Collaborative Networks and Tourism Management of Peri-Urban Forests

Collaborative Networks and Tourism Management of Peri-Urban Forests

E. Cruz H. Albrecht  A. Briones 

Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. Mexico

Universidad de Quintana Roo. Mexico

Page: 
172-181
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V11-N2-172-181
Received: 
N/A
| |
Accepted: 
N/A
| | Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

El Chico National Park (ECNP) is one of the most important peri-urban forests in the state of Hidalgo. Tourism management of this park involves numerous stakeholders with different needs, resources and perceptions of nature. There are four forest communities that are involved in the use of this park for tourism activities, but there are other stakeholders: federal government agencies, state government agencies, municipalities, unorganized smallholder entrepreneurs. Tourism management of this peri-urban forest is a complex issue, particularly, when decision-making processes are centralised by government bodies. This study explores the relationships’ structure among government agencies and Community Tourism Associations (CTAs) based on the tourism management of ECNP. This study presents a descriptive analysis of collaborative networks among the park’s stakeholders, using a qualitative research approach.

Keywords: 

collaborative networks, government bodies, protected areas, stakeholders, tourism management

  References

[1] Erkus- Öztük, H. & Eraydın, A., Environmental governance for sustainable tourism development: Collaborative networks and organization building in the antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31, pp. 113–124, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.002

[2] Madhumita, D. & Chatterjee, B., Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism Management Perspectives, 14, pp. 3–16, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.01.002

[3] Conedera, M., Del Baggio, A., Seeland, K., Moretti, M. & Home, R., Residents’ preferences and use of urban and peri-urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, pp. 139–147, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.003

[4] van de Berg, A., Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), pp. 79–96, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.x

[5] Smink, K., Forests and recreation - new functions of afforestation as seen in Denmark (Chapter 7). New Perspectives on People and Forests, eds. E. Riiter & D. Dauksta, Springer: New York, pp. 87–94, 2011.

[6] Jiaming, L., Run, W. & Tian, C., Factor of spatial distribution of recreation areas in periurban Beijing. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(5), pp. 741–756, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-010-0808-3

[7] Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N., Bingham, H., Belle, E., de Lima, M., Deguignet, M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A.N., Martinez-Lopez, J., Lewis, E., Eassom, A., Wicander, S., Geldmann, J., van Soesbergen, A., Arnell, A.P., O’Connor, B., Park, S., Shi, Y.N., Danks, F.S., MacSharry, B. & Kingston, N., Protected Planet Report. United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2010.

[8] Tittensor, D., Walpole, M., Hill, S., Boyce, D., Britten, G. & Burgess, N., A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science, 346(6206), pp. 241–244, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484

[9] Törn, A., Siikamäki, P., Tolvanen, A., Kauppila, P. & Rämet, J., Local people, nature conservation, and tourism in North-eastern Finland. Ecology and Society, 13(1), pp. 8–25, 2008.

[10] Jiaming, L., Run, W. & Tian, C., Factor of spatial distribution of recreation areas in periurban Beijing. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(5), pp. 741–756, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-010-0808-3

[11] Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S. & de Vries, S., Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees (Chapter 4). Urban Forests and Trees, eds. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup & J. Schipperijn, Springer: New York, pp. 81–114, 2005.

[12] Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S. & de Vries, S., Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees (Chapter 4). Urban Forests and Trees, eds. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup & J. Schipperijn, Springer: New York, pp. 81–114, 2005.

[13] Leeuwis, C. & Van de Ban, A., Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension, Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, pp.27–55, 2004.

[14] Madhumita, D. & Chatterjee, B., Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism Management Perspectives, 14, pp. 3–16, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.01.002

[15] Sekhar, U., Local people´s attitude towards conservations and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(4), pp. 339–347, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.002

[16] Natera, A., El liderazgo político en la sociedad democrática. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 118, pp. 385–421, 2001.

[17] Natera, A., Nuevas estructuras y redes de gobernanza. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 118, pp. 755–791, 2005.

[18] Merinero, R., Desarrollo Local y Análisis de Redes Sociales: el valor de las relaciones como factor de desarrollo socioeconómico. REDES-Revista hispana para el análisis de redes, 18(11), pp. 1–28, 2015.

[19] Muñoz, A., Análisis relacional de sistemas turísticos. Un marco de trabajo alternativo en el proceso de planificación turística. Tourism and Management Studies, 8, pp. 55–64, 2012.

[20] Natera, A., Nuevas estructuras y redes de gobernanza. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 118, pp. 755–791, 2005.

[21] Gobierno del Estado de Hidalgo., Cuarto Informe de Gobierno. Administración 2011-2016, Gobierno del Estado de Hidalgo: Pachuca de Soto, 2014.

[22] Wasserman, S. & Faust, K., Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, University Press: England, pp. 177–192, 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478