Sustainable ecotourism management and visitor experiences: managing conflicting perspectives in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA

ABSTRACT

Management of tourism attractions, including national parks, emphasizes partnership and collaboration among various stakeholders for resource sustainability and visitor satisfaction. Balancing visitor experiences, park resources, and concessionaires’ support for park policy and programs, however, has always been challenging. Past studies have attempted to address issues related to park management/stakeholders, collaboration, partnership, and governance, yet few have examined how differing perspectives of management and service providers (e.g. concessionaires) impact sustainable ecotourism management and visitor experiences. The purpose of this research was to explore perceptions (both similar and dissimilar) of two key stakeholders – park managers and concessionaires inside the park – at Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), U.S.A., regarding sustainable ecotourism management and visitor experiences. Twenty-seven park concessionaires and nine management staff responded to a brief questionnaire. Results showed varying areas of agreement and disagreement. While both groups agreed on ecotourism activities and their overall positive impacts, opinions differed on carrying capacity, horse use impact, and visitor conflict issues. Analyzing and discussing these differences from the theoretical perspectives of stakeholder and collaboration theories, the research carries management implications as well as a need for additional research.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsible tourism
• ecotourism
• partnership
• park management strategies
• park stakeholders

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the management of Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) for their authorization of the study, as well as their assistance with data collection efforts. The management opinions expressed herein are of the authors and do not represent the official viewpoint of RMNP management.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. It is interesting to note that of the 55 parks in the National Geographic study, the majority of Canadian parks are in the top score category, the reason being ‘By law, Parks Canada must first protect the environment, whereas Congress demands the U.S. National Park Service protect nature while also promoting outdoor recreation, dual mandates that can conflict when too many park-lovers show up’ (Tourtellot, 2005, p.85).