Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: prospects for adaptive co-management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at the challenging enterprise of managing protected areas for sustainable tourism. It notes that during the past 25 years multistakeholder conflicts, complexity and uncertainty have emerged and persisted as important issues requiring managerial responses. These issues reflect substantial paradigmatic shifts in pursuing and understanding sustainability. Governance directs attention to broad participatory approaches, and complex systems theory emphasises transformative changes and an integrative perspective that couples human and natural systems (a social–ecological system). The paper envisions the prospects of adaptive co-management as an alternative approach to protected areas management for sustainable tourism. It also makes the case for an interdisciplinary approach by highlighting important and informative developments outside tourism studies. Adaptive co-management bridges governance and complex systems by bringing together cooperative and adaptive approaches to management. In appraising the potential for adaptive co-management attention is systematically directed to conceptual, technical, ethical and practical dimensions. While adaptive co-management is clearly not a universal answer, experiences and knowledge from natural resource management raise salient prospects for the approach to be insightfully applied to protected areas for sustainable tourism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it