Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and protected areas

Eagles, Paul F. J.

doi:10.1080/09669580802495725

Cited by 180 publications

(190 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Critical to these future efforts is such research being undertaken by a wide range of protected area managers, beyond government-managed entities. This expanded range includes indigenous and private arrangements, plus numerous combinations (Eagles, 2009). The Delphi process underpinning this study provides an effective means for undertaking future research.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators for assessing good governance of protected areas: Insights from park managers in Western Australia

Shields¹,

Moore²,

Eagles³

2016

PARKS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective management of protected areas relies on good governance. An assessment was undertaken using the standards provided by the United Nations Development Programme's characteristics of good governance for sustainable development as a starting point. Being able to assess governance based on indicators is essential for ongoing effective management through improving practice. Although indicators and evaluation frameworks are available, they do not offer protected area managers a quick, comprehensive measure of governance. We used a three-round Delphi method with a cohort of 33 managers and researchers from government and non-government organizations, and universities. This participatory research process established a set of 20 indicators addressing public participation, consensus orientation, strategic vision, responsiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, transparency, equity, and rule of law. Accompanying output measures were provided by management plans, annual reports, audits, and stakeholder engagement. The findings emphasize the contributions of management plans and annual reports in establishing evaluation requirements and providing a place where results are publicly available. Further participatory research to refine these indicators and apply them in a diversity of contexts is advocated.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators for assessing good governance of protected areas: Insights from park managers in Western Australia

Shields¹,

Moore²,

Eagles³

2016

PARKS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conceptually this paper contributes to the debate on the governance of PAs which has attracted increasing scholarly interest (Armitage et al 2012;Dearden et al 2005;Eagles 2014Eagles , 2009. Governance is globally recognized as a key issue of PA research to better understand emerging governance arrangements and to improve the effectiveness of PA governance.…”

Section: Governance Of Pas: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

New governance of protected areas: regional nature parks in Switzerland

Pütz¹,

Gubler²,

Willi³

2017

ecomont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governance of protected areas is a rapidly growing research field as new actors rather than governments play crucial roles in decision-making processes, and new forms and mechanisms of decision-making complement existing regulations. However, little is known about the key characteristics of new forms of protected area governance and how they differ from older governance concepts. In this paper we use the example of newly established regional nature parks in Switzerland to address similarities and differences between new and older concepts of governance, and to address similarities and differences between different regional practices of new protected area governance across Switzerland. Drawing on different empirical sources and methods, our findings reveal diverse governance practices of regional nature parks in Switzerland. We identified three forms of park organization: (i) organized as association; (ii) parks affiliated to single municipalities; and (iii) parks associated with a regional development bodies. Different governance practices also result from different forms of regional embeddedness between top-down and bottom-up approaches and the related tensions.

show abstract

“…There was very little support in the focus groups for options moving toward public--private partnerships with the tourism industry and community groups, with participants echoing concerns in the literature about their implications for good governance (Eagles 2009). …”

Section: Reform Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clement, S., Moore, S.A., Lockwood, M. and Mitchell, M. (2015)Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity.Policy Sciences, 48 (4 Mitchell) AbstractThe poor performance of biodiversity institutions has prompted calls for reform. Adaptive governance has been promoted as a means of supporting improved biodiversity outcomes. However, incorporating adaptive elements into biodiversity governance has been a challenge. In particular, efforts to make institutions more 'adaptive' often fail to account for existing capacity and context--specific factors. Clear guidance on how to move from general, ambitious adaptive governance prescriptions to specific, context--dependent recommendations is needed. This paper demonstrates how insights from pragmatism can inform an approach for designing institutional reforms that address current shortcomings in adaptive governance approaches. This design scaffolds reform options on a platform of existing competency and institutional legacy. Informed by the results of a prior institutional diagnosis, reform development followed a three--stage process: defining plausible reform spaces; identifying reform possibilities within these spaces; and elaborating reform options. Two very different landscapes provided the case studies: a highly modified agricultural landscape, where private landholders are responsible for managing biodiversity as a public good; and a group of national parks, where the state holds primary responsibility. The reforms in the agricultural landscape build on successful landholder and organizational efforts to self--organize and pursue innovative solutions, while those for the protected area enable greater managerial discretion and address the challenges of working across multiple government jurisdictions. This context--driven approach draws on insights from pragmatism to provide guidance on the design of institutional reforms that meet the demands of adaptive governance in a way that is both systematic and realistic.

show abstract

Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and protected areas

Cited by 180 publications

References 13 publications

Indicators for assessing good governance of protected areas: Insights from park managers in Western Australia

Indicators for assessing good governance of protected areas: Insights from park managers in Western Australia

New governance of protected areas: regional nature parks in Switzerland

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About