protected area tourism

Data, analysis, convening and action.

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Get Involved

Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas : the state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) have been long recognised as an effective…

This second edition of The state of protected and conserved areas in Eastern and Southern Africa…

West Africa is characterized by rapid population growth, endemic poverty and poor governance and…

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Share this content.

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

Sustainable recovery of tourism in protected areas from the COVID-19 pandemic

Transforming Vision Into Action - Oped

16 December 2020

In their guest post 1 for Transforming One Planet Vision into Action, the authors (Anna Spenceley, Ana Baez, James R. Barborak, Clara-Jane Blye, Kelly Bricker, Hery Cahyadi, Katherine Corrigan, Elizabeth Halpenny, Glen Hvenegaard, Delphine King, Yu-Fai Leung, Ante Mandic, Steve McCool, Robin Naidoo, David Newsome, Dominik Rüede, James Sano, Mahmoud Sarhan, Veronica Santamaria, Thiago Beraldo Sousa, and Anne-Kathrin Zschiegner) share their reflections on working towards a responsible recovery from COVID-19 for the tourism sector.

Global experiences dealing with COVID-19 among the conservation and tourism community reinforces time-tested principles and practices we have developed over the years, such as those described in the IUCN Best Practice Guidelines on sustainable tourism 2 .This pandemic has highlighted the interconnectedness between various stakeholders and sectors, including private enterprise, public health, protected area visitors, gateway communities, government and non-governmental organisations. Recovery requires we collaborate and work together if we desire thriving businesses, healthy ecosystems, resilient livelihoods and sustainable tourism economies.

We recommend that protected area tourism is ‘built back better’ than before COVID-19, by not returning to business as usual, by taking into account climate change, biodiversity loss 2 , and by being more inclusive, equitable and integrated with sustainable development principles. Nobody can predict how the pandemic will evolve, nor the recovery timeline, but stakeholders can identify plausible scenarios and create action plans that work towards sustainable tourism. Furthermore, market research suggests that post-COVID-19 people will seek out adventure travel, natural spaces, safe and quality experiences 3 . Therefore, it is imperative that protected areas are prepared for directing this surge towards positive outcomes.

Resilience is important for the health of visitors, local people, and staff; more diverse income streams for the local economy and protected areas; greater attention given to equity and inclusiveness; and a better understanding of tourism globally, such as changes affecting the airline 4  and cruise industries. Long-term resilience for protected areas also means strengthening community wellbeing and local economies, reviewing the financial viability of enterprise infrastructure and possibly establishing long-term investment plans. Protected areas and their shift towards additional digital offerings; coupled with a better balance between local, national, and international visitors; can increase the bonding between nature and people, and facilitate conservation education despite physical distances and restricted travel.

Planning for the future starts with building on what we now know about the relationships between biodiversity, tourism, and health 5 . Those relationships can be uncertain, subject to change, and often loosely coupled. The challenges ahead are difficult and global, affecting many protected areas, the livelihoods of dependent people, and influencing visitor experience. Addressing these challenges in a post-COVID-19 world provides an opportunity to reframe nature-based tourism and outdoor recreation to be more attentive to these dimensions. Our future can approach these challenges in an integrated way , with models such as OneHealth 6 . We recommend that planning be more holistic, inclusive, equitable, adaptable and focus on what tourism and outdoor recreation sustains.  Many people involved are particularly vulnerable to change due to distances from markets and dependency on natural resources for livelihoods.  The way forward for tourism has five dimensions: (1) fostering openness to change, with a new way of thinking and acting; (2) developing a vision; (3) protecting natural and cultural heritage for their importance to the environmental services of the area and peoples’ dependency on tourism; (4) recovering and rebuilding local livelihoods and the health of residents and visitors; and (5) reframing tourism , includingthe resources it uses, to achieve productive and healthy livelihoods without degrading the biodiversity upon which it depends.

The net-impact of COVID-19 on protected areas, local communities, and wildlife is yet to be determined, and the balance of damage caused (i.e., loss of income for conservation projects, damage, wildlife crime in the absence of a management presence) and unanticipated benefits (i.e. ecological recovery and restoration, increased demand for sustainable travel) 8 . A critical assessment of previous tourism scenarios (focussing on what was good and what might have been bad) will be an essential step forward. We promote establishing consensus on a more sustainable pathway and then establishing appropriate management approaches. The coronavirus may be with us long into the future 9 . Protected area managers, tourism operators, visitors, and gateway communities need to be prepared to meet the challenge of operating amid COVID-19.  This requires us to think differently about visitor experiences, community livelihood, protected area policies, and paradigms.

Tourism and Protected Areas Specialist Group is one of the volunteer specialist groups of the  IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas  (WCPA). The group’s mission is to provide a forum where people collaborate, stimulate dialogue, share expertise, develop and disseminate knowledge, and enhance learning, to enable the planning, development and management of sustainable tourism in protected areas. See Tourism - TAPAS website

1 This text is extracted from a more extensive paper by the same authors, “Tourism in protected areas amid the COVID-19 pandemic,” submitted to the Special Issue on Protected and Conserved Areas and Pandemics in the journal PARKS. 2 Leung, Y.-F., Spenceley, A., Hvenegaard, G. T., & Buckley, R. eds. (2018).  Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability (Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 27). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 3 Global Environment Facility (GEF) (2020). White paper on a GEF COVID-19 response strategy: The complexities and imperatives of Building Back Better, GEF/C59.Inf.14. 17 November 2020. 59th GEF Council Meeting, December 7-11 . Virtual Meeting. 4 Galvani, A., Lew, A. A., and Perez, M. S. (2020) COVID-19 is expanding global consciousness and the sustainability of travel and tourism, Tourism Geographies , 22 (3), 567-576. Riley, E. (2020). What the future of adventure travel looks like. Outside. 21 May 2020. Available at: https://www.outsideonline.com/2413863/future-adventure-travel-after-coronavirus-pandemic (Accessed: 5 October 2020) Tripadvisor (2020). Beyond COVID-19: The road to recovery for the travel industry , Available at: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Covid19WhitepaperMay2020 (Accessed on 10 September 2020) WTTC (2020) Recovery Dashboard , Available at: https://wttc.org/Initiatives/Recovery-Dashboard (Accessed: 3 September 2020) 5 Nunes, A. (2020). How Covid-19 will change air travel as we know it, BBC, Available at: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200709-how-covid-19-will-change-air-travel-as-we-know-it (Accessed on 15 September 2020). 6 Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D., Pfaff, A, Ellis, A. M., Golden, C. D., Herrera, D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, Ml., Ricketts, T. H. and Fisher, B. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world, Science Advances , 5 (4), DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav3006 7 Hendricks, W., Schwab, K., Bricker, K.S., Zajchowski, C. & Dustin, D. (2019). The Future of Parks and Recreation: One Health. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Volume 37, Issue 1, Spring 2019, pp. 141–145. 8 Newsome, D. (2020) The collapse of tourism and its impact on wildlife tourism destinations. Journal of Tourism Futures https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-04-2020-0053. Spenceley, A. (2020). Building nature-based tourism back from COVID-19: Recovery, resilience and sustainability. Report to the Luc Hoffmann Institute. 12 November 2020 9 Lovelace, B. and Kim, J., (2020) World Health Organization warns: Coronavirus remains ‘extremely dangerous’ and ‘will be with us for a long time’ , CNBC, 22 April 2020, Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/world-health-organzation-warns-coronavirus-will-be-with-us-for-a-long-time.html (Accessed: 15 September 2020)

Protected area tourism

• Living reference work entry
• Later version available View entry history
• First Online: 01 January 2015
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Lawal Marafa 3  

127 Accesses

Historically, protected areas represent areas of land and water set aside for protection by legislation or culture bequeathed by past civilizations, subjected to a wide range of management requirements. While these areas receive protection because of their ecological and natural values, some are recognized because of their cultural value or wilderness with need for perpetuation (Marafa 2003 ; Strickland-Munro et al. 2010 ). There is evidence that protected areas constitute a cultural artifact having a very long history. Some scholars (Holdgate and Phillips 1999 ) claimed that this dates back to over two million years ago when protection of natural reserves was undertaken in India .

Given the nature of the resources, protected areas are those places in which human occupation and activities regarding exploitation of resources are limited. In this regard, some were protected in Europe to provide hunting grounds for the rich and powerful over 1,000 years ago. A growing number of countries...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Dudley, N. (ed.) 2008 Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland: IUCN.

Google Scholar  

Eagles, P., S. McCool, and C. Haynes 2002 Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN.

Holdgate, M., and A. Phillips 1999 Protected Areas in Context. In Integrated Protected Area Management, M. Walkey, I. Swingland and S. Russell, eds., pp.1-24. Boston: Kluwer.

Marafa, L. 2003 Identifying Wilderness in the Landscapes of Hong Kong Urban Periphery. International Journal of Wilderness 9(3):39–43.

Strickland-Munro, J., H. Allison, and S. Moore 2010 Using Resilience Concepts to Investigate the Impacts of Protected Area Tourism on Communities. Annals of Tourism Research 37:499–519.

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography and Resource Management, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Lawal Marafa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawal Marafa .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Hospitality Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA

Jafar Jafari

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Honggen Xiao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Marafa, L. (2014). Protected area tourism. In: Jafari, J., Xiao, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_153-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_153-1

Received : 14 November 2014

Accepted : 14 November 2014

Published : 25 September 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-01669-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_153-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_153-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Protected Area Tourism in a Changing Climate: Will Visitation at US National Parks Warm Up or Overheat?

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Natural Resource Science and Stewardship, US National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America

• Nicholas A. Fisichelli, 
• Gregor W. Schuurman, 
• William B. Monahan, 
• Pamela S. Ziesler

• Published: June 17, 2015
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226
• Reader Comments

Climate change will affect not only natural and cultural resources within protected areas but also tourism and visitation patterns. The U.S. National Park Service systematically collects data regarding its 270+ million annual recreation visits, and therefore provides an opportunity to examine how human visitation may respond to climate change from the tropics to the polar regions. To assess the relationship between climate and park visitation, we evaluated historical monthly mean air temperature and visitation data (1979–2013) at 340 parks and projected potential future visitation (2041–2060) based on two warming-climate scenarios and two visitation-growth scenarios. For the entire park system a third-order polynomial temperature model explained 69% of the variation in historical visitation trends. Visitation generally increased with increasing average monthly temperature, but decreased strongly with temperatures > 25°C. Linear to polynomial monthly temperature models also explained historical visitation at individual parks (R 2 0.12-0.99, mean = 0.79, median = 0.87). Future visitation at almost all parks (95%) may change based on historical temperature, historical visitation, and future temperature projections. Warming-mediated increases in potential visitation are projected for most months in most parks (67–77% of months; range across future scenarios), resulting in future increases in total annual visits across the park system (8–23%) and expansion of the visitation season at individual parks (13–31 days). Although very warm months at some parks may see decreases in future visitation, this potential change represents a relatively small proportion of visitation across the national park system. A changing climate is likely to have cascading and complex effects on protected area visitation, management, and local economies. Results suggest that protected areas and neighboring communities that develop adaptation strategies for these changes may be able to both capitalize on opportunities and minimize detriment related to changing visitation.

Citation: Fisichelli NA, Schuurman GW, Monahan WB, Ziesler PS (2015) Protected Area Tourism in a Changing Climate: Will Visitation at US National Parks Warm Up or Overheat? PLoS ONE 10(6): e0128226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226

Academic Editor: Stephanie S. Romanach, U.S. Geological Survey, UNITED STATES

Received: February 26, 2015; Accepted: April 24, 2015; Published: June 17, 2015

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication

Data Availability: All visitation data are publically available from the National Park Service visitor use statistics database ( https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/ ).

Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Earth’s protected areas include over 100,000 sites [ 1 ], and climate change will affect not only biodiversity and cultural resources within these protected areas, but also human visitation. With continued warming, climatically suitable areas for tourism may move poleward and low-latitude destinations may see shifts in visitation timing as tourists avoid extremely warm periods and associated conditions [ 2 – 4 ]. Whether visitors track climate change and shift their behavior across protected areas will depend on multiple environmental and socioeconomic factors [ 3 ]; however, understanding potential changes in visitation based on historical trends and future patterns of temperature change is a crucial first step for protected area managers and local communities to anticipate, plan for, and proactively influence future visitation. Examining these potential changes requires an assessment of long-term visitation data across a very large system of protected areas. Here, we take advantage of the United States national park system’s diversity and abundance of protected areas, climatic breadth, and systematic visitor-use data to address this issue.

United States national parks have been called “America’s best idea” because they protect the most highly valued areas of national heritage for all people [ 5 ]. The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) serves two related roles: 1) conserve natural and cultural resources and values and 2) provide for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of current and future generations [ 6 ]. As the NPS celebrates its centennial and enters a second century of stewardship, it recognizes that global change factors such as climate change are significant threats likely to affect both park resources and visitor use and experience [ 7 ]. Climatic conditions in an overwhelming majority of national parks are already at the warm extremes of their historical ranges of variability [ 8 ]. Furthermore, resource responses to ongoing climate change are evident across many parks and include measurable responses by glaciers, birds, insects, mammals, and vegetation [ 9 – 13 ]. Similar to other biota, human visitors to parks are prone to alter their behavior in response to climate change [ 2 ]. For example, peak visitor attendance appears to be shifting earlier in the year with increasing spring temperatures at some parks [ 14 ].

Multiple factors drive global tourism and protected area visitation, including financial constraints, availability of leisure time, and weather and climate [ 3 ]. Institutional schedules (e.g., national, religious, and school holidays) are also influential; nevertheless, the overall visitation pattern across protected areas worldwide consistently relates to regional climate patterns [ 15 , 16 ], and more specifically to direct and indirect effects of temperature [ 4 ]. Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, for example, typically plan their trips more than two months in advance and thus base decisions in part on long-term climate averages [ 17 ].

Future climate change-driven shifts in visitation timing and volume will have consequences for both protected area management and local economies. The 273 million visits to the U.S. national park system in 2013 resulted in expenditures of $14.6 billion in local communities and supported over 238,000 jobs [ 18 ]. Employment opportunities within parks and local park-oriented communities change seasonally with shifts in the number of visitors. For example, short-term seasonal employees comprise, on average, over 40% of the NPS workforce at parks during peak visitation periods (NPS Office of Human Resources data). Globally, travel and tourism account for roughly 9% of the world GDP [ 19 ], and thus future climate-mediated changes to protected area tourism could have impacts beyond local communities.

The U.S. national park system includes units from the tropics to the arctic and from remote wilderness to urban settings. Continued warming may extend the visitation season and increase visitation numbers at some parks while reducing it at others. Importantly, visitation patterns at still other parks may simply be insensitive to temperature. The objective of this study was to quantify the relationship between historical visitation patterns and temperature across a large protected area system and examine potential future visitation based on this relationship and projected climate change.

Materials and Methods

Study sites.

This study included protected areas across the U.S. national park system, from Guam and Hawai‘i in the Pacific to Alaska, the contiguous 48 states, and islands in the Caribbean. The national park system includes parks, monuments, recreation areas, historic sites, battlefields, memorials, and other designations located in urban, suburban, rural, and remote locations. These protected areas (hereafter referred to as ‘parks’) span over 150° of longitude and 80° of latitude. We used monthly total recreation visits between 1979 and 2013 for all parks with available data ( n = 370) [ 20 ]. A recreation visit is defined as entry of a person onto lands or waters administered by the NPS for recreational purposes, excluding government personnel, through-traffic (commuters), tradespeople, and people residing within park boundaries [ 21 ]. For analyses, we included all parks with at least 10 years of data and an average of 8000 annual visits ( n = 340) to ensure sufficient monthly visit counts, and averaged each month’s total recreation visits across all available years. Our analyses therefore capture historical long-term averages in climate and visitation and use these data and future climate projections to project potential future long-term average visitation.

Climate data

We matched historical visitation data with gridded historical monthly mean air temperature data obtained from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) high-resolution time series version 3.22 (TS 3.22) [ 22 ]. CRU TS 3.22 data are globally available at 0.5 decimal degrees (approximately 3000 km 2 at the Equator and 2000 km 2 at 70° latitude) for each month and year of visitation data. Although this dataset is spatially coarse, at least relative to the size of some parks, it offers for all NPS geographies the highest spatiotemporal resolution of observed temperature over the 1979–2013 study period.

Future monthly mean air temperature projections for each park were obtained from WorldClim [ 23 ]. We considered a 2041–2060 future and two emissions scenarios, representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 W/m 2 (referenced as RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Estimates were based on 17 individual climate models available through the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5; see S1 and S2 Tables). The individual CMIP5 models were downscaled and calibrated (bias-corrected) using WorldClim as the historical (1950–2000) baseline. To account for differences between the training and projection data sources (CRU vs. WorldClim), we first subtracted each historical WorldClim monthly mean temperature variable from each corresponding WorldClim future (model × RCP). We then added these deltas to estimates of CRU monthly mean temperature computed for the same historical baseline (1950–2000). For each park we determined “low” and “high” climate change scenarios by selecting and ensemble-averaging the five lowest individual climate models under RCP 4.5, and five highest models under RCP 8.5, according to estimates of annual mean temperature ( S1 and S2 Tables).

To examine historical and potential future visitation, we used historical and future monthly mean air temperature. Across parks, historical monthly mean temperature varied from—17.7°C to 33.2°C (mean = 12.6°C). For 2041–2060, projected monthly mean temperature varied from—16.7°C to 34.9°C (mean = 13.8°C) under RCP 4.5 and from—14.6°C to 36.5°C (mean = 16.0°C) under RCP 8.5. Average monthly warming under the RCP 4.5 scenario was 1.3°C and under RCP 8.5 was 3.4°C. Some tourism-climate studies use climate indices based on multiple temperature, precipitation, humidity, and other variables [ 24 , 25 ]. Although these climate indices may perform well, issues of multicollinearity exist and temperature is generally the most influential climate variable [ 4 ]. By using a single explanatory variable, air temperature, we assume that others factors are constant (e.g., income, population size and demography, and leisure time availability). While managers cannot influence climate change over large landscapes, they can plan and prepare for how such changes may alter visitation; knowledge of the quantitative relationship between visitation and temperature is a critical first filter for deciding where and how to possibly implement management actions.

Statistical analyses

We parameterized system-wide and park-specific models to assess the relationship between historical visitation and climate. To examine the overall distribution of visitation and relationship to temperature across the park system, we used generalized linear models (glm) with a binomial error distribution; proportion of a park’s annual visits occurring in each month (4080 months in 340 parks) was the response variable and mean monthly temperature and park name were the explanatory variables. Using proportions of visitation for each month allowed us to compare visitation patterns across parks with strongly differing annual totals (minimum annual total = 8150 and maximum annual total = 16.8 million). We tested four models of increasing complexity (a null model [intercept only], the first-order polynomial equation of temperature, the second-order (quadratic) polynomial equation of temperature, and the third-order (cubic) polynomial equation of temperature) to quantify the relationship between visitation and temperature [ 26 ]. Park name (categorical variable) was included in all models to account for the hierarchical data structure of months within parks. Bayesian information criterion (BIC) was used to identify the best model [ 27 ] and McFadden’s R 2 was calculated for the best model. For each individual park, we used linear regression and the same four potential models and comparison techniques as above to determine the best-fit model of historical long-term mean monthly total recreation visits.

To examine potential future visitation for the 20-year period 2041–2060, we used the best-fit model of historical visitation for each park from above and then predicted visitation based on the low and high climate change scenarios and two visitation growth ceilings (5% and 25% > mean historical visitation of the busiest month). Many parks are already challenged to accommodate more visitors during the busiest times of year (e.g., holiday weekends), and thus limits on modeled potential future increases are necessary. A maximum increase in future monthly visitation of 5% over the historical maximum month is a conservative estimate of low potential change in maximum monthly visitation over the next several decades and the 25% increase is a reasonable estimate of intermediate to high potential growth. This growth ceiling generally only limits future visitation projections for the busiest one or two months of the year (e.g., 4.1% of months across parks under the low climate change and low maximum growth scenario and 4.6% of months under the high climate change and high maximum growth scenario). Assessments of future potential changes in visitation were limited to parks with temperature as an explanatory variable in the best-fit historical model and an adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5.

We examined historical and projected future visitation across multiple seasons including peak season (three contiguous months with highest average visitation), shoulder seasons (two months before and two months after the peak season), and low season (three contiguous months with lowest average visitation), and assessed whether the timing (i.e., months) of potential future visitation seasons differed from the historical period. We also quantified the overall visitation season length based on the historical data and define it as beginning on the date when 10% of historical cumulative visitation is achieved and ending on the date when 10% of historical cumulative visitation remains for the year (e.g., the overall visitation season in a park that historically received 100,000 annual visits begins on the date the 10,000 th visit occurs and ends on the date when 10,000 visits remain for the year). To calculate overall visitation season length in days, monthly data were interpolated to daily values using a cubic spline. Data were analyzed in R (v. 3.1.1) [ 28 ].

Across the national park system, monthly historical visitation (mean proportion of annual visits) and temperature were strongly associated ( Fig 1 ). The third-order polynomial model of temperature was the best fit (ΔBIC > 100), all temperature parameters were strongly significant (P-values ≤ 0.001), and the model had an R 2 = 0.69 ( S3 Table ). This model fits the data well, though overestimates visitation at very high temperatures.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Mean (black circles) and error bars (+/- twice the standard error) from observed data are based on 2.5°C bins. Model estimate (dark gray solid line) ± 1 standard error (light gray shaded area), R 2 = 0.69.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.g001

Individual parks also showed strong relationships between historical monthly mean temperature and visitation ( S4 Table , S1 Fig ). Temperature was included in the best-fit (lowest BIC) model for 95% of parks (324 of 340). This included the first-order model for 106 parks (31%), the second-order polynomial model for 134 parks (39%), and the third-order polynomial model for 84 parks (25%). Adjusted R 2 for the best-fit model varied among parks from 0.12–0.99 (mean = 0.79, median = 0.87).

Of the original 340 parks assessed, 282 (83%) were temperature-sensitive, in that they showed strong relationships between visitation and temperature (adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5). Potential future visitation (2041–2060) varied across parks, but numerous patterns emerged ( Fig 2 ). Many high-latitude and high-elevation parks show increases in potential visitation across most of the year and especially during the shoulder seasons ( Fig 2A, 2B and 2C ). Some parks with historically warm temperatures and a broad visitation peak period show a potential future decrease in visitation during the hottest months of the year ( Fig 2D ). Parks with already-low visitation during the hottest months show a potential for this pattern to intensify ( Fig 2E ). Potential future visitation patterns at many high-latitude and high-elevation parks may look more like historical visitation at mid-latitude parks ( Fig 2A and 2B to Fig 2C and 2D ), and patterns at mid-latitude parks under a warmer future may look more like historical patterns at southern parks ( Fig 2D to Fig 2E ). Other parks, including many tropical and subtropical parks with relatively narrow monthly temperature ranges, showed no relationship to temperature, and therefore no warming-driven change was supported ( Fig 2F ). Some busy visitation periods such as late winter/early spring in the southern U.S. ( Fig 2E ) and autumn foliage season in the eastern U.S. ( Fig 2C ) were not captured in these temperature-only models.

a) Acadia National Park, Maine; b) Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming; c) Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina and Virginia; d) Arches National Park, Utah; e) Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida; and f) Pu‘uhonua o Hōnaunau NHP (National Historical Park, Hawai‘i; where a visitation-temperature relationship was not supported and historical mean monthly temperature [gray triangles and dashed line] is shown). Historical (black) error bars are +/- one standard error and future projection error bars show +/- one standard error of the prediction estimates. Solid red lines are for RCP 8.5 and solid orange lines are for RCP 4.5 low maximum growth projections, dotted lines of the same color and thickness show high maximum growth projections when different from low maximum growth.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.g002

Future warming across temperature-sensitive parks is projected, on average, to increase potential total annual visits, visitation during all seasons, and the length of the visitation season (Figs 3 , 4 and 5 , S2 – S4 Figs). Future projections (2041–2060) of annual visitation at individual parks varied from < 80% to > 140% of historical values ( Fig 3 , S5 Fig ). Most months in most parks (67–77%, RCP 4.5 low growth-RCP 8.5 high growth estimates) are projected to see warming-mediated increases in visitation, resulting in future increases (8–23%) in total annual visits across the national park system. By season, total park visits across the system are projected to increase 5–19% during the peak visitation season (three months), increase 9–24% during the shoulder seasons (two months prior to and after the peak season), and increase 13–31% during the low season (3 months). Visitation season length is projected to increase at most parks (mean increase 13–31 days). The timing of visitation (peak and low seasons) is not projected to shift temporally by more than one month at most (91–94%) temperature-sensitive parks.

Future visitation for each park is based on modeled monthly visitation relationship to temperature. Future projections, a) RCP 4.5 low growth and b) RCP 8.5 high growth, were limited to parks with temperature as an explanatory variable in the best-fit model and an adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5 ( n = 282).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.g003

Future visitation (2041–2060) at each park is expressed as a percentage of historical values (1979–2013). Future projections were limited to parks with temperature as an explanatory variable in the best-fit model and an adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5 ( n = 282). Boxplots: thick vertical black line indicates median, the boxes are the interquartile range (IQR), and the whiskers extend 1.5 x IQR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.g004

Overall visitation season length was defined as beginning on the date when 10% of historical cumulative visitation was achieved and ending on the date when 10% of historical cumulative visitation remained for the year. Projections did not vary between low- and high-maximum growth models for each RCP. Boxplots: thick vertical black line indicates median, the boxes are the interquartile range (IQR), and the whiskers extend 1.5 x IQR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.g005

Historical visitation is strongly related to temperature across the climatically and geographically diverse U.S. national park system, suggesting that climate change may play a large role in altering future visitation patterns in protected area networks across the globe. Higher visitation was related to warmer temperatures, except at the very warm end of the temperature spectrum (>25°C) where visitation numbers dropped off rapidly with increased temperature. These results agree with other large-scale tourism studies suggesting an inverted u-shape relationship between monthly temperature and visitation/tourism [ 4 ] and a potential poleward shift in visitation due to warming [ 2 ]. Visitation at individual parks also exhibited strong linear to polynomial relationships with monthly temperature. Future visitation at almost all parks (95%) may change based on historical visitation and temperature relationships and future climate projections. Most months in most parks are projected to climb up the visitation-temperature curve ( Fig 1 ), resulting in potential future increases in both total annual visits and visitation season length. Although very warm months at some parks may see decreases in future visitation, this potential change represents a relatively small proportion of visitation across the national park system.

The results presented here use a single explanatory variable, monthly mean air temperature, and yet capture a large amount of the variation in visitation patterns across the system as a whole and at individual parks. The strong relationship between visitation and temperature likely reflects both direct and indirect effects (e.g., visitor comfort as a direct effect, and water for recreation from spring snowmelt as an indirect effect). Importantly, this set of parks includes the entire spectrum of NPS park types, from small historical parks (e.g., Civil War battlefields) to large wilderness parks and from rural to urban settings. Parks that do not support an historical visitation-temperature relationship include some urban parks (e.g., Klondike Goldrush in Seattle, WA), cultural parks (e.g., Moores Creek National Battlefield, NC), and tropical parks with limited monthly temperature ranges (e.g., Pu‘uhonua o Hōnaunau National Historical Park, HI).

Many factors will alter and constrain actual future visitation patterns, including population changes, economic trends, travel costs, future disposable income, international travel patterns, and the capacity of protected areas and local communities to expand services to meet changing visitor needs; further assessments of these factors are needed [ 29 ]. For example, the influence of leisure time availability, such as school vacation periods is unclear. The historical data examined here, across 340 parks and a 50°C temperature gradient, strongly suggest that temperature influences visitation choices, including reducing visitation during very warm summer school vacation months. Many parks with narrow monthly temperature gradients did not exhibit strong increases in visitation during summer months (e.g., Fig 2F ), suggesting that the influence of school vacation is likely heterogeneous across the system. High visitation during spring months, when many schools in the U.S. have spring break holidays, were evident but generally only at low-latitude parks with warm spring temperatures (e.g., Fig 2E ), thus supporting temperature as a major influence on where these recreation visits take place.

Beyond warming air temperatures, other factors related to climate change may affect visitation patterns. Sea-level rise may alter opportunities for some types of recreation in coastal protected areas, irrespective of temperature. Severe weather events will have strong short-term impacts on visitation, but their impacts on long-term visitation patterns are difficult to project. Phenological shifts in visitation due to phenological shifts in resources, such as the fall foliage season, were not examined here but are likely important at many protected areas. Changes to hydrologic flows, due to forces other than mean monthly temperature, may also cause visitation patterns to shift. One strength of using temperature as a predictor of future visitation is the relatively low uncertainty in projections compared with other climate and non-climate factors, such as precipitation and socio-economic conditions. Furthermore, future temperature projections used here capture plausible bookends of mid-21st century conditions.

A changing climate is likely to have cascading and complex effects on protected area visitation, management, and local economies. Recognition of the strong link between visitation and climate presents an opportunity to plan for the future and has two primary implications for protected area management and local services/economies: 1) when and where people travel will change [ 30 , 31 ] and 2) the types and timing of services/facilities will need to respond to changing demands. Climate change adaptation is about adjusting to changing conditions and this includes moderating harm and exploiting beneficial opportunities [ 32 ]. Protected areas and local communities may need to do both in the future: moderate harm from too little and too much visitation (e.g., too few visitors to support local businesses or too many visitors reducing recreation enjoyment), and exploit beneficial opportunities from changing visitation patterns (e.g., increased recreation and education opportunities and visitation during shoulder seasons). Many NPS parks are already challenged with congested visitation conditions during busy weekends within the peak visitation season and this pattern may expand across additional weeks to months. Previously low-visitation periods may attract larger numbers of visitors and thus increase demands on park facilities and operations during traditionally low-staffed periods, while potentially increasing economic benefits to local communities. For parks with potentially decreasing visitation, changes in visitor services (e.g., increasing availability of potable water and air conditioning within buildings) and the timing of activities (e.g., shifts to early-morning or evening periods for outdoor activities) may be needed to adapt to such change and maintain visitation.

The NPS is about to begin its second century of preserving America’s natural and cultural heritage and providing for visitor enjoyment. The coming decades are likely to see changes in climate and changes in visitor use patterns and preferences. Protected areas and surrounding communities across the globe will need to adapt to—and may be able to capitalize on—opportunities afforded by changing visitation. Standardized historical climate data and future projections are available globally, whereas visitation data vary widely across protected areas in both availability and methodologies. Increased efforts to measure human visitation trends, the analyses provided here, and further research into short-term visitation patterns and other drivers of visitation can help protected area managers adapt to the effects of climate change and remain effective resource stewards while promoting visitor experience.

Supporting Information

S1 fig. strength of the relationship (adjusted r 2 of linear model) between historical (1979–2013) monthly visitation and temperature at parks across the u.s. national park system..

Adjusted R 2 for the best-fit model varied among parks from 0.12–0.99 (mean = 0.79, median = 0.87).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s001

S2 Fig. Potential future peak-season visitation (2041–2060) expressed as a percentage of historical values (1979–2013).

Future projections were limited to parks with temperature as an explanatory variable in the best-fit historical model and an adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5 ( n = 282). Peak season is the three contiguous months with highest historical average visitation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s002

S3 Fig. Potential future shoulder-season visitation (2041–2060) expressed as a percentage of historical values (1979–2013).

Future projections were limited to parks with temperature as an explanatory variable in the best-fit historical model and an adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5 ( n = 282). Shoulder season is the two months before and two months after peak visitation season.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s003

S4 Fig. Potential future low-season visitation (2041–2060) expressed as a percentage of historical values (1979–2013).

Future projections were limited to parks with temperature as an explanatory variable in the best-fit historical model and an adjusted R 2 ≥ 0.5 ( n = 282). Low season is the three contiguous months with lowest historical average visitation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s004

S5 Fig. Potential changes in future total annual visitation by climate scenario at U.S. national parks.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s005

S1 Table. The five individual climate models used in the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 W/m 2 low climate change temperature projections for each park.

These selected Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models have the five lowest estimates of annual mean temperature out of 17 possible models for 2041–2060. Future projections were ensemble averaged across these five climate models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s006

S2 Table. The five individual climate models used in the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 W/m 2 high climate change temperature projections for each park.

These selected Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models have the five highest estimates of annual mean temperature out of 17 possible models for 2041–2060. Future projections were ensemble averaged across these five climate models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s007

S3 Table. Generalized linear model output for historical (1979–2013) U.S. National Park System monthly visitation relationship to monthly mean temperature.

The third-order polynomial model was the best-fit model (lowest BIC). Results shown are based on a model that includes park name as a categorical explanatory variable and a quasibinomial error distribution to account for overdispersion, and has 3737 degrees of freedom.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s008

S4 Table. Linear model relationship between historical monthly visitation and temperature at individual U.S. national parks.

Output shown from the best-fit (lowest-BIC) model among four models of increasing complexity (a null model [‘Null’], a model including monthly temperature as the single explanatory variable [‘1 st -order polynomial’], the second-order polynomial equation of temperature [‘2nd-order polynomial’], and the third-order polynomial equation of temperature [‘3rd-order polynomial’]).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226.s009

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Dennis, D. English, C. Hawkins Hoffman, K. Leong, J. Loomis, B. Meldrum, L. Perez, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on a previous draft of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: NAF GWS WBM. Performed the experiments: NAF GWS WBM. Analyzed the data: NAF GWS WMB PSZ. Wrote the paper: NAF GWS WMB PSZ.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 5. Stegner W, Stegner P. Marking the sparrow's fall: The making of the american west: Macmillan; 1999.
• 6. National Park Service (NPS). About the National Park Service. www.nps.gov/aboutus/aboutnps.htm ; 2014a.
• 7. National Park Service (NPS). National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service Climate Change Response Program; 2010.
• 9. Carrara PE, McGimsey RG. The late-neoglacial histories of the Agassiz and Jackson glaciers, Glacier National Park, Montana. Arct Alp Res. 1981: 183–196.
• 13. Giersch JJ, Jordan S, Luikart F, Jones LA, Hauer FR, Muhlfeld CC. Climate-induced range contraction of a rare alpine aquatic invertebrate. Freshwater Science. 2015;: https://doi.org/10.1086/679490
• 18. Cullinane Thomas C, Huber C, Koontz L. 2013 national park visitor spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. 2014;Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR-2014/824.
• 19. WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council). Travel and tourism economic impact, 2012. 2014.
• 20. National Park Service (NPS). National Park Service visitor use statistics. https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/ . Accessed June 2014. 2014b.
• 21. Recreation Advisory Council Study Committee Number Two. A uniform method for measuring and reporting recreation use on the public lands and waters of the united states. 1965: 56.
• 28. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2014;R package version 1.1–7, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 .
• 32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea M, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, et al, editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

Banking on Protected Areas: Promoting Sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Communities: Report Launch

June 14, 2021.

The new World Bank report, “ Banking on Protected Areas: Promoting Sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Communities ,” is being launched on June 14, 2021. The report estimates the economic impact of tourism in protected areas on the local economies and makes the case that the promotion of sustainable tourism in protected areas should be actively included in economic development and recovery strategies given its ability to support economic growth, generate jobs and conserve biodiversity.

Join World Bank Global Director for the Environment, Natural Resources and the Blue Economy Karin Kemper for the launch of report.  A presentation on the main findings of the report will be followed by a panel discussion, moderated by the Regional Director of Sustainable Development for Eastern and Southern Africa Mark Lundell on the relevance of the report’s findings for economic recovery programs with government officials from Argentina, Nepal and Zambia. 

Welcome Remarks:

• Hasita Bhammar , Study Co-Lead, Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy, World Bank 

Keynote Speech:

• Karin Kemper , Global Director, Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy, World Bank 

Presentation on Report Findings and Recommendations:

• Urvashi Narain , Lead Economist and Study Lead, Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy, World Bank 

Panel discussion: How can nature-based tourism play a role in the economic recovery?

• Mark Lundell , Regional Director, World Bank 
• Natalia Jauri , Vice-President, Argentina’s National Parks Administration, Government of Argentina 
• Sindhu Prasad  Dhungana , Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forests and Environment, Bagamati Province of Nepal
• William  Katongo , Acting Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Arts, Government of Zambia

Karin Kemper

Karin Kemper is the Global Director for Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy at the World Bank. In her career spanning over 25 years, Dr. Kemper has worked on global environmental, natural resources and water issues. She has served in a range of functions at the World Bank, including as the Senior Director for Environment and Natural Resources, Senior Regional Advisor in the Office of the Vice President of the Latin America and Caribbean Region and as the World Bank Director of Climate Policy and Finance. Dr. Kemper is a German national and holds a Ph.D. in Water and Environmental Studies.

Mark R. Lundell

Mark Lundell was the World Bank Country Director for Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Comoros and Seychelles, with residence in Mozambique until July 2020. An American national, his experience at the World Bank includes previous positions in China, Brazil, Russia, and Central Asia. Lundell holds a doctorate in economics from the University of California - Berkeley, and a degree in economics from Georgetown University, Washington DC. He is fluent in English, Portuguese, Russian and French.

Urvashi Narain

Urvashi Narain is the Lead Economist, Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy, World Bank. With over 20 years’ experience on issues at the intersection of environment and development policy, Her areas of expertise span from air pollution management, and watershed management, to nature-based tourism. She is the author and led the report, “Banking on Protected Areas.”

Natalia Jauri

Natalia Jauri is the Vice-President of Argentina’s National Parks Administration. She is a sociologist, focusses on area of planning and evaluation of social policies. She obtained a Master degree in Social Policies from the University of Buenos Aires. Among other things, she has participated as an exhibitor in different conferences and she is the author of various scientific journal articles and book chapters. Natalia Jauri has been in the public service since 2002, where she assumes the responsibility of government areas in control and management bodies.

Sindhu Prasad Dhungana

Dr Dr Sindhu Prasad Dhungana is currently the secretary of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forests and Environment in Bagamati Province of Nepal. He has over 25 years of engagement in Nepal's forestry sector as a government officer. He has worked as the chief of Nepal's REDD Implantation Centre and also the Chief of Planning, Monitoring and Coordinating Division of the Ministry of Forests and Environment. Dr Sindhu Prasad Dhungana holds a PhD degree in environmental science from Monash University and Masters in Resource Economics from Melbourne University, Australia.

Hasita Bhammar

Hasita Bhammar is an Environmental Specialist with the Global Wildlife Program and the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes program in the World Bank’s Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy global practice. She supports the coordination, knowledge management and communications between the global project and the national projects. She began her career in wildlife conservation at the age of 21 by setting up a tiger conservation program in the Pench Tiger Reserve in India. Hasita holds a Master’s degree in Environmental Management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

William Katongo

Mr. Katongo joined the public service 26 years ago and has worked in the department of Human Resource and Administration at various level including. He is now based at the Ministry of Tourism and Arts. He served as Assistant Director from 2013 to 2016, and at Director level from 2017 to date. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration Degree from Copperbelt University and a Bachelor of Law degree from Zambia Open University.

INFORMATION

• Date/Time:  Monday, June 14, 2021 Time: 8 AM (EDT)/ 1 PM (GMT)
• REPORT: Banking on Protected Areas: Promoting sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Economies
• PRESENTATION: Key Findings: Banking on Protected Areas: Promoting sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Economies

Warner College of Natural Resources

Center for protected area management, warner college.

• Dean’s Office Staff
• College Overview
• Strategic Plan
• Dean’s List
• College Intranet
• People / Directory
• Information Technology
• Diversity and Inclusion Program
• Summer Courses at the CSU Mountain Campus
• First Generation Students
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Information for Transfer Students
• Warner College Field Courses
• Tune Into Nature: A Warner College Podcast
• Undergraduate Advising
• Scholarships and Fellowships
• Career Services
• Student Organizations
• Computer Labs
• Undergraduate Commencement Info

Research and Outreach

• Research Publications
• Centers and Institutes
• Research Groups and Labs
• Outreach Efforts
• International Affairs and Global Engagement

Alumni and Friends

• News and Announcements
• Dean’s Council
• Stay in Touch

Alumni & Friends

Research & outreach, academic departments.

• Ecosystem Science and Sustainability
• Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology
• Forest and Rangeland Stewardship
• Geosciences
• Human Dimensions of Natural Resources

Virtual Conference on Protected Area Tourism in a Post-COVID World

Introduction, how to participate, registration and costs, general information:, organizers:, colorado state university’s center for protected area management and u.s. forest service’s international programs, virtual conference dates:, october 11 – 15, 2021, deadline to submit presentation proposals:, we have closed the proposal submission period, deadline to register:, registration has closed, protected area tourism in a post-covid world, from october 11 through october 15, 2021 we invite you to join us for our virtual conference on  protected area tourism in a post-covid world, co-organized by colorado state university’s center for protected area management and the u.s. forest service’s international programs.  additionally, this conference has support from the gef-financed global wildlife program led by the world bank and the us national park service.   click here for the link to the conference agenda ., due to support of our sponsors, there is no cost for participation in this conference; however, we are limited to a maximum of 400 participants.  this online encounter will provide a virtual space to discuss how protected areas, communities, and sustainable tourism providers are currently adapting to covid-19 and to envision how we can improve sustainable tourism in protected areas in the future., the conference’s main goal is to offer an opportunity and space to exchange information and ideas between protected area and tourism professionals. this dialogue will be a continuation of the conversation held every september during our sustainable tourism in protected areas seminar. this english-language in-person seminar ( click here for more information ), also known as the tourism seminar, normally occurs over the course of 17-days and invites participants from around the world to join us as we visit a variety of protected areas in the western u.s. and explore sustainable tourism design and management in and around protected areas., in response to the pandemic during the years 2020 and 2021, it was not possible to offer this seminar. this conference provides us with an opportunity, due to its virtual nature, to unite our alumni from all of the previous seven editions of the in-person seminar while also allowing us to expand this professional network of contacts to people who have not yet been able to participate in our seminar but are interested in participating in the future. therefore, on behalf of colorado state university’s center for protected area management and the u.s. forest service’s international programs, we invite everyone interested in the topic of sustainable tourism in protected areas to participate in this event., conference focus, the world is in a constant state of change. in 2020, it became even more clear that the world can change drastically and very quickly. protected areas, a tool for the long-term conservation of biodiversity and environmental services, represent one of the largest collective human land-use decisions in the world. however, the global changes occurring affect protected areas in many complex ways. we are losing biodiversity, forest cover, clean water, clean air, and even our own connection with nature. but at the same time, protected area managers, collaborators, and communities are working with great dedication to sustain the protected areas that in the end sustain us., it is clear that providing sustainable opportunities for people to visit protected areas is vital for their long-term public support. in addition, support to protected areas can be designed in a way that also contributes to local community livelihoods and national-level economies. however, the covid-19 pandemic has created major global challenges on this front. at the same time, we have seen a boom in local visitation to protected areas as people have turned to their parks as a space for mental, physical, and emotional well-being during the pandemic. this virtual conference will allow us to exchange ideas, approaches, and stories of success in protected area visitation and sustainable tourism around the world. this includes what is working now and how we envision to create even more meaningful opportunities for people to connect with the world’s protected areas as global tourism starts to open up again., along with our general theme, “ protected area tourism in a post-covid world ”, the conference has three subthemes and ten featured topics:, conference sub-themes:, building resilience for tourism and protected areas., enhancing engagement and connections with the public., planning and managing sustainable tourism in protected areas., conference topics:, adaptation to covid-19, protected area tourism and resilience, good practices in sustainable tourism planning and management, new trends and opportunities in sustainable tourism in protected areas, building public support for protected areas, tourism and protected area concessions, tourism value chains, trails and other sustainable tourism infrastructure, environmental interpretation, university access programs, how to participate, there are three ways you can participate in this virtual conference: you can indicate your interest in 1) giving a presentation as a conference presenter, 2) indicate your availability to participate as a panelist , 3) or you can simply participate as a general participant . below we provide additional information on these possible levels of participation:, conference presenter, would you like to share your technical knowledge and experience with other conference attendees from around the world maybe you have an interesting case study or a project with lessons learned that you would like to showcase with others. the selected presentations in this category of participation will support the general theme of the conference, “protected area tourism in a post-covid world” and be related to one of the sub-themes and at least one of the conference topics. conference presenters may present alone or with a group of presenters., there are three format options for conference presenter presentations:, pre-recorded formal presentation (25 minute duration for individual presentations / 50 minute duration for group presentations): this format is ideal for speakers who do not have a stable internet connection and want to submit a pre-recorded video of their presentation to ensure that the presentation is transmitted on the day of your session without difficulty. this format is a formal presentation where the speaker presents (a powerpoint presentation, for example) and the audience listens. once the timeframe for the presentation is over, there will be a question and answer session so that the presenters can receive questions from the audience and answer them live., live formal presentation (25 minutes duration for individual presentations / 50 minute duration for group presentations): this option is appropriate for speakers who have a good internet connection and who will be able to connect through zoom to present their session live. this format is a formal presentation where the speaker presents (a powerpoint presentation, for example) and the audience listens. once the timeframe for the presentation is over, there will be a question and answer session so that the presenters can receive questions from the audience and answer them live., live interactive presentation (60 minutes duration for individual and group presentations): this option is appropriate for speakers who have a good internet connection and who will be able to connect through zoom to present their session live. this format gives speakers the opportunity to design a more interactive presentation that enables the implementation of interactive zoom features such as small group rooms and polls, as well as other interactive tools that will allow the audience to engage with the conference presenters during the presentation. once the timeframe for the presentation is over, there will be a question and answer session so that the presenters can receive questions from the audience and answer them live., we look forward to accepting a balance between prerecorded formal presentations, live formal presentations, and live interactive presentations., would you like to share your knowledge and experience on a topic, but prefer not to present it in a formal format with powerpoint slides rather, would you prefer to share your knowledge through informal conversation with other colleagues in the form of a panel we will be organizing panels to discuss different topics related to sustainable tourism in protected areas., general participant, would you like to participate as an audience member in all sessions and learn from the presenters without having the responsibility of presenting something formal as a general participant, you will have the opportunity to actively participate in the sessions as a member of the conference audience. you will be encouraged to participate in chats and breakout groups when they exist to make the most of this opportunity., registration, registration for the conference has now closed. , due to sponsorship from the us forest service international program, the gef-financed global wildlife program led by the world bank, and the us national park service, this conference is free for all participants. we are very appreciative of our conference sponsors who are making this conference widely available for people all around the world.  however, please note that we are only able to accept 400 participants in the conference.  participants will be accepted in the order that they apply, so it is important to apply as soon as possible if you are interested in this conference., if you have questions related to this virtual conference, please contact us by email: [email protected].