3.8 Article

Tourists want to be spooked, not schooled: sustaining indigenous tourism in the Bastimentos Island National Marine Park, Bocas del Toro, Panama

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOTOURISM
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 130-144

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14724049.2019.1585439

关键词

Indigenous people; sustainable tourism; conservation; tour guides and operators; Ngobe; Panama

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals that a lack of Indigenous tourism demand and competition for bat cave tourism have led to changes in land ethics, community fragmentation, and conflict. Insufficient coordinated management has resulted in an increase in externally operated cave tours with negative social and environmental impacts. The latest protected area management plan fails to address existing relations and tensions, emphasizing the importance of secure land rights and collaborative management strategies for sustainable Indigenous tourism.
This article explores the intersection between Indigenous peoples, protected areas, and tourism through focus group interviews with Ngobe settlements in Bahia Honda, Bocas del Toro, Panama. The aim was to co-construct context-specific knowledge related to their experiences with the imposition of a protected area and subsequent efforts to establish sustainable Indigenous tourism. We find that lacking Indigenous tourism demand and competition over bat cave tourism have led to changes in land ethics, community fragmentation and conflict. Lacking coordinated management has also facilitated an increase in externally operated cave tours with social and environmental consequences. The latest protected area management plan calls for investment and monitoring in bat cave tourism without mentioning existing relations and tensions. Findings reaffirm the importance of secure land rights, gauging tourist demand before starting programs and creating collaborative and adaptive management strategies for operationalizing sustainable Indigenous tourism in and around protected areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据