Rethinking Visitor Management for the

21st Century

Stephen F. McCool

Professor Emeritus

The University of Montana

National Taiwan University

25 March 2011

Internet Version

Competing Demands

Rising visitor use collides with diversifying

expectations for forests

Rising visitor use collides with

diversifying expectations for forests

Preserve environment and allow

visitor use?

Objectives

partially

competing,

partially

overlapping

Creates dilemmas and confusion

for managers

Implications

We manage in a new world of complexity, uncertainty and change

Recreation management and planning is in a crisis

Implementation and monitoring remain problematic

It is in a crisis because

Of lack of funding

Declines in organizational capacity

Mindsets or mental models for managing recreation

What I Will Try to do Today

Emphasize a change in looking at our

management

Discuss reasons for why management of

visitors is in crisis

Suggest how we can re-think our approaches

Given the Variety, Complexity and

Uncertainty of the Context, The World of

Nature-based Tourism …

Is wicked

Conflict/confusion over goals

Scientific uncertainty about relationship between

causes and effects

And is messy

Problems are connected,

cannot solve one problem

without affecting other

problems

And while international travel is

growing rapidly,

It is also increasingly competitive

Fundamental Propositions about Nature-

based Tourism

Application of systems

thinking helps integrate

varying disciplines and

forms of knowledge

Live in a complex, uncertain environment

which is also politically contentious

Tourism

experience is

dependent upon

heritage values

present

Need a framework to “work through” issues

Mental models determine how we respond

to life’s situations

A Mindset or Mental Model

Is termed a paradigm

Develop out of prior success in dealing with problems

But may not be applicable in the future

Future is no longer like the past

What was successful in the past may lead to failure in the future

Are difficult for followers of a current paradigm to understand and change to

Paradigms in Real Life

Some Mental Models in

Visitor Management

Managing for activities vs. managing for experiences

Incremental/ad hoc decision-making vs. using a framework

Focusing on biophysical attributes vs. focusing on values

Focusing on the average visitor vs. understanding diverse motivations

Thinking of recreation planning as separate from implementation

Identifying a carrying capacity vs. identifying acceptable conditions

Site focused vs. regional level management

Conceiving of planning as a technical exercise vs. building professional competencies

Destination (end state) is static vs. destination dynamic

Focusing on events not understanding the system underlying the events

The mental models we use to frame tourism

development questions are often barriers to

achieving goals

Mental models

often serve to

handcuff our

thinking

What is a Planning Framework?

Focused on recreation/tourism

Not law or regulation

Guidelines, a process, propositions, steps

Notion of “working through”

Helps frame/define the problem

Forces explicitness

Not mechanistic

What Makes a Good Framework?

Salient – not all frameworks address all issues Conceptual soundness – defendable theoretical

foundation Technical – translated into practice well

Knowledge, skills, abilities Administrative feasibility

Ethical – who wins and who loses Identifies trade-offs

Pragmatic Efficiency – biggest bang for the buck Effectiveness – does it help achieve larger order goals

Adapted from Brewer, 1973

Some Examples of Tourism and Visitor

Management Frameworks

Carrying (Visitor) Capacity based Frameworks – 1960s +

Social, Biophysical, Facility

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum based Frameworks

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – 1970s

Tourism Opportunity Spectrum – 1990s

Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – 2000s

Some Examples of Tourism and Visitor

Management Frameworks

Limits of Acceptable Change based Frameworks

Limits of Acceptable Change – 1980s

Visitor Impact Management – 1980s

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection – 1990s

Tourism Optimization and Management Model– 1990s

The Benefits Based Management – 1990s

Placed-based Frameworks – 2000s

Principal Question Addressed

Carrying Capacity How many is too many?

ROS What settings exist and what should be provided?

LAC How much change from a desired condition is acceptable?

BBM What experiences should be provided?

Place-based What meanings are attached to this place?

Some Characteristics of Useful

Frameworks

Jointly developed

Managers, scientists, constituencies

Focus on understanding the system

Structure our thinking

Integrate public and technical knowledge

Management that is

compartmentalized

Or

Integrated?

Evolution of Recreation and Tourism

Planning Frameworks

Command/Control to Collaborative

Generic to Issue/Place Specific

Reductionistic to Realistic

Implicit to Explicit

Sites to Areas to Regions

Frameworks Only Work …

Organizational will

People are not rushed, distracted, careless or ignorant

Technical capacity and proficiency

Inclusive of differing values and systems of knowledge

Open and deliberative

Effectiveness rather than efficiency

When thinking is at the systems level

Conclusions

Driving forces and context mean that trade-offs will

be made

Raise the need for a framework to structure thinking

Mental models or paradigms may hinder effective

solutions

Frameworks help decision makers work through

complex issues

A variety of frameworks exist, but vary in suitability

Conclusions

Collaboration important aspect of success in

framework development

Institutional capacity is an issue

Managerial proficiency

Scientific expertise

Constituency understanding

Thank You

Steve.McCool@CFC.UMT.EDU