Living on the edge: benefit-sharing from protected area tourism

Abstract

Tourism in protected areas not only plays an essential role in terms of contributing to the financial sustainability of protected areas but through effective and efficient benefit-sharing can positively impact numerous stakeholders within and beyond the protected area. This paper provides a brief analysis of the evolution of benefit-sharing from protected area tourism, discussing tangible and intangible benefits and highlighting that revenue-sharing is only one way of sharing benefits from tourism and protected areas. The paper highlights the complexity of benefit-sharing, the importance of identifying all relevant stakeholders, the challenges of ensuring equity and sustainability and the critical importance of good governance. The evolution of benefit-sharing mechanisms over time emphasises a continuing need to evolve and adapt to each unique situation, as much evidence indicates that little has changed for those living on the edge. Although this paper focuses on benefit-sharing from protected area tourism, it is essential to acknowledge that along with these benefits are costs associated with tourism, including possible increased local prices, loss of access to land, human-wildlife conflict, and other related costs. Recommendations for future research are included to encourage an ongoing evolution and improvement in benefit-sharing mechanisms.

Keywords:

• Benefits-sharing
• conversation
• community development
• sustainable tourism

Living on the edge: an introduction

“Most of the richest ecosystems host human populations which have lived in harmony with nature for centuries. These populations are now among the poorest in the world and depend entirely on the natural resources that surround them. If we want to conserve our natural capital and have access to genetic resources, we must recognize the contribution of native peoples and developing countries in maintaining these resources and share with them the benefits arising from their exploitation.” Biber-Klemm and Martinez (2006, p. 4)

Society lauds protected areas (PAs) as one way of conserving biodiversity, ecosystem services and supporting human well-being. They are an integral part of sustainable development strategies, supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One aspect of human well-being relates to the sharing of benefits from these PAs. For the purposes of this introduction, we define benefit sharing as “a commitment to channel some returns, whether monetary or non-monetary, back to the range of designated participants: affected communities, source communities or source nations, participants in clinical trials, genetic disease patient groups” (P2P (2019), http://research.iftf.net/node/721). Therefore, benefits include both tangible and intangible benefits, ranging from direct financial benefits from the PAs, the ability to use the natural resources in the PA, to the ecosystem services resulting from the conservation within the PA. Many of these benefits are difficult to measure, and often even more challenging to communicate to those living around the PA. Research has shown that even the communication and measurement of tangible, financial benefits from, for example, tourism within PAs, is on an ad hoc basis with many governments being unaware of the total contribution to their economies (Rylance, Snyman, & Spenceley, 2017). So how then do we ensure that people support conservation if they are not aware of the value of the PAs and the benefits that they are receiving?

Regardless of the debate as to whether increased population growth around PAs, due to the creation of employment from PA tourism, or due to the ecosystem services provided (Igoe et al., 2008; Wittemeyer et al., 2008), poverty levels around PAs are often some of the highest in the world. Therefore, despite the primary role of PAs to conserve biodiversity, protected areas and issues of poverty are interlinked, creating both a moral and ethical responsibility for some action (Scherl et al., 2004). So what is the responsibility of PAs in the provision of benefits to people living on the edge and what role do they play in addressing local poverty reduction? Given many local communities’ reliance on natural resources for survival (Sanderson & Redford, 2003; Snyman, 2013) and restrictions often placed on them due to the establishment of PAs, it is argued that PAs do have a responsibility to provide benefits and to reduce surrounding poverty (Scherl et al., 2004; Woodhouse et al., 2018). For example, in South Africa, South African National Parks, a parastatal organization managing the majority of PAs in the country, has a People and Parks programme to ensure the engagement of people in, and the provision of benefits to them, from the PAs. This trend has experienced steady growth, with the realisation that without the support of communities, PAs will not survive. As the late Nelson Mandela said ‘ultimately conservation is about people. If you don’t have sustainable development around these (wildlife) parks, then people will have no interest in them, and the parks will not survive” (African Impact Foundation, 2018, p. 1).

The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress adopted as a principle the following statement: “protected area establishment and management should contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty" (Recommendation 5.29, in Scherl et al., 2004, p. 40). Also, at the 2005 Vth IUCN World Parks Congress, the theme of ‘benefits beyond boundaries’ and international support for more participatory governance and the sharing of benefits highlighted the linkages between poverty and protected areas.

Many would argue that 14 years later we are still struggling to ensure that these benefits beyond boundaries are perceived to be and being received. If conservation agencies were able to acknowledge and recognise the role of local communities and Indigenous people in the management of PAs, Kothari (2008) predicts there would be a dramatic increase in public support for (1) conservation and expansion of various kinds of protected areas; and, (2) a reduction in the conflicts that plagued many existing protected areas. However, this is not the reality to date. With an ever-expanding human population and increasing competition for land, we see more conflicts over land, with accompanying negative attitudes towards conservation. Human–wildlife conflict is often the perpetrator and the opportunity costs of conservation, which results in increasing pressure on PAs to provide benefits to those living in and around them. This competition between different land uses likely to continue to increase, primarily as developing countries focus on industry and development to develop their economies and reduce poverty. The issue of benefit-sharing from protected areas, and especially from the tourism in these areas, is going to become even more critical (hence the United Nations declaring 2018 the Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development).

Over the past four decades, there has been a 10-fold increase in the number of PAs globally. This increase has primarily been due to signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) striving to achieve Aichi Target 11:

“By 2020, at least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water area and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape” (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2019).

According to the latest report by the United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), globally we are heading towards the achievement of Aichi Target 11 in terms of the stated percentages of land and marine areas conserved. However, how well have we done in achieving effective and equitable management? In terms of equity, many communities living around PAs would argue that not much has changed.

Although the number and size of PAs has been increasing, the funding that is available to manage them has remained generally stagnant (Emerton et al., 2006) and in many cases has declined, resulting in significant shortfalls and insufficient means to ensure effective achievement of conservation and livelihood goals (Bovarnick et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2014). PA financing shortfalls are most intense in developing countries. Yet, the current financial needs for PAs in developing countries are thought to range between USD 1.1 billion, to cover the core operations, and approximately USD 2.5 billion to cover the very basic range of actions necessary to ensure effective management (Eagles & Hillel, 2008; Emerton et al., 2006; Lindsey et al., 2018; Rylance et al., 2017). These funding shortfalls highlight a potential challenge for PAs in terms of benefit-sharing, especially with local communities. If they are unable to fund necessary operational expenses, how will they then share benefits, particularly financial benefits, with those living on the edge? So, what is the solution?

To ensure that PAs are effectively managed through appropriate levels of funding, innovative and creative mechanisms to support this funding are needed. New approaches such as impact investing are growing in number (see for example Conservation Capital: https://www.conservation-capital.com), the promotion of legacy funds is another. Protected area tourism too can, if well managed, contribute to this shortfall. It is, however, not a panacea, despite a recent focus to expand and grow tourism in all PAs, it is not relevant or suitable in all PAs, and should only provide one option in a suite of funding options.

Sustainable tourism and sustainable development

The World Bank Group (2017) states that sustainable tourism is a proven tool for development which benefits communities in destinations as it is highly labour intensive, it facilitates new infrastructure development, it can help to fund conservation and can contribute to international understanding and peace. Recent trends in government (especially in Africa and Latin America), is to focus on tourism as a critical development tool reinforces perceptions that tourism is a powerful vehicle for economic growth and development, while at the same time has the potential to support conservation. This idea stems in part from the view, the environment may be a threat and a consumption opportunity for the poor, yet is a luxury (recreational) suitable for the wealthy. Also, this line of thinking supports a venue for wealth transfer from the affluent who want to enjoy the environment, to the poor, who frequently suffer from it (Snyman, 2013). PA tourism can create this avenue. Heavy reliance on tourism as the only driver of sustainable development and wealth transfer is, however, risky and may raise unachievable expectations. The management of the expectations of what PA tourism can deliver is a key challenge. An over-reliance on tourism as a development tool and sustainable financing option for PAs has resulted in high expectations of what tourism delivers. It would be prudent to manage these expectations, especially in terms of benefit-sharing: for whom and how many can benefit, and by how benefits are realized?

Globally, PAs receive roughly eight billion visits per year, of which more than 80% are in Europe and North America, not in areas where there is the highest poverty (Balmford et al., 2015). Their study indicated these visits generate much more than is currently spent on conserving PAs, with approximately USD 600 billion per year in direct in-country expenditure and USD 250 billion per year in consumer surplus (Balmford et al., 2015). Research has demonstrated an increase in nature-based tourism can significantly impact the operational management of PAs, with the related increase in economic benefits supporting the financial sustainability of conservation efforts (Kim et al., 2019). So how do we ensure that these growing receipts from tourism, are funding conservation, and shared equitably with stakeholders? This special issue provides evidence of ways in which benefits are being shared, the challenges of benefit-sharing and how to overcome these.

We continue our introduction of this special issue through a brief analysis of the evolution of benefit-sharing from PA tourism; identifying some of the issues and challenges, and utilizing themes identified by papers within this issue, including: stakeholder engagement; governance; and the impacts of benefit-sharing; and conclude with a brief analysis of the papers within this issue. Although we focus primarily on benefit-sharing from PA tourism, it is essential to acknowledge that along with these benefits there are often costs associated with tourism, including the potential for increased local prices, loss of access to land, human-wildlife conflict, and so on.

Evolution of benefit-sharing

Very early on in the evolution of ecotourism or nature-based tourism, PA managers, non-governmental organisations, communities, and other relevant stakeholders have recognised separating people from parks was not a sustainable strategy. Hard lessons were learned, with the realisation, in order to conserve ecosystems, people living in and around protected areas must receive benefits. Early benefit models highlighted the utilisation of local procurement, continued access to natural areas, local revenue-sharing, and local employment as typical benefit-sharing processes. Many have argued that these processes were far more complex and required substantial considerations for effective benefit-sharing to be realised. In essence, benefit-sharing must be ample enough to contribute to livelihood needs and compensate residents living next to a protected area (Adams et al., 2004). The primary mechanism was financial and primarily through revenue-sharing (Ahebwa et al., 2012; Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001; Umuziranenge & Muhurwa, 2017). This mechanism was meant to demonstrate a simultaneous connection with local communities, which in turn assisted in meeting conservation goals (Ahebwa, van der Duim, & Sandbrook, 2012). More recently, those embracing of successful revenue-sharing have included: long-term institutional support; appropriate identification of target communities and project types; transparency and accountability; adequate funding and the development of realistic expectations (Spenceley, 2014).

Increasingly, the complexities of tourism systems coupled with the complexities of PA management call for a socio-ecological system approach to understanding nuances of various types of benefits. New models and partnerships are evolving to address these complexities. To understand the evolution of benefit-sharing related to protected area tourism, we have organized our conception of this evolution through three prominent themes identified by papers within this special issue: stakeholder engagement, governance, and the impacts of benefit-sharing.

Stakeholder engagement

Historically, much of the focus of benefit-sharing from PA tourism has been financial, which does not constitute the full impact of this socio-ecological system. If stakeholders are made aware of all the benefits of PAs and the importance of PAs to human well-being, then the scope of benefit-sharing would increase, and more stakeholders would be benefitting. This notion is supported by the Protected Planet Report 2016 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016), which states that ensuring a more sustainable future for people and the planet will require greater recognition of the vital role that PAs fulfill in underpinning sustainable development. Hence, there is also a need to strengthen the communication of the benefits of PAs across all sectors of society to help demonstrate the economic and social values of PAs to existing and future generations (Aichi Biodiversity Target 1) (Bruyere et al., 2009; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016).

Research has demonstrated that tourism can provide value to society through the potential economic, environmental, and social benefits it can deliver (Snyman & Spenceley, 2019; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). An understanding of these benefits, both tangible and intangible, and how they are shared, is essential to illustrate their value. If PA tourism is, however, required to fund conservation in PAs, due to the shortfalls discussed above, then how much of the benefits remain to share with other stakeholders?

Over the years, research has shown that the perception of benefits can sometimes outweigh the actual receipt of benefits. Equity is an essential aspect in terms of the long-term sustainability of protected area tourism related to benefit-sharing. Franks, Booker, and Roe (2018) discuss equity in terms of conservation goals overall, but the concept equally applies to benefit-sharing from conservation and PA tourism. Franks et al. (2018) define equity as “fairness” or “social justice,” which has three dimensions: recognition, procedure, and distribution. Equity is also related to governance, which is about power, relationships and accountability (Franks et al., 2018; Schreckenberg, Franks, Martin & Lang, 2016). A key aspect of governance is decision making which frequently involves tough choices between many competing objectives (trade-offs) (Franks et al., 2018). An understanding of local community dynamics, hierarchies and power-sharing are also essential to develop methods to ensure that the most marginalised and most impoverished in communities are also included in benefit-sharing mechanisms (Kothari, 2008). For stakeholders, consultation, joint decision-making, and advocacy are needed to move towards equity (Kothari, 2008).

An essential part of recognising the benefits of PAs and the role that they play is understanding the stakeholders involved and ensuring that the importance of PAs is communicated to all stakeholders. In this regard, the World Bank Group (2018) highlights the importance of carrying out a stakeholder assessment to understand the requirements of all major stakeholders in PA tourism. They also provide detailed information on the relevant stakeholders, their roles, goals, and challenges (World Bank Group, 2018, pp. 52–53). Heslinga, Groote, and Vanclay (2018) in this issue highlight the importance of stakeholder involvement in ensuring adaptation, flexibility, an understanding of the enabling conditions and constraints: all crucial factors in facilitating more successful benefit sharing programmes.

There are numerous diverse stakeholders engaged in tourism in PAs including: government, local communities, non-governmental organisations, and the private sector, amongst others. Many of these stakeholders have different, sometimes conflicting, objectives for being involved in PA tourism, and some only appear once the benefits start appearing. Local communities, in particular, frequently bear the costs of living adjacent to PAs through the negative impacts of human-wildlife conflict, as well as the opportunity costs of not being able to use the land for agriculture or other development (Snyman, 2013). It is essential, therefore, that local communities, those living on the edge, receive benefits from conservation in PAs and the associated tourism. These benefits can be through direct receipt, but recently there has been a focus on empowering communities to engage in tourism through joint ventures and other collaborative management models (Baghai et al., 2018). Schmidt and Uriely (2018) in this issue, however, argue that the notion of empowerment is a different and relative construct, with some aspects of empowerment being reinforced due to tourism development, other aspects deteriorating as a result of this dynamic. In order to ensure equitable power relations when communities do engage in tourism, however, there needs to be concomitant capacity building to enable them to understand the complexities of tourism as a business model and the associated potential risks, challenges and benefits.

Within the concept of stakeholder engagement, an assortment of influences empowers or disempower individuals and communities at large. Psychological empowerment, for example, enhances self-esteem, with the idea that access to economic gains (i.e., employment and cash) leads to an increase in status (Scheyvens, 1999). The creation of a sense of pride in a community (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Xue, Kerstetter, & Hunt, 2017), and increased access to the typically underserved such as youth and women (Roe & Urquhart, 2001) are evolving into benefits and being recognised by diverse stakeholders. Social empowerment enriches community cohesion among stakeholders, with economic returns supporting community development activities (Cole, 2006; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Scheyvens, 1999). And, political empowerment is described as “the community’s political structure, which fairly represents the needs and interests of all community groups, provides a forum through which people can raise questions…and have their concerns addressed” (Scheyvens, 1999, p. 247). These empowerment facilities are deemed critical within the broad spectrum of elements of successful benefit-sharing attributes.

Through diverse PA benefit-sharing situations, connections between the leadership within a community and residents are salient to successful benefit-sharing programs. For example, these connections may influence the level of political empowerment. For example, residents living adjacent to Kibale National Park in Uganda identified the inclusion of community stakeholders in the decisions of types of projects to assist in minimizing the impacts of wildlife on adjacent park communities, as necessary to their perception realizing benefits (MacKenzie, 2012). In Fiji, stakeholder engagement was responsible for how a private protected area managed tourism employment, using a mix of traditional and contemporary employment guidelines (Bricker, 2001). Globally, researchers are exploring ways in which tourism in and near protected areas are fostering cultural preservation, sustainable behaviour, and perceived control of tourism enterprises (Lackey & Bricker, 2019). These new ways of understanding various influences and outcomes may reveal innovative ways of conceptualizing localized benefits and elements of empowerment relevant to long-term PA tourism and conservation successes.

While the literature has established the importance of stakeholder engagement, there is also evidence that the mechanisms that enhance community agency in the development of tourism and empower stakeholders are less clear. Several barriers to establishing community agency can thwart levels of active stakeholder engagement. Bergstrom and Harrington (2018) identified the importance of stakeholders’ control over change within a community and adjacent lands. This idea harkens back to the critical inclusion of access to training, building capacity including access to education, information, and continuous training, and ensuring empowerment of marginalized groups (Lackey & Bricker, 2019; Panta & Thapa, 2018; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Su, Wall, & Xu, 2016; Thondhlana, Shackleton, & Muchapondwa, 2011).

Beyond economic benefits (i.e., employment opportunities and direct revenue), successful benefit sharing programmes should encourage and address capacity building and skills training opportunities amongst various stakeholder groups (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001; Scheyvens, 1999). These efforts are designed around the specific needs of the community and ideally lead to a level of empowerment. Scheyvens (1999) outlined a framework for empowerment relative to PA tourism within local communities. Signs of empowerment and disempowerment were identified beyond economics – to include social, psychological, and political factors. These factors influence levels of stakeholder engagement (social), self-esteem (psychological), and overall governance (political) factors. Lack of empowerment may impact the degree to which benefit-sharing can address localized and institutionalize challenges.

Governance

In considering good governance, making investments into communities within and around PAs could deliver more in terms of human well-being and poverty alleviation, and better conservation, if the investments are focused on enhancing equity rather than directly improving livelihoods or reducing poverty (Franks et al., 2018). Highlighting an important policy issue and perhaps a better solution is to combine enhancing equity in communities and promoting effective and equitable benefit-sharing. Further research focusing on equity and governance related to tourism and protected areas is vital to the long-term sustainability of conservation and related tourism. Future research should also focus on assessing different aspects of, and best practices for, good governance, and how these can be incorporated explicitly into benefit-sharing mechanisms to promote more significant equity.

Each community is unique with its nuances in terms of structure, roles, and responsibilities, and should be considered within benefit-sharing schemes. Besides, considerations embracing local cultures and traditions which are continually evolving may have a significant impact on roles within communities and the understanding of equity (Kothari, 2008). Policy and legislation need to be adaptive to these changes.

The governance of benefit sharing structures and programmes impact practical benefits and types of benefit-sharing participation. We are seeing increased advocacy for strong institutional support, with efforts by policymakers and associated government policies, processes and systems now called upon to lessen the barriers to community participation (Scheyvens, 2002). Therefore, it is not only about what governance is in place but the quality of governance which is also a key challenge related to benefit-sharing. Ensuring good governance can, therefore, play a key role in overcoming many of the challenges related to benefit-sharing (See Heslinga, Groote, and Vanclay in this issue who look at strengthening governance to improve benefit-sharing).

There is also evidence that institutional frameworks can promote or detract from ways in which benefits come to fruition. Public versus private protected areas can impact how agreements, partnerships, formal and informal structures are developed. For example, within the Republic of Fiji, a community-private partnership programme called Rivers Fiji, located within the rural highlands of Viti Levu has been operating within a private protected area now for nearly 20 years. The institutional structure impacts directly how local communities directly receive revenue from the project. As a privately protected river corridor, the Upper Navua Conservation Area is Fiji’s first and only Ramsar Site (i.e., Wetland of International Importance), but also is protected through a lease for conservation (see Bricker, 2001). Despite the opposition of the local government leasing authority (Native Land and Trust Board), the lease for conservation was set up with not only a lease payment but revenue from each visitor to the canyon.

In addition to clearly identified employment sharing benefits, on-going revenue sharing is parallel to both the company’s and partnerships success. With the advantage of hindsight, had Rivers Fiji set this up with the traditional one-time lease payment, as the tourism enterprise became increasingly successful, benefit sharing at the local community level would have remained stagnant. Instead, how the lease payment was set, local communities benefit continuously, therefore realizing the full value of this protected area partnership every time a tourist travels through the river corridor (see Bricker, 2001).

Increasingly evident is that well-structured partnership agreements and governance structures, with transparent benefit-sharing processes, provides opportunities for communities to connect to economic benefits and employment opportunities (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001; Bricker, 2001; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Roe & Urquhart, 2001). While there are vast differences in these types of agreements, common to all must be a transparent structure of engagement and procedures for fair distribution of opportunities. In the case of Rivers Fiji, the land-owning group utilized traditional structures and practices for rotating the employment benefits between different groups, this has worked well, and there is complete buy-in by all landowning groups for this structure involved in the Upper Navua Conservation Area (Bricker, 2001, 2013). Also, these structures or processes have increased the types of stakeholders engaged in the various projects, increasing awareness and ultimately more widely spread opportunities for benefit-sharing within and across communities, including educational opportunities, healthcare, and tourism support services (i.e., drivers, food supply, and infrastructure development).

Research has also indicated an understanding of the system in which communities operate have significant impacts on effective benefit-sharing strategies. For example, in Kibale National Park (Uganda), residents garnered more benefit from being able to work on infrastructure to minimize damage from elephants and wildlife, than the revenue from park fees (MacKenzie, 2012). Hence recognizing the value of work to this specific community in establishing long-term perceived benefit was useful in determining types of benefit-sharing alternatives, when the fees alone were of lesser value (Winchenbach, Hanna, & Miller, 2019). Hence, understanding particular community needs are essential to understand benefit-sharing mechanisms or processes, and while economic benefits have been shown as critical, there are multiple ways in which benefits may be fulfilled.

Innovation in policy and governance is taking place through a range of new types of partnerships and engagement structures. For example, adaptive co-management of PAs may be a way to address the “intractable challenges facing protected areas and sustainable tourism such as conflict, complexity and uncertainty” (Plummer & Fennell, 2009, p. 163). With co-management structures, there may be increased opportunities for local empowerment and innovation, positive perceptions of engagement, perceived control, and sustainable behaviors. While specific research on co-management of tourism and PAs is sparse, there is some indication of positive benefits because of a level of participation by communities, including equitable benefit distribution and relatively high levels of communication (Mutanga, Muboko, & Gandiwa, 2017; Puhakka, Cottrell, & Siikamäki, 2014). Besides, when there is a clear plan for engagement and succession, there is continuity, identified as a positive attribute in benefit-sharing schemes (Bricker, 2013; Spenceley, 2014). However, indicators of poor relationships or even conflict between PA managers and communities have included low tourism involvement, the presence of human-wildlife conflicts, and mutually negative perceptions between local communities and PA managers (Bango & Xelelo, 2017; Lackey & Bricker, 2019).

Impacts of benefit sharing

The sustainability of protected area tourism in part depends on its ability to play a role in biodiversity conservation and, through this, assisting the PA in achieving its objectives and ensuring effective alignment with the values of the PA (Hockings et al., 2006). Umuziranenge and Muhurwa (2017) established that tourism revenue sharing and related benefits could serve as an incentive for conserving Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. Tourism managed well can act as an incentive for conservation by stopping illegal or destructive activities. Makame and Boon (2008) have also suggested that in order to engage full benefits of natural resource tourism, precise mechanisms from institutions such as Forestry and Parks departments and others must be in place for benefit sharing to occur. Some research has revealed a perceived divide between communities and natural resource tourism management.

In a study of Purnululu National Park and Warmum Community in Australia, results disclosed a perceived separation of Indigenous people from the Park and tourism occurring in the region (Strickland-Munro & Moore, 2013). Besides, Indigenous people's cultural connections to their landscape contributed to their local stewardship and "custodial" expression of responsibility towards the Park, tourists, and nearby landscapes (Strickland-Munro & Moore, 2013). Pragmatically, this research revealed that Indigenous people identified several constraints in actually accessing the park and park tourism, due to lack of transportation, need for four-wheel drive, and driving capability (lack of license), as a reason for isolation from the Park. Ultimately, the Park's management team faced competing for demands "to ensure access for local Indigenous people, while retaining the "wilderness" experience for tourists and for which the park is renowned" (Strickland-Munro & Moore, 2013, p. 35). Not surprising, their research found not all community members wish to engage in tourism and that under-engagement may actually be a successful outcome of sustainable tourism—“individuals may choose not to be involved in economic opportunities available from Park tourism, preferring instead to prioritize non-financial, intrinsic benefits such as the maintenance of traditional practices” (p. 36). Understanding the desires of residents and stakeholders is an essential consideration in conceptualizing the sustainability of tourism and benefit-sharing within varying and diverse local contexts.

For example, tourism industries have the ability to share benefits with communities and other stakeholders through the provision of health services, improved water supply, increased educational support mechanisms, increased diversity of employment opportunities, infrastructure development, sustainable resource management, improved local attitudes towards natural resources conservation goals (Ahebwa et al., 2012; Bricker, 2013; Makame & Boon, 2008;Snyman, 2016). Further, somewhat related, others have argued for processes that increase awareness and interest by local communities on regional issues to encourage equity and empowerment (Roe & Urquhart, 2001; Scheyvens, 1999; Tosun & Timothy, 2003). As noted previously, research has shown some indication that benefits do not always have to be tangible to have a positive impact (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Scheyvens, 1999). For example, intangible benefits such as capacity building, skills development, and increased community-level decision-making have demonstrated significant social and human capital positive, long-term impacts.

In summary, research demonstrates that clear, equitable transparent benefit-sharing systems ensure a higher likelihood of success for communities and sustained tourism business success as well as meeting conservation goals. Benefit-sharing then becomes part of the give and take of a complex socio-ecological system, whereby strategies and implementation goals must be adapted to address ever-changing cultural (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010), social (Xue et al., 2017) and ecological (Bosak, 2016; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010) systems.

As a framework for understanding complex systems, researchers have suggested both tangible (e.g., revenue and economic returns, infrastructure, health and ecological) and intangible aspects of communities, such as empowerment (e.g., psychological, social, and political) are considered and influence the effectiveness of benefit sharing and tourism development. With such an emphasis on revenue generation, poverty alleviation, and various forms of capacity building (see United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals), benefit-sharing is a complex interaction which deserves increased attention. For example, consider the opportunity for significant innovation at the policy level, which in turn may have significant implications at the community level. Governments could consider tax incentives and support schemes for tourism enterprises that demonstrate increased benefit sharing structures and programmes. For those tourism enterprises that contribute to the protection of biodiversity, and build capacity in communities living on the edge of PAs, incentive programs (tax or otherwise) could be implemented.

Despite a focus on the sharing of benefits from PA tourism, it is essential also to consider numerous challenges related to benefit-sharing. Spenceley (2014) identified six key challenges with benefit-sharing from PAs. These include: (1) the value for money per person is small if divided among a large number of people; (2) benefits of social infrastructure (e.g., schools, water, infrastructure) are not always associated with the conservation or tourism, (3) those who benefit are not necessarily the same as those who experience the costs of conservation, for example, human-wildlife conflict, loss of access to land, (4) poorest residents are often not the beneficiaries, (5) community entities may not have the capacity to partner with other stakeholders or to agree on benefit-sharing processes, and, (6) legislation may constrain benefit-sharing processes(adapted from Spenceley, 2014). In a reinforcing cycle, stakeholder engagement is intrinsically linked to equity, and assessing equity involves assessing the quality of governance in terms of principles of good governance (Franks et al., 2018).

Stakeholder engagement is considered key to effective benefit-sharing. Inadequate communication of the benefits to stakeholders, and a lack of capacity to manage funds received from protected area tourism within community structures can highlight the adverse effects when governance is less than adequate (Makame & Boon, 2008; Spenceley, 2014). A primary challenge has been to identify who the stakeholders are that should benefit. This group can be large and diverse within the realm of tourism systems, with some stakeholders being easily identifiable, while others are less obvious. Temporal considerations are also at play, whereby stakeholders eventually emerge as tourism develops. Stakeholders may also have different and sometimes conflicting reasons for engaging in tourism, which adds to the complexity. For example, ensuring linkages are established between the benefits received and the associated tourism and protected area is yet another challenge (Snyman, 2013). Another challenge is determining how benefits are shared within and amongst stakeholder groups. For example, whether benefits will be individual or collective and who will determine this and manage the distribution (Bricker, 2001; Tumusiime & Vedeld, 2012). What is clear however is, benefit-sharing resulting from PA tourism is challenged by a lack of empowerment and participation of stakeholders, coupled with the realization that there will be costs and the associated benefit-sharing programs must be at a scale to mitigate these potential costs (Tumusiime & Vedeld, 2012).

Indeed, without this apparent link, there may be a little perceived value associated with tourism and conservation and therefore no inclination to protect or ensure its long-term success. To some extent, most of these challenges are in some way faced in the papers in this special issue and can serve to undermine the potential positive impacts of benefit-sharing from protected areas and tourism. These challenges are not new or unique to certain places or communities. It is crucial, therefore, to seek ways to overcome these challenges and ensure more effective and efficient benefit-sharing. Active institutional structures and support, the establishment of good governance practices and policies, clear benefit distribution plans, community engagement, empowerment, promoting more extensive value chains, increasing indirect and induced impacts, all play a role in addressing the challenges and promoting more positive, sustainable benefit-sharing.

Living on the edge: the special issue

This special issue includes six papers identifying diverse aspects of benefit sharing as well as scale and regional differences. Findings support benefit-sharing as a socio-ecological system which includes tangible and intangible concepts. The papers build upon previous research focused on revenue and economic impacts, and empowerment through agreements and structures. Also, the papers address various stakeholder engagement; the importance of unique contexts and level of community participation; and the support for a systems approach to understanding the complexities associated with benefit-sharing from PAs, utilizing a community capitals framework to address community context and empowerment comprehensively.

Economic benefits continue to be an essential focus of benefits, yet must have structures and functional systems in place to realize their full potential. Revenue sharing should be sufficient and regular, as well as timely, and offset costs experienced by communities such as crop damage, livestock depletion, and restrictions on resource use. Revenue sharing specifically from tourism enterprises should be mindful of implementing specific agreements, inclusive of set leasing fees, with accountability for growth annually (Rylance, Snyman, & Spenceley 2017; Snyman, 2018; Stone & Nyupane, 2014). Collectively, the results also suggest the importance of the context in which specific communities operate (Rylance, Snyman, & Spenceley, 2017; Snyman, 2018; Souza, Thapa, & Inmore, 2018). Without mechanisms for incentives and revenue generation, communities will lack buy-in and acknowledgment of the benefits associated with PA conservation initiatives (Souza et al., 2018, this issue). Most authors within this special issue agree that these relationships and situations that may or may not provide incentives for communities are context specific (Rylance, et al., 2017). The authors also found that overall revenue sharing is context specific, in that some communities experienced more significant losses (i.e., livestock loss) due to their proximity, with other communities experiencing a net gain. These results have direct implications for policy development that is adaptable and context specific. In tandem with active policy formation, authors also noted the increased need for strong technical and institutional support of policies and greater collaboration and understanding between park authorities and local communities. Concerning local communities, they discovered the absence of consensus, or perhaps unity in understanding within a community, affects the bargaining power and ultimately benefits for communities.

How agreements, structure, and governance are designed and initiated adds to the understanding of specific context, levels of empowerment, enabling strategies, and stakeholder engagement (Snyman, 2018; Heslinga, Groote, & Vanclay, 2018; Schmidt & Uriely, 2018). The use of the community capitals framework by Stone and Nyaupane (2014) is a step forward in addressing the complexities of systems, discarding the cause and effect relationships for a broader solution-oriented impact. Reinforcement of community cohesion, environmental awareness and education, and enjoyment are intangible benefits that can lead to a new sense of responsibility towards protected areas, and ultimately strengthening an understanding and support for conservation efforts (Queiros & Mearns, 2018).

Moving forward

The papers all highlight the need for comprehensive stakeholder engagement and frameworks to address the complexity of benefit-sharing. These ideas ensure stakeholders are aware of all benefits and the value of tourism and conservation in and around PAs, as well as the importance of efficient and effective governance structures to manage tourism and related benefit-sharing mechanisms. Collectively these papers provide a thorough overview of several different issues related to PA tourism and the associated benefit-sharing. They also highlight that there is still much to be understood and researched in terms of benefit-sharing, including more on the multiplier and induced impacts, understanding the role of equity and governance, and acknowledging factors, which impact both tangible and intangible benefit-sharing outcomes.

Adding to the need for increased understanding within each of these areas, many have identified the tourist as key stakeholder often left in the margins when examining its role in supporting PA tourism benefit-sharing. Where does the tourist fit in the context of fees for services, and entry fees, philanthropic activities, or perhaps voluntourism initiatives? Further, how will ecosystem services, inclusive of access to fresh water, food, quality of life, and other health and well-being factors, impact benefit-sharing in tourism and protected areas? Does PA tourism provide an increased opportunity as biodiversity and the health of ecosystems increases?

Authors in this special issue agree that benefit-sharing from PA tourism is complex, with many challenges to ensuring equity, accountability, and sustainability. Despite this, there are also numerous positive impacts from benefit-sharing which are highlighted in the papers, including employment, financial benefits, empowerment, infrastructure, and services. Found as critically important, are both tangible and intangible benefits, with intangible benefits often seen as having more extensive, longer-term impacts and frequently reaching more people. Illuminated within these papers, is there is not one benefit-sharing system that is the best for all contexts. Benefit-sharing systems need to be adaptive and evolve, as needed, according to the relevant situation. Some broad characteristics are, however, that they need to include accountability, equity, transparency, a broad reach of stakeholder engagement, a robust combination of tangible and intangible benefits, with benefits associated with the PA tourism from the communities and stakeholders from where they originate.

Although this special issue focuses mainly on sharing of economic benefits, there are other significant social and environmental benefits that need to be further understood and measured and future research should focus on accounting for and measuring all related benefits to give a true reflection of the range of benefits from PA tourism. Economic willingness-to-pay studies on the potential impact of introducing a compulsory tourism benefit-sharing levy on all tourism businesses in PA would provide meaningful data as to the likely acceptance of such a scheme. Another contentious issue that requires further research is the notion of who should be paying for the benefits: is it the tourist, the government or the tourism business owner, though ultimately the added cost will most likely be borne by the tourist. Future research into the willingness of tourists to bear this additional ‘cost' to ensure that those living on the edge do benefit from PA tourism could assist policymakers in setting this fee and understanding the potential economic impacts of this.

This special issue of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism coalesces innovative approaches to benefit-sharing through new contributions to ideas surrounding empowerment (Schmidt & Uriely, 2018), measuring or accounting for the impacts (Hubert et al., 2018, this issue; Querios & Mearns, 2018; Souza et al, 2018, this issue; Snyman, 2018; Rylance et al., 2017) and understanding governance processes (Stone & Nyupane 2014). It also highlights the critical role of various stakeholder engagement in the benefit-sharing process (Querios & Mearns, 2018; Heslinga et al., 2018).

In summary, our overview and following special issue papers highlight potential areas for future research and work, including a) the multiplier effects of tourism staff spending in local economies, b) measurement methods of broader levels of benefit-sharing, c) improved reporting processes for gathering data on revenue-sharing, and d) more detailed research on the environmental, social and cultural impacts of protected area tourism in order to provide a more accurate reflection of all impacts, positive and negative. As highlighted by Strickland-Munro, Allison, and Moore (2010) and others, PA tourism involves immensely complex, dynamic systems and this, therefore, inherently requires complex, dynamic benefit-sharing systems to ensure equity and sustainability to ensure important conservation outcomes.