in the next
phase. The three-phase sequential design produced an extensive data set and allowed for
in-depth analyses of each phase and practical interpretations of the findings to inform the
subsequent phase. Details regarding each phase of the data collection procedures and data
analysis are depicted below in Figure 3.1 and explained in depth in the following section.
Figure 3.1
Research Phases
Step 1: Media Analysis
3 local newpapers; 76 online
articles analyzed
Step 2: Document Review
5 tourism organizations; 16
documents analyzed
•Phase 1
3 Online Focus Groups
Tourism sector, non-tourism,
tourism planners/managers
N = 38
•Phase 2
Semi-Structured Interviews
N = 12 •Phase 3
80
Sequential Research Design
As depicted in the figure above, the research design consisted of three phases and four
data collection methods. The Phase 1 media analysis and document review provided
foundational information for the Phase 2 focus groups. The Phase 2 focus group questions were
developed based on the key themes that emerged from the media analysis and document review.
The Phase 2 focus groups confirmed and validated the findings from the media analysis and
document review. Key thematic findings from the Phase 2 focus groups were used to inform the
questions for the Phase 3 interviews. Lastly, the Phase 3 interviews confirmed, extended, and
validated the findings from Phases 1 and 2. The remainder of Chapter III discusses each phase
of research separately, including participant recruitment, data collection methods, and data
analysis.
Phase 1, Step 1: Media Analysis
To provide an understanding of the current narrative about the social impacts of tourism
in CABR and the stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in the region, an online
media analysis was conducted in Phase 1, Step 1. For the media analysis, three local daily online
news publications were selected to review articles from during the timeframe of May 1, 2020–
October 31, 2020. The publications that were reviewed were the Adirondack Daily Enterprise,
the Lake Placid News, and Adirondack Explorer. These three publications were selected because
they are the dominant daily news sources in the region and frequently publish news articles
pertaining to tourism in the Adirondacks. The timeframe of May 1, 2020 –October 31, 2020 was
selected as “overtourism” and “overuse” of outdoor recreational areas in the region became a
major topic of social discussion during this six-month timeframe because the COVID-19
pandemic shifted tourism trends from urban settings to rural natural landscapes, including
81
CABR. Findings from the online media analysis were used to inform the Phase 1, Step 2
document review and Phase 2 focus group questions.
Media Analysis Procedures
I attempted to access articles on the three publication’s websites; however, because I was
abroad in France during the data collection, I was blocked from accessing the Adirondack Daily
Enterprise and Lake Placid News websites due to the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) that exists between the United States and the European Economic Area (EEA). As an
alternative, I reviewed news headlines and brief article summaries on the Adirondack Daily
Enterprise’s and Lake Placid News’ Facebook pages to collect links to news articles that featured
keywords including “tourism,” “tourists,” “tourism management,” “tourism planning,”
“sightseers,” “vacationers,” “short-term rentals,” “Airbnb,” “visitors,” “housing,” “hikers,”
“overuse,” and/or “overtourism” all terms that are linked to the research questions about the
social impacts of tourism and stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in the
Adirondacks.
I collected a total of 44 news article links from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise’s
Facebook page that featured one or more of the above keywords from May 1, 2020–October 31,
2020, and a total of 18 news article links from the Lake Placid News’ Facebook page that
featured one or more of the above keywords. A total of 14 electronic articles primarily focused
on outdoor recreation tourism from the Adirondack Explorer were accessed directly on their
website www.adirondackexplorer.org. A total of 76 online news articles connected to the two
research questions were read, analyzed, and coded for the Phase 1 media analysis.
Media Analysis: Data Analysis and Coding
82
Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps for thematic analysis, which identifies themes and
patterns across the dataset, were used to analyze the data collected from the online media
analysis. The six-phase thematic analysis process included: familiarizing myself with the articles
from each of the three different news sources, generating the initial codes, searching for themes
among the codes, reviewing the themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final
report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method combined the systematic element of context
analysis while considering the frequency and relevance of codes in each category. Manual
coding was used in Excel to record the key themes and sub-themes from the articles. During the
coding process, an inductive approach was used to analyze the data and identify themes instead
of trying to fit the data into a pre-existing model or frame. As a result, the themes are strongly
linked to the data and provide insight into the social impacts of tourism in the Adirondacks.
Due to the high volume of articles, the articles were analyzed and coded in groups of five
at a time. First, I read and took thematic notes with a pen and paper for each of the articles. Then,
in batches of five I reviewed my notes and highlighted initial codes that answered at least one of
the two research questions. I searched for themes among the highlighted handwritten codes that
answered the research question(s), doubled checked the themes against the five articles, and then
entered the emergent key themes and sub-themes into an Excel Sheet with three separate
columns to keep track of the frequency of the themes and sub-themes across the three media
sources as they emerged. Some articles contained several different themes or sub-themes, it was
not just one theme per article. For example, dominant themes that emerged across several articles
included “us vs. them,” “overuse,” and “unprepared tourists.” Findings from the emergent
thematic analysis of the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Lake Placid News and the Adirondack
Explorer articles are discussed in Chapter IV.
83
Phase 1, Step 2: Document Review
Findings from the media analysis revealed five key organizations who played a central
role in tourism planning and management in the Adirondacks: the Regional Office of Sustainable
Tourism (ROOST), North Elba/Lake Placid Development Commission, the Adirondack Park
Agency (APA), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and
the High Peaks Advisory Group (HPAG). To gain a deeper understanding of each of these
organizations, the roles they play in tourism development in the Adirondacks, and their influence
on the social impacts of tourism in the Adirondacks, I conducted a document review that focused
on 16 different materials from these five agencies in order to form five distinct organizational
cases. Examples of some of the documents reviewed included Annual Reports, Community
Housing Survey, and the High Peaks Advisory Group Report on Overuse. Each of the 16
documents that were reviewed were accessible online via the organization’s website and
available to the general public. The five organizational cases were used to inform the questions
for the Phase 2 focus groups and Phase 3 interviews and to provide important details about what
work was being done to reduce the social impacts of tourism in the region such as the housing
crisis and overuse.
The Phase 1 media analysis explicitly referenced four of the tourism planning and
management documents that I selected to review, and I also conducted a search on each of the
organizations’ websites to find additional documents that could provide insight into the roles
each of these organizations play in tourism planning and management. To structure the document
review, I established three clear questions (related to my research questions) that I wanted to
answer about each of the five of the organizations with a systematic review of their relevant
organizational materials:
84
1. What is the organization’s role in tourism planning and management in the Adirondacks?
2. What key tourism projects, issues, and/or activities are they responsible for?
3. How (if at all) does this organization influence the social impacts of tourism in the region
and/or the stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning?
Document Review Analysis
Content analysis was used to analyze each of the 16 documents and to formulate an
organizational case for each agency. To begin, I read each document and took handwritten notes
to identify relevant content. I highlighted the key content related to the three guiding questions
listed above. I cross-referenced the content with the articles from the media analysis that
mentioned the documents and the organization’s role in tourism planning in the Adirondacks. To
form the organizational cases based on the above three guiding questions, I entered the data into
Microsoft Excel under three broad categories: (a) organization’s role in tourism, (b) current
projects/issues and/or activities related to tourism, and (c) key stakeholder dynamics and/or
social influences related to tourism. The five organizational cases were extremely valuable as I
conducted the Phase 2 focus groups and Phase 3 interviews as they provided detailed information
about the various roles that each organization played in tourism and the influences that they had
on specific aspects of tourism development. Chapter IV provides an overview of the five
organizational cases that emerged from the document review.
Phase 2: Focus Groups
The key findings from the Phase 1 media analysis and document review were used to
inform the questions for the Phase 2 Focus Group Facilitation Guide (Appendix B). Phase 2 of
the study consisted of three online focus groups. Considering the diverse stakeholder groups in
the region who at times have conflicting interests, focus groups were selected as a data collection
85
method in order to gather diverse opinions without trying to achieve consensus. Focus groups
have the advantage of encouraging dynamic discussions and providing a platform for collecting a
significant number of disparate perceptions and opinions without attempting to form a consensus
(Masadeh, 2012). It was important that a multitude of perspectives were brought to the table to
provide an in-depth understanding of the social impacts of tourism and the stakeholder dynamics
associated with tourism planning in the region. The informality of the online focus group setting
and the open nature of the discussion allowed for topics to surface that may not arise in one-on-
one interviews and from a quantitative survey (Masadeh, 2012). Additionally, focus groups were
an effective tool to gather a large amount of data in a short period of time (Masadeh, 2012).
Details regarding focus group participant recruitment, focus group procedures, and data analysis
are provided in the following section.
Focus Group Participant Recruitment
A combination of purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit participants for
the focus groups using the screening criteria outlined in Table 3.3. Prospective participants were
contacted via email using the participant recruitment email in Appendix C. Prior to each focus
group, each participant was emailed an informed consent form (see Appendix A) and a link to a
Google Form (see Appendix D) to complete an online demographic survey.
Table 3.3
Focus Group Participant Selection Criteria and Number of Participants per Focus Group
Selection Criteria
Number of Participants
Focus Group #1
Full-time resident of the Adirondacks, works in
the tourism sector
13
Focus Group #2
Full-time resident of the Adirondacks, does not
work in the tourism sector
12
Focus Group #3
Full-time resident of the Adirondacks, tourism
planner, tourism manager, or business owner
13
86
Initially, 10 participants signed up for Focus Group #1 (tourism), nine for Focus Group
#2 (non-tourism), and 10 for Focus Group #3 (tourism planners or managers; N = 29). During the
recruitment process, nine additional individuals replied that they were interested in participating
in the focus groups but could not attend due to schedule conflicts. One-on-one semi-structured
interviews on Zoom were scheduled with the participants who could not attend the focus groups
in Phase 2. Data collected from the nine participants who could not attend the focus groups due
to schedule conflicts are included in the focus group findings (N = 38) based on their sector
affiliation (i.e., tourism, non-tourism, or tourism planners/managers). Three of the participants
who were interviewed in Phase 2 were full-time residents of the Adirondacks who work in the
non-tourism sector, three were full-time residents of the Adirondacks who work in the tourism
sector, and three were full-time residents of the Adirondacks who are tourism planners or
managers. Prior to the interviews, participants were emailed an Interview Informed Consent
Form (see Appendix E) and pre-interview demographic survey (see Appendix F).
Focus Group #1 consisted of 13 full-time residents of the Adirondacks who work in the
tourism sector (including the three semi-structured interviewees). Focus Group #2 was
comprised of 12 full-time residents of the Adirondacks who do not work in the tourism sector
(including the three semi-structured interviewees). Focus Group #3 consisted of 13 full-time
residents of the Adirondacks who are responsible for tourism planning and/or tourism
management in the region (including the three semi-structured interviewees).
Focus Group Procedures
I acted as the primary focus group moderator and asked a professor from Paul Smith’s
College where I teach to act as an assistant moderator to monitor the Zoom chat, keep time, and
take notes. The assistant moderator was qualified to fulfill this role as they have a PhD, a
87
working knowledge of tourism in the Adirondacks, and familiarity with online focus group
moderation and qualitative data analysis. The goal of the focus groups was to encourage
participants to engage in a discussion amongst themselves, moderated by the focus group
facilitator. The online focus groups proved to be effective in recruiting residents from diverse
geographic locations in the Northern Adirondacks, and also allowed for private chat commenting
and an added layer of confidentiality that does not exist for in-person focus groups. More
specifically, the private direct message chat function on Zoom allowed participants to pose
questions and/or comments to the assistant moderator in private so they could share the
comments with the rest of the focus group participants without sharing the commentor’s name.
Each online focus group lasted 1.5 hours on Zoom. To assist with the data analysis, each
focus group was recorded and transcribed using Zoom and Otter.ai transcription services. All
information collected during the focus groups and interviews were de-identified, so that it could
not be connected back to the participants. Participants’ names, organizational affiliations, and
any identifying information was removed from the transcripts and their names were replaced
with numbers, such as Participant F31.1, to protect the privacy of each participant. Each
transcript was checked against the recordings for transcription errors and typos to ensure validity,
and reviewed again by the primary and assistant focus group moderators to check for accuracy.
As a form of member checking, the transcripts from Phase 2 were emailed to each participate to
check for accuracy and validity.
Focus Group Data Analysis and Coding
The three focus group discussions had several features that influenced the data analysis.
First, at times the participants provided spontaneous and/or inconsistent comments in which they
offered differing opinions during the course of the focus group. As such, during the data analysis
88
phase it was important to consider that opinions about the topic may have not been fully formed
and/or changed based on information that others presented that they may not have previously
considered. Second, some participants repeated comments several times to increase the
frequency that certain themes were discussed. However, it did not represent the extensiveness or
how many different people mentioned the concept during the focus group (Krueger, 2014). For
this reason, the data analysis also considered the extensiveness of how many different people
discussed the concept in addition to the frequency in which it was discussed. Lastly, at times
(particularly during the discussion of the negative influences of tourism on the region)
conversations tended to wander off topic and/or loop back to previous comments. During the
focus groups’ discussions I had to maintain focus on the questions without being too
heavy- handed, and in the analysis, certain sections were omitted as it did not pertain to the two
overarching research questions.
A reflexive and systematic approach was taken to analyze the focus group data to ensure
rigor and credibility and to reduce researcher bias. I used a continuous data analysis approach
that began during the first focus group data collection. By conducting the analysis as I proceeded
through Phase 2, I improved my data collection in the focus groups by refining questions and
including additional probes. I scheduled the focus groups so that I had enough time to review the
transcriptions from Zoom and Otter.ai and write a short reflective summary of the focus group
question by question. This allowed me to identify if it was necessary to get additional
information on a particular question and/or to rephrase the wording so thata it more directly
addressed the research questions. I also noted if questions warranted additional examples or
explanations. For example, in Focus Group #1, when participants were asked to discuss the
positive influences of tourism in the region, they provided general statements like “it’s good for
89
the economy.” However, to truly understand the layers of socio-economic impacts that tourism
has on the area, it was necessary for me to add additional probing questions that asked the
participants to unpack the socio-economic influences of tourism, such as “In what way is tourism
good for the economy? Or how does tourism being good for the economy influence you as a
citizen of the Adirondacks?” At the conclusion of each focus group, I had a 20–25-minute peer
debriefing with the assistant moderator on Zoom to review notes, discuss themes, participants’
dynamics, and suggestions for improvement for the next focus group.
After all three focus groups were completed, I used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps
for thematic analysis to analyze and code the data to identify emergent themes and patterns. I
analyzed and coded the focus groups one by one in order from Focus Groups 1–3 on NVivo 12
for Macs, taking time between each to reflect on the data. Transcripts from the nine Phase 1
interviews of participants who could not attend the focus groups were analyzed and coded with
their corresponding focus group sectors (i.e., tourism, non-tourism, and tourism
planners/managers). NVivo allowed for highly organized and systematic coding that considered
frequencies and the relevance of codes in each category. NVivo also made it easy to highlight
and keep track of the exemplar quotes from participants to illustrate each key theme.
Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps of thematic analysis for each focus group,
first, I read each transcript to correct for any transcription errors and typos. Second, I uploaded
the focus group/interview transcripts from Phase 2 into NVivo 12 for Macs. Third, I re-read the
transcripts in NVivo and the reflective notes that I took for each focus group/interview and
highlighted the prevalent topics. Fourth, I generated initial codes from the transcripts and sets of
notes. Fifth, I searched for emergent themes among the codes, reviewed the themes, and then
90
re-read the transcripts a third time to see if I missed anything that was relevant to the two
primary research questions. I defined and named the themes highlighting specific exemplar
quotes from each focus group and interview transcript to support the themes. The use of
inductive thematic analysis resulted in the themes being strongly linked to the data and provided
strong insights into the social impacts of tourism in the region and the complex stakeholder
dynamics related to tourism planning and management.
For the sixth step, I checked for inter-coder reliability with the assistant moderator by
sharing the transcript from Focus Group #3 and the codes I developed. The assistant moderator
was asked to code the Focus Group #3 transcript keeping the codes that I used in mind. There
was general alignment with the codes that I generated with one notable difference. I coded for
stakeholder tensions as a broad category “us vs. them,” and they coded for sub-categories of
stakeholder tensions that included local vs. tourists, business owners vs. citizens, environmental
conservationists vs. economic developers. For the final themes, I integrated the use of the
sub-themes that were suggested to distinguish between the types of stakeholder tensions. The
following section provides details about the Phase 3 interviews.
Phase 3: Semi-Structured Interviews
The final phase of data collection for this study consisted of 12 semi-structured
interviews that were conducted online on Zoom. The semi-structured interviews in Phase 3
provided an opportunity to dive deeper into the key themes that emerged from Phases 1 and 2,
and to triangulate the findings across three data sets to improve credibility, dependability, and
confirmability. Similar to the focus groups, the interviews had to be conducted in an online
format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from the Phase 2 focus groups were used to
directly inform the questions for the Phase 3 interviews (Appendix G). Details about the
91
integration of key findings from Phase 2 and how the findings were used to inform the Phase 3
interviews are provided in Chapter IV. A discussion of the participant recruitment, interview
procedures, and data analysis are provided in the following section.
Phase 3 Participant Recruitment
Both snowball sampling and purposive sampling were used to recruit participants for the
Phase 3 interviews. During the focus groups and interviews that were conducted during Phase 2,
participants provided suggestions of people who I should interview, and those interview
participants provided additional suggestions within their personal and professional networks. In
order to be able to triangulate the data sets, the interview participants for Phase 3 were not the
same participants who participated in the Phase 2 focus groups. Eligibility criteria for
participation in the interviews were that the person had to be a full-time resident of the
Adirondacks, over the age of 18, and have knowledge of the tourism industry in the
Adirondacks. Prospective participants were contacted via email using the interview participant
recruitment email in Appendix H. Prior to the interviews, each participant was emailed an
Informed Consent Form (see Appendix E) and a link to a Google Form (see Appendix F) to
complete an online demographic survey.
Interview Process
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted on Zoom video
conferencing. Each interview lasted between one hour and one hour and 15 minutes. Each
interview was recorded and transcribed using Zoom and Otter.ai transcription services. All
information collected during the interviews were de-identified, so that it could not be connected
back to the participants. Participants’ names, organizational affiliations, and any identifying
information was removed from the transcripts and replaced with generic titles such as Participant
92
P1.1 to protect the privacy of each participant. Each transcript was checked against the
recordings for transcription errors and typos to ensure validity, and reviewed again to check for
accuracy. As a form of member checking, the interview transcripts from Phase 3 were emailed to
each participate to check for accuracy and validity. Participant P3.3 replied with a transcription
typo and correction—“rurality” instead of “morality”—and Participant P3.2 replied with an
additional thought that they did not say during the interview that was added to their final
transcript.
Interview Data Analysis and Coding
After each interview, I wrote brief reflective interview memos in Microsoft Word to
highlight the key points that were discussed during the interview, to identify topics that
warranted further exploration in later interviews, to tie the topics to themes that emerged in
Phases 1 and 2, and to consider how (if at all) my insider position as a researcher could be
influencing my perception of what was shared. The interview memos were a useful tool to help
with meaning making during the data analysis and coding process and to address any potential
researcher biases that occurred as a result of my insider position.
Following the media analysis, document review, and three focus groups that were
conducted in Phases 1 and 2, saturation was reached in Phase 3 after the third interview. Since I
had the rest of the interviews already scheduled, I proceeded with the 12 interviews.
Similar to Phase 2, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps for thematic analysis were used
to analyze and code the Phase 3 interview data to identify emergent themes and patterns. First, I
read each interview transcript to correct for any transcription errors and typos. Second, I re-read
the transcripts and took notes to compare to the notes that I took during and after the interviews
and highlighted the dominant topics. Third, I uploaded the 12 transcripts into NVivo 12 for Macs
93
and generated initial codes from the transcripts and sets of notes. Fourth, I searched for emergent
themes among the codes, reviewed the themes, and then re-read the transcripts a third time. Fifth,
I defined and named the themes highlighting specific exemplar quotes from each interview
transcript to support the themes. Sixth, to check for inter-coder reliability, I contacted the
colleague who had assisted with moderating the focus groups in Phase 2. I provided them with
the transcripts from the interviews for Participants P3.2 and P3.3 and the codes I developed for
each and asked them to review the data considering the codes I developed. They corroborated the
codes and suggested that I change the title of Theme 6 from environmental integrity to
environmental value to better reflect the participants’ contributions and discussion of the
environmental value of the Adirondacks. They also suggested adding a sub-theme of Leave No
Trace under Theme 1, need for improved environmental education to discuss specific tactics, but
after deliberation it was decided to keep Theme 1 as a broad category and discuss Leave No
Trace ethics within that theme.
Mapping of Key Findings
The key themes that emerged from the data collection methods in Phases 1–3–media
analysis, document review, focus groups, and interviews—were mapped onto existing models
that assess the social impacts of tourism on host destinations that were discussed in Chapter II.
The two models that the findings were mapped onto are Murphy’s (1983) social carrying
capacity model and Szromek et al.’s (2020) updated version of Butler’s (1980) Tourism Area
Lifecycle Model (TALC) that overlays key concepts from sustainable development. The benefits
of the mapping exercises were that they illustrated residents’ current perceptions of the social
impacts of tourism in CABR and where the destination is in its tourism lifecycle from a
sustainability standpoint. This information can be useful to tourism planners and managers if
94
they are interested in planning and maintaining a sustainable model for tourism that considers the
social, economic, and environmental well-being of its stakeholders. Lastly, based on the findings
from Phases 1–3, the key stakeholders who are involved in tourism in the region were plotted
onto a Stakeholder Attitude and Impact Matrix to assess each stakeholders’ attitude towards
tourism (positive or negative) and the degree of impact they have on tourism in the region (low
impact or high impact). This information is useful to tourism planners to gain an understanding
as to where key stakeholders are in their degree of support or opposition to tourism and the level
of influence they have on tourism planning in the area. Details about the mapping of key findings
and the discussion are provided in Chapter V.
Ethical Considerations
Measures were put into place throughout the duration of this study in order to protect the
confidentiality of participants and to reduce harm. Prior to Phase 1, an Ethics Application was
completed and submitted to Antioch University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to identify
and address the ethical implications of the study (see Appendix I). Prior to the focus groups and
interviews, each participant was sent an Informed Consent Form to review and sign that outlined
the purpose of the study, study procedures, risks to confidentiality, and where the information
will be disseminated. Since CABR is a sparsely populated area and there was a chance that
participants may know each other in the focus groups, I notified focus group participants in
advance on the Informed Consent Form that there was a risk of potentially knowing the other
participants and gave them a chance to withdraw from the study at any time. Additionally, at the
beginning of each focus group and interview, I reiterated the importance of maintaining
participant confidentiality and asked focus group participants to maintain confidentiality of the
other participants by not disclosing their names or the information that was shared.
95
To reduce the likelihood of a participant being identified, their names were replaced with
unique identifiers such as Participant F3.6 and all documents were kept on a password protected
computer that is only accessible to me. Any identifying information that a participant discussed
was removed and omitted from the transcript and will not be included in any publications or
presentations related to this study. Each of these measures adhere to ethical standards set forth by
the Belmont Report and minimize risks to participant’s confidentiality.
During the IRB application process for the pilot study, several ethical considerations
emerged that were taken into account for my dissertation research. First was how the COVID-19
pandemic and racial tensions in the U.S. may potentially influence participants’ responses and
the level of risk (e.g.,, emotional and/or psychological harm) associated with conducting a study
related to tourism. It is important to consider the negative impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic
has had on the tourism industry in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve (and beyond)
and the potential social, economic, and/or psychological harm this could have (or had) on
employees in this sector. Additionally, the current discourse on race in America and racial
injustice could influence the way that participants interpret and respond to questions about the
social impact of tourism. Additional care was taken in the research process and questions were
sensitive to the current social and economic context in the U.S. in order to reduce potential harm
to participants.
The second takeaway was the critical importance of addressing researcher bias and taking
measures to maintain a neutral position by avoiding leading responses to participants’ answers
during the interview process. My knowledge of the topic and opinion of how tourism is planned
and managed in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve influences my own researcher
bias and, in turn, the way I engage in conversations around the topic. As such, it was increasingly
96
important that I build in pauses and neutral language in response to participants’ answers during
the focus groups and interviews.
Study Design Limitations
Similar to all scholarly inquiry, the design of this study has several limitations. First, due
to the COVID-19 pandemic all focus groups and interviews were conducted online on Zoom,
which limited the participant group to individuals who have a computer with Internet access.
Second, although efforts were made to recruit a diverse population of participants who vary in
race, age, gender, and socio-economics, most of the participants came from my professional and
personal network, which limited the diversity of respondents and may not be a representative
sample.
Third, the CABR is a transboundary biosphere reserve that extends over the New York
and Vermont state borders, but due to the unique social, ecological, and economic features
related to tourism on the New York side of CABR, this study only collected data on the New
York side in the Adirondack High Peaks Region. This area was selected since it is a popular
tourist destination particularly among outdoor recreationists and attracts on average between 9–
10 million visitors per year, while there are only 130,000 year-round, full-time residents who live
in Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park was established in 1892 by New York State and
contains the largest designated track of wilderness land in the eastern U.S. (Adirondack Park
Agency, n.d.). The expansive Adirondack Park includes over 105 towns and villages with 3,000
lakes and ponds, 30,000 miles of streams and rivers, 2,000 miles of trails, hundreds of
mountains, and dozens of public campgrounds and hundreds of primitive campsites and shelters
in the backcountry that provides extensive outdoor recreation opportunities for locals and tourists
(Adirondack Park Agency, n.d.).
97
Approximately 52% of land in the Adirondack Park is privately owned and protected by
easements that limit development and open private land to various public uses such as outdoor
recreation and hunting (Cuomo et al., n.d.). The Adirondack Park Agency is responsible for
regulating land use and tourism activity on public and private lands in the park in collaboration
with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Cuomo et al., n.d.). The
primary industries and economic drivers in the Adirondack region are tourism and forestry, while
Vermont’s economy is supported by several industries including farming, light manufacturing,
forestry, tourism, and production of specialized agricultural products (Bibles, 1995). The high
number of annual visitors and strict land use regulations in the Adirondack High Peaks Region of
New York create a complex relationship with tourism, especially considering that tourism is one
of the primary economic drivers and source of employment for the local community (Bibles,
1995). This unique economic, environmental, and social setting in the Adirondack High Peaks
Region (NY) of CABR has led to increased discussions on the social impacts of tourism in the
area and how tourism can be planned in a sustainable manner (Cuomo et al., n.d.). As such, the
Adirondack High Peaks Region (NY) of CABR was an ideal setting to explore for this case
study.
Chapter Summary
An exploratory case study of the Adirondack High Peaks Region of the CABR was
conducted to explore the social impacts of tourism in the region and to understand the
stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning in the area. Data were collected in three
sequential phases: Phase 1, media analysis and document review, Phase 2, focus groups (N = 38),
and Phase 3, semi-structured interviews (N = 12). Data were analyzed using emergent thematic
coding and analyzed by the researcher and a research buddy to mitigate researcher bias. Findings
98
from each phase were used to inform questions and data gathering in the subsequent phase.
Results from Phases 1–3 were mapped onto existing social impacts of tourism models to provide
insights into residents’ perceptions of the social influences of tourism. Findings from Phases 1–3
were also used to construct a Stakeholder Attitude and Impact Matrix to gain a deeper
understanding of the stakeholders involved in tourism in the Adirondack High Peaks Region of
CABR, their attitudes of tourism, and their level of impact with tourism planning. Chapter IV
provides an overview of the research findings, including the key themes and subthemes that
emerged from Phases 1–3, as well as a comparison of key themes across the data sets.
99
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
This chapter focuses on the key findings from the online media analysis, document
review, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews described in Chapter III. The findings are
presented in the order that the research was conducted from Phase 1 through Phase 3, and the key
themes are integrated across data sets at the end of the chapter (see Figure 4.1). The study design
is sequential, so a complete data analysis and report of key themes for each phase was used to
directly inform the structure of the subsequent phase. The four different data collection methods
from Phases 1, 2, and 3 were used for triangulation purposes to assess the social impacts of
tourism in the Adirondacks and the stakeholder dynamics associated with tourism planning from
a range of sources to increase credibility.
Figure 4.1
Research phases
Step 1: Media Analysis
3 local newpapers; 76 online
articles analyzed
Step 2: Document Review
5 tourism organizations; 16
documents analyzed
•Phase 1
3 Online Focus Groups
Tourism sector, non-tourism,
tourism planners/managers
N = 38
•Phase 2
Semi-Structured
Interviews
N = 12 •Phase 3
100
To begin, findings from the Phase 1 online media analysis and document review are
discussed. Next, the Phase 2 focus groups are explained, along with the participants’
demographics and key thematic findings. Lastly, the Phase 3 semi-structured interviews are
discussed, including the key findings and the participants’ demographics. To conclude, I discuss
the key themes that emerged across the three data collection phases with findings from the media
analysis, document review, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews.
The primary research questions used to guide the three phases of data collection for this
study were:
1. What are the social impacts of tourism in the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve?
2. What are the stakeholders’ dynamics that influence tourism planning in Champlain-
Adirondack Biosphere Reserve?
Phase 1: Media Analysis
Phase 1 consisted of two steps, step one was an online media analysis from May 1, 2020
to October 31, 2020, and step two was a document review to provide a deeper understanding of
the social issues related to tourism in CABR and the stakeholder dynamics in tourism planning.
The timeframe for the online media analysis was selected as it is considered peak tourist season
in the Adirondacks and discussions about tourism during this time illustrated the narrative of
social issues and stakeholder dynamics. The media analysis was conducted first to provide
insights into the community narrative around the social influences of tourism in the region and
the stakeholder dynamics related to tourism planning. The document review was used to gain a
deeper understanding of the roles of the five main agencies responsible for tourism planning and
management in the region and the dynamics that exist between each of the five agencies. Both
101
the media analysis and document review acted as complementary data collection procedures in
support of triangulation and theory building. In this phase, the thematic analysis was the initial
step of identifying general themes—not to create an exhaustive list, but instead to identify key
themes that were used as a basis to formulate questions and talking points for the Phase 2 focus
groups.
Media Analysis Key Themes
The results from the media analysis are organized by themes derived from the online
article reviews. Table 4.1 presents these, and each theme and sub-theme are described further in
the subsequent discussion.
102
Table 4.1
Media Analysis Themes and Sub-themes by Publication and Frequency (f)
Themes and Sub-themes
Adirondack
Daily Enterprise
(f)
Lake Placid
News (f)
Adirondack
Explorer (f)
Total
Frequency
Across
Publications
(f)
1. Overuse
14 (31.8%)
7 (38.8%)
8 (57.1%)
29 (38.2%)
2. Us vs. them
12 (27.2%)
10 (55.5%)
6 (42.9%)
28 (36.8%)
2.1 Locals vs. tourists
6 (13.6%)
5 (27.7%)
3 (21.4%)
14 (18.4%)
2.2 Tourism planners
vs. citizens
4 (9%)
3 (16.7%)
2 (14.2%)
9 (11.8%)
2.3 Environmental
conservationists
vs. economic
developers
2 (4.5%)
2 (11.1%)
1 (7.1%)
5 (6.5%)
3. Unprepared tourists
13 (29.5%)
3 (16.7%)
6 (42.9%)
22 (28.9%)
4. COVID-19
exacerbated impacts
9 (20.4%)
4 (22.2%)
6 (42.9%)
19 (25%)
5. Lack of capacity and
resources to support
demand
8 (18.2%)
2 (11.1%)
5 (35.7%)
15 (19.7%)
6. Inequality
7 (15.9%)
4 (22.2%)
3 (21.4%)
14 (18.4%)
7. Insufficient
infrastructure
7 (15.9%)
3 (16.7%)
3 (21.4%)
13 (17.1%)
8. Lack of affordable
housing
5 (11.3%)
5 (27.7%)
0 (0%)
10 (13.1%)
Theme 1: Overuse (f = 29). The most dominant theme that emerged from the media
analysis was overuse. This theme appeared in 29 of the 76 total articles (38.2%). Overuse was
characterized in media articles with descriptions that mentioned the increase in number of
visitors, overcapacity, increased impact on trails, including soil erosion and trash, overflow in
parking areas, and traffic. The media review revealed a wide variety of reasons for overuse and
the increase in tourism including successful destination marketing efforts, increase in the number
and frequency of large- scale sporting events in the area, a heightened interest in outdoor
103
recreation, and that the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged people to seek rural outdoor activities.
Although the articles consistently mentioned an increase in tourism, particularly during the
COVID-19 pandemic and during the Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Columbus Day holidays,
numerical data and tourism statistics were not provided to substantiate the claims. The following
excerpts provide examples of the overuse theme that emerged from the media analysis:
Overuse is the word of the summer here in the Adirondacks. The influx of people feels
unprecedented for a number of reasons. Parking areas are being pushed well past their
maximum; search-and-rescue numbers are up; campsites and lean-tos are overrun and
covered in trash. (Floss, 2020c)
Overcrowding along trails in the vast Adirondacks has been a growing problem for years,
and it’s been exacerbated this year by the COVID-19 pandemic as travelers stay within
driving distance of their homes and seek safe, outdoor activities. (Silvarole, 2020)
Hiker traffic in the Adirondack Park has reached historic levels—including many new
visitors looking to get outdoors this summer following months of stay-at-home
recommendations amid the coronavirus pandemic. Faced with that, the DEC set up three
new information stations in Lake Placid, Keene Valley and North Hudson this month.
The state also started sending out 511 alerts about trailhead parking along state Route 73.
(Izzo, 2020e)
There are many in the watershed who would suggest the carrying capacity of the
watershed has already been exceeded. (Lynch, 2020b)
Theme 2: Us vs. them (f = 28). The second most dominant theme that emerged from the
media analysis was the “us vs. them” theme. This theme appeared in 28 out of the 76 (36.8%)
media articles. The media analysis revealed three different iterations of the us vs. them theme
related to the social impacts of tourism in the Adirondacks and the dynamics related to tourism
planning and management in the region. The broad theme of us vs. them illustrates the complex
social dynamics associated with tourism in the northern Adirondack High Peaks Region and the
range of competing stakeholder interests within the Adirondack tourism ecosystem. The
following section provides an overview of the three sub-themes related to us vs. them that
emerged from the media analysis—local vs. tourists, tourism planners vs. citizens, and
104
environmental conservationists vs. economic developers—along with exemplar quotes from a
selection of articles to illustrate each sub-theme.
Sub-theme 2.1: Locals vs. tourists (f = 14). The first and most dominant sub-theme of “us
vs. them” that emerged in the media analysis was locals vs. tourists. In total, this theme emerged
in 14 of the 76 articles (18.4%) that were analyzed. Articles in the three media sources, the
Adirondack Daily Enterprise, the Lake Placid News, and the Adirondack Explorer, discussed news
stories that covered situations where local interests appeared to be at odds with tourists’ actions,
which created in-fighting amongst the locals about if/how to welcome tourists. The frequency of
articles which featured the locals vs. tourists theme increased around the Memorial Day holiday
(May 25, 2020) and the Labor Day holiday (September 7, 2020) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Visitor usage in the Adirondack High Peaks increased during this weekend as residents residing
in cities within a six-hour drive to the Adirondacks sought outdoor recreation activities outside of
the city. In response to the increase in visitors during Memorial Day, a small group of locals who
live in the Adirondack High Peaks Region organized a protest near the exit from the highway
against tourists with signage that read “Anywhere But Here” and “You’re Welcome to Go Home”
(Floss, 2020a). The following two excerpts from two different Adirondack Daily Enterprise
columns dated May 26, 2020, illustrate the converse of the locals vs. tourists theme and how some
locals prefer unity over division:
I drove past a few people protesting from a pullover near a busy hiking trail. Yes, it was
busy. Cars filled every spot, and people were milling around without a mask in sight. I
noticed the written posters were aimed at sending people home, not about educating
them. I did not stop to interview these people or find out who they were. It’s just my gut
reaction, as someone who lives here, this was about ‘us’ versus ‘them.’ Again, on
Memorial Day weekend, I would have liked to see unity. (Chase, 2020)
The truth is that no one has any more or less right to feel entitled to wild forest. We can
doll it up with all the patriotic American individualism we want, but if wilderness is best
defined as a space where humans are only visitors, then we need to keep that in mind as
105
we consider whether to condemn other people for wanting to enjoy it as well. (Floss,
2020b)
Sub-theme 2.2: Tourism planners vs. citizens (f =9). The second sub-