Indigenous Forestry Tourism Dimensions: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Guido Salazar-Sepúlveda.

Indigenous tourism is an activity that is developing and expanding globally in all latitudes with complex nature and characteristics, and with lines of research that incorporate the sustainable conservation of culture, environment, and local traditions.

  • tourism
  • non-wood forest
  • ethnic
  • indigenous

1. Indigenous Tourism, Ecotourism and Forestry

Indigenous tourism is an activity that is developing and expanding globally in all latitudes with complex nature and characteristics, and with lines of research that incorporate the sustainable conservation of culture, environment, and local traditions [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Some studies have pointed out the importance of considering the characteristics of each community in the diverse external tourism interventions, respecting the particularities of each group, their cosmovision and connection with nature, trying to integrate their cosmologies and complementing them with the practices of modern organizations [13,20,21,22][2][9][10][11]. The indigenous peoples involved with the interventions of organizations that seek to commercially exploit tourist destinations are confronted with changes and forces of the environment, trying to find a balance of benefits between external actors and the indigenous communities, in a constant search for the greater well-being of the communities while respecting their traditions [23][12].
Indigenous communities that maintain the characteristics of their ancestral cultures are the most attractive to tourists seeking exotic destinations, and it is where indigenous communities acquire commercial practices such as sales of handicrafts, own tourism agencies and authorized tour guides [14,15][3][4]. One way to better deal with this intervention of external organizations is the so-called community-based ecotourism (CBE), which promotes a sustainable way of financing intervention and conservation activities, thereby contributing to the well-being of the communities [24][13]. This method contemplates a great environmental awareness, with forests, forestation and the environment being a fundamental and recognized pillar of ecotourism practices [25,26,27,28][14][15][16][17]. Within the diversity of the ecosystem, national parks, and nature sanctuaries, protected trails, native forest conservation, wetlands and ecotourism enterprises operated by indigenous people are considered as main factors of an adequate balance for the conservation of communities and the adequate management of sustainable forestry [16][5].
Ecotourism is a connection between biodiversity, conservation and community development that allows a mixed use of the territory, generating a sustainable social organization over time, where we can highlights examples such as the Mapu Lahual Indigenous Parks Network in Chile or the Naha Flora and Fauna Protected Natural Area in Mexico. Their practices include the advancement of parks, campsites and local services, cultural activities, hunting and grazing, among others. For this, it is essential that the government recognizes and identifies the most appropriate strategies, including mediation and standards at the local level, collaboration, and adaptive management with local communities [17,22][6][11].
On the other hand, one of the important factors that emerge to create awareness and maintain an adequate conservation vision with the communities and the environment is the educational component of ecotourism, although it still does not have importance with respect to other components, such as economic, social, and environmental [15][4]. This is the case of Timburi Cocha Biological Station (TCBS), which, once deployed in the territory and having carried out scientific work, measured the impact of its relationship with the local community and recognized its contribution to eight SDGs (Sustainability Development Goals) and an adequate respect for their traditions, culture, and values [21][10]. There are many territories that have generated a development pole for indigenous communities, economically supporting the well-being of the community and its ecological conservation and being very well perceived by its inhabitants. Among these cases, we can highlights the Yucatan Peninsula, where tourism development is the main agent of social, economic and ecological changes in the region [20][9].

2. Conservation, Cosmo-Culturaland Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Protection

Ecosystem conservation contributes to the protection of biological diversity and climate mitigation [29][18]. Thus, in the case of tropical forest care, it has a positive effect on deforestation and forest degradation [30][19]. It also provides additional benefits to combat poverty and social marginalization through economic projects, with the participation of the local community in initiatives such as ecotourism, generating better forest management and the conservation of indigenous resources, providing sustainable income for basic household needs [31,32,33,34][20][21][22][23].
It is important to consider, in conservation plans, the cosmo-cultural knowledge of the population for the protection of forests and wildlife, since it maintains the heritage between the local population and nature, which helps in decision making, resource management, biodiversity preservation, ethnobotanical best practices and the prioritization of land use needs [29,35,36][18][24][25]. It is essential to recognize that this knowledge contributes to the management of socio-ecological systems, incorporating the unique components that each territory possesses [37,38][26][27].
Therefore, a combination of indigenous and scientific knowledge would strengthen the heritage and innovation for effective biodiversity protection [35][24]. For example, the use of spatial patterns, land management, mapping and Geographic Information System (GIS)-based analysis facilitates the identification of priority protection areas from such illegal activity or poaching, contributes to fostering ecological sustainability, provides guidance for developing specific forest management strategies and supports monitoring for forest degradation and cultural diversity [30,36,39,40,41,42][19][25][28][29][30][31].
Finally, centralized governance and conservation policies of protected areas without consideration of the people and their ecosystem has produced adverse effects on both livelihoods, including crop losses, poor management of weeds in forests and recreational plots with recreational impacts causing no anthropization of forest vegetation in these protected areas, generating a loss of economic benefits from agriculture and forest products [31,43,44][20][32][33].

2. Indigenous Forestry Tourism Dimensions

In addition, although the use of innovation tools is mentioned as a differentiating aspect, the relationship between academia and the private world to finance and opt for other paths that allow the advancement of the society is not mentioned either, when compared with the studies [1][34]. One of the aspects that we considering relevant to highlight in this research is the importance of having a verifiable methodology to evaluate and identify the category and factors that enhance the tourist experience in an integrated manner with protected environmental conservation areas and indigenous communities, as indicated in the studyresearch by Han-Shen Chen [61][35]. This methodology, proposed by the researcher, allows considering relevant aspects between local interests, development and the conservation of space, measuring attributes such as: the limit of the number of visitors to the tourist destination; the incorporation of tourist guides with knowledge of the sector, to generate a better user experience and cultural and environmental care; the identification of the infrastructure facilities necessary for an adequate tourist experience and environmental conservation; the contextualization of the different activities of the indigenous peoples, respecting their culture and cosmovision; and to promote the care of the entire ecological ecosystem. Although within the literature on indigenous tourism we find some approaches was found to systematize the attributes and levels that allow measuring an adequate tourism experience, these do not consider the integration of attributes as a relevant aspect and generally use more comprehensive and descriptive methodologies. For example, in Wierucka’s research [14][3], there is an approach to the identification of factors that enhances indigenous tourism, highlighting the local tourist guides and, in an uncertain way, the experiences of commercial activities by the local inhabitants, but not incorporating in an integral way the dimensions of recreational facilities or the limitation of visitor numbers. On the other hand, the research proposed by Karst, H. [13][2] only manages to make a classification in human relations, human–nature relations and culture and spirituality, but without the depth of integral analysis in the various dimensions mentioned. Another consideration has to do with the evaluation in the governmental and conservation categories around sustainable forest use and resource generation but does not consider aspects of forest ecotourism in the research of Dangi, M.B., et al. [41][30].

References

  1. Whitford, M.; Ruhanen, L. Tourism research, past and present: Where to from here? J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1080–1099.
  2. Karst, H. This is a holy place of Ama Jomo: Buen vivir, indigenous voices and ecotourism development in a protected area of Bhutan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 746–762.
  3. Wierucka, A. Living with strangers: Huaorani and tourism industry in the 21st century. Anthropol. Noteb. 2018, 24, 97–110.
  4. Zanotti, L.; Chernela, J. Conflicting Cultures of Nature: Ecotourism, Education and the Kayapo of the Brazilian Amazon. Tour. Geogr. 2008, 10, 495–521.
  5. De Zoysa, M. Forest-Based Ecotourism in Sri Lanka: A Review on State of Governance, Livelihoods, and Forest Conservation Outcomes. J. Sustain. For. 2021, 1–27.
  6. Espeso-Molinero, P.; Pastor-Alfonso, M.J. Governance, Community Resilience, and Indigenous Tourism in Naha, Mexico. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5973.
  7. Zielinski, S.; Jeong, Y.; Kim, S.I.; Milanes, C.B. Why Community-Based Tourism and Rural Tourism in Developing and Developed Nations are Treated Differently? A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5938.
  8. Kirkpatrick, J.B. Ecotourism, local and indigenous people, and the conservation of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2001, 31, 819–829.
  9. Garcia-Frapolli, E.; Toledo, V.M.; Martinez-Alier, J. Adaptations of a Yucatec Maya Multiple-Use Ecological Management Strategy to Ecotourism. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 31.
  10. Izurieta, G.; Torres, A.; Patino, J.; Vasco, C.; Vasseur, L.; Reyes, H.; Torres, B. Exploring community and key stakeholders’ perception of scientific tourism as a strategy to achieve SDGs in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 39, 100830.
  11. Ohl-Schacherer, J.; Mannigel, E.; Kirkby, C.; Shepard, G.H.; Yu, D.W. Indigenous ecotourism in the Amazon: A case study of ‘Casa matsiguenka’ in Manu National Park. Peru. Environ. Conserv. 2008, 35, 14–25.
  12. Marcinek, A.A.; Hunt, C.A. Tourism and cultural commons in the Ecuadorian Amazon. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2019, 17, 449–466.
  13. Kibria, A.; Behie, A.; Costanza, R.; Groves, C.; Farrell, T. Potentials of community-based-ecotourism to improve human wellbeing in Cambodia: An application of millennium ecosystem assessment framework. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2021, 28, 461–472.
  14. Holmes, A.P.; Grimwood, B.S.R.; King, L.J. Creating an Indigenized visitor code of conduct: The development of Denesoline self-determination for sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1177–1193.
  15. Dymond, J.R.; Ausseil, A.G.E.; Kirschbaum, M.U.F.; Carswell, F.E.; Mason, N.W.H. Opportunities for restoring indigenous forest in New Zealand. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2013, 43, 141–153.
  16. Constant, N.L.; Taylor, P.J. Restoring the forest revives our culture: Ecosystem services and values for ecological restoration across the rural-urban nexus in South Africa. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102222.
  17. Stork, N.E.; Turton, S.M.; Hill, R.; Lane, M.B. Revisiting crisis, change and institutions in the tropical forests: The multifunctional transition in Australia’s Wet Tropics. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 36, 99–107.
  18. Hausner, V.H.; Engen, S.; Brattland, C.; Fauchald, P. Sami knowledge and ecosystem-based adaptation strategies for managing pastures under threat from multiple land uses. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1656–1665.
  19. Delgado-Aguilar, M.J.; Konold, W.; Schmitt, C.B. Community mapping of ecosystem services in tropical rainforest of Ecuador. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 460–471.
  20. Martin, A.; Akol, A.; Gross-Camp, N. Towards an Explicit Justice Framing of the Social Impacts of Conservation. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 166–178.
  21. Van Schie, R.; Haider, W. Indigenous-based Approaches to Territorial Conservation: A Case Study of the Algonquin Nation of Wolf Lake. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 72–83.
  22. Johnson, A.; Clavijo, A.E.; Hamar, G.; Head, D.A.; Thoms, A.; Price, W.; Lapke, A.; Crotteau, J.; Cerveny, L.K.; Wilmer, H.; et al. Wood Products for Cultural Uses: Sustaining Native Resilience and Vital Lifeways in Southeast Alaska. USA For. 2021, 12, 90.
  23. Rokpelnis, K.; Ho, P.; Cheng, G.; Zhao, H. Consumer Perceptions of the Commodification and Related Conservation of Traditional Indigenous Naxi Forest Products as Credence Goods (China). Sustainability 2018, 10, 3801.
  24. Su, K.W.; Ren, J.; Qin, Y.T.; Hou, Y.L.; Wen, Y.L. Efforts of Indigenous Knowledge in Forest and Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study on Bulang People in Mangba Village in Yunnan Province, China. Forests 2020, 11, 1178.
  25. Estrada-Castillon, E.; Villarreal-Quintanilla, J.A.; Encina-Dominguez, J.A.; Jurado-Ybarra, E.; Cuellar-Rodriguez, L.G.; Garza-Zambrano, P.; Arevalo-Sierra, J.R.; Cantu-Ayala, C.M.; Himmelsbach, W.; Salinas-Rodriguez, M.M.; et al. Ethnobotanical biocultural diversity by rural communities in the Cuatrocienegas Valley, Coahuila; Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2021, 17, 1–22.
  26. Arevalo-Valenzuela, P.; Pena-Cortes, F.; Pincheira-Ulbrich, J. Ecosystem services and uses of dune systems of the coast of the Araucania Region, Chile: A perception study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 200, 105450.
  27. Sujarwo, W.; Arinasa, I.B.K.; Caneva, G.; Guarrera, P.M. Traditional knowledge of wild and semi-wild edible plants used in Bali (Indonesia) to maintain biological and cultural diversity. Plant Biosyst. 2016, 150, 971–976.
  28. Wang, N.A.; Fang, M.; Beauchamp, M.; Jia, Z.Y.; Zhou, Z.X. An indigenous knowledge-based sustainable landscape for mountain villages: The Jiabang rice terraces of Guizhou, China. Habitat Int. 2021, 111, 102360.
  29. Kibria, A.; Behie, A.; Costanza, R.; Groves, C.; Farrell, T. The value of ecosystem services obtained from the protected forest of Cambodia: The case of Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 27–36.
  30. Dangi, M.B.; Chaudhary, R.P.; Rijal, K.; Stahl, P.D.; Belbase, S.; Gerow, K.G.; Fernandez, D.; Pyakurel, B. Impacts of environmental change on agroecosystems and livelihoods in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ. Dev. 2018, 25, 59–72.
  31. Konovalova, M.E.; Danilina, D.M.; Nazimova, D.I. Thinning-Based Formation of Siberian Pine Forests in the Dark Chern Zone of Western Sayan. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 2018, 11, 779–788.
  32. Pustovalova, L.A.; Veselkin, D.V. Rapid Changes in Plant Communities of Natural Parks due to Recreational Use. Russ. J. Ecol. 2020, 51, 399–407.
  33. Rai, N.D.; Benjaminsen, T.A.; Krishnan, S.; Madegowda, C. Political ecology of tiger conservation in India: Adverse effects of banning customary practices in a protected area. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2019, 40, 124–139.
  34. Gios, G.; Rizio, D. Payment for forest environmental services: A meta-analysis of successful elements. iForest 2013, 6, 141–149.
  35. Chen, H.S. Establishment and Application of an Evaluation Model for Orchid Island Sustainable Tourism Development. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 755.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback