Developing sustainable tourism through adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru

This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University] On: 14 March 2013, At: 12:33 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Developing sustainable tourism through adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru a

Lincoln R. Larson & Neelam C. Poudyal

a

a

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, GA, USA Version of record first published: 19 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Lincoln R. Larson & Neelam C. Poudyal (2012): Developing sustainable tourism through adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20:7, 917-938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.667217

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 20, No. 7, September 2012, 917–938

Developing sustainable tourism through adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru Lincoln R. Larson∗ and Neelam C. Poudyal Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, GA, USA

Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 12:33 14 March 2013

(Received 5 August 2011; final version received 6 February 2012) Machu Picchu, Peru, is recognized as a top international travel destination. Pressure from the approximately 900,000 tourists who annually visit the ancient Inca city threatens the ecological integrity, physical substance and cultural authenticity of the World Heritage Site and surrounding area, including the Inca Trail. Multiple organizations and agencies currently involved in the management of Machu Picchu have distinct agendas for the conservation and development of the city, and conflicts regarding public access, economic growth and cultural preservation are rampant. Attempts to establish carrying capacities have failed, with proposed daily visitor levels ranging from 800 to 4000. This paper explores the complex issues surrounding tourism at Machu Picchu and presents a potential solution: an adaptive management approach based on the UN World Tourism Organization’s (UNWTO) sustainable tourism framework. This integrative strategy accounts for multiple perspectives and synthesizes disparate goals embraced by diverse stakeholders, including the Peruvian government, international conservation organizations, foreign tourists, private tour operators, regional authorities and indigenous communities. The focus on Machu Picchu as an adaptive management case study site outlines key steps leading to implementation, offering planning and policy implications for sustainability initiatives at numerous developing-world tourism destinations facing similar political and socio-economic challenges. Keywords: adaptive management; community development; indicators; Machu Picchu; sustainability; world heritage site

Introduction Few places in the world can match the natural beauty and historical significance of Machu Picchu, Peru. The ecological and cultural allure of the ancient Inca city has earned Machu Picchu a place on the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Heritage List (UNEP, 2008). Machu Picchu is also formally recognized as one of the “New Wonders of the World” (World of New7Wonders, 2011), and the image of Peru’s “Lost City” remains a powerful symbol of Peruvian culture and heritage. With its dramatic setting and mysterious past, the former Inca citadel has become a popular tourism destination and the centerpiece of a booming tourism industry (Desforges, 2000). About 2500 tourists visit Machu Picchu each day, and the remote site is under increasing pressure from developers and government officials, who want to expand tourism operations in the area (Leffel, 2005). Threats posed by unregulated use, inadequate planning, deficient

∗

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online C 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.667217 http://www.tandfonline.com


918

L.R. Larson and N.C. Poudyal

monitoring mechanisms and weak policy enforcement have caused Machu Picchu to be ranked as one of the most rapidly deteriorating World Heritage Sites (Hawkins, Chang, & Warnes, 2009). Because of these concerns, UNESCO has urged the government of Peru to revise its Master Plan for managing the Historic Sanctuary to emphasize sustainable development and prevent Machu Picchu’s possible inscription on the list of World Heritage Sites in danger (UNESCO, 2009). The state is currently working with UNESCO to construct a new Master Plan (Vecchio, 2011), but – with many diverse stakeholders and interests to balance – reaching consensus regarding Machu Picchu’s future has proven to be extremely difficult. Machu Picchu’s governing body consists of multiple organizations and agencies – from local to international – that have very different interests, ranging from preservation to utilization. Advocates of the mass tourism strategy want to increase access to the site, generate revenue for regional governments, private operators and local communities, and promote Inca culture as a marketable commodity. Opponents of mass tourism want to limit access, preserve ecological, archeological and spiritual assets, and protect existing cultures and livelihoods in Peru’s Andean highlands. David Ugarte, a former regional director of Cusco’s National Cultural Institute, summed up the core issue: “The (tour) companies are thinking of profit. Our task is to give to the next generation the opportunity to continue seeing this wonder for centuries to come . . . In ten years’ time there will no longer be a Machu Picchu. It’s not only part of our heritage. It’s a part of humanity’s” (Collyns, 2007). Although research suggests that resource protection and development are not mutually exclusive in the tourism sector (Weaver, 2011), the successful integration of these principles will likely require a shift from reactive to proactive management paradigms (Allen, Fontaine, Pope, & Garmenstani, 2011). In this respect, Machu Picchu presents a compelling opportunity for case study. Tourism management at the site is a classic example of what McCool and Moisey (2008) call a “messy situation” – a context where goals conflict, uncertainty abounds and relationships between stakeholders can be polarizing or hostile. However, if a sustainable solution were to emerge under these challenging circumstances, it could be used to resolve tourism problems in similar settings around the world. This paper explores the general concept of sustainable tourism, analyzes the complex issues surrounding tourism in Machu Picchu and presents a proactive, systematic, objective-driven, indicator-based adaptive management framework that may facilitate a progression from the sustainable rhetoric prevalent in management plans to sustainable solutions and action (Zan & Lusiani, 2011). What is sustainable tourism? The issue of sustainable development is at the core of the debate over Machu Picchu’s use. To ecologists, sustainable development is concerned with preserving the status and function of ecosystems (Rees, 1990). From the economic standpoint espoused by the World Commission on Environment and Development, sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Toman, 1992, p. 3). Within tourism, sustainable development typically refers to tourism that satisfies the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future (Vaughan, 2000). Multiple meanings have been attached to the term “sustainable” in the tourism context (Bramwell & Lane, 1993). McCool and Moisey (2008) suggest that sustainable tourism can refer to a business that perseveres and flourishes over a long period of time or an industry that acknowledges biophysical and social limits and intentionally remains small in scope. Hunter


Journal of Sustainable Tourism

919

(1995) observes that, in its purest form, sustainable tourism is a vital tool that augments large-scale economic and social development programs. Butler succinctly summarizes the adaptive paradigm by stating, “sustainable tourism is that which is developed and maintained in an area in such manner and at such a scale that . . . it remains viable over an infinite period of time and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists” (1999, p. 12). An effective sustainable tourism approach should maximize benefits and minimize impacts, thereby increasing the likelihood of long-term persistence. Saarinen (2006) argues that sustainability in tourism accounts for resource-based (e.g. impacts on natural and cultural capital), activity-based (e.g. growth and development of industry) and community-based (e.g. involvement of social capital in a local context) traditions. Each of these perspectives is relevant at Machu Picchu, where tourism threatens the ecological integrity and cultural authenticity of a cherished resource while bringing the promise of economic enhancement and community development. To understand how the sustainable tourism model may function in this context, the specific situational factors and challenges that make Machu Picchu unique must be considered. Machu Picchu: an overview The ancient citadel of Machu Picchu was built as a royal estate for the Inca ruler Pachacuti between 1460 and 1470 AD. The citadel remained hidden for centuries until 1911, when American explorer Hiram Bingham became the first non-native Peruvian to discover the ruins of the mythical “Lost City”. Bingham immediately understood the magnitude of his find, noting that “Machu Picchu might prove to be the largest and most important ruin discovered in South America since the days of the Spanish conquest” (Bingham, 1913). Bingham’s discovery brought international attention to the ancient city and the awe-inspiring landscape around it. In 1983, UNESCO officially recognized the cultural and natural value of the area by designating it a World Heritage Site and making the preservation of Machu Picchu a global priority (ICOMOS, 1983). To further protect its national treasure, the Peruvian government created a National Historic Sanctuary in 1981. Today, Machu Picchu continues to provide evidence and artifacts that help archeologists reconstruct elements of Inca civilization (Gordon & Knopf, 2007). The spirit of Machu Picchu has also pervaded the public imagination, fueling a nationalist movement among Peru’s indigenous people (Flores Ochoa, 2004; van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). Throughout Peru’s turbulent past, Machu Picchu has also remained a pillar of stability and an emblem of cultural fortitude. Overall, this enduring heritage highlights a powerful cultural landscape that warrants protection (Alberts & Hazen, 2010). The Machu Picchu ecosystem contains a variety of habitats and incredible biodiversity. Its elevation ranges from 1850 to 4600 m and includes dry subtropical forest along the river valleys, humid montane cloud forests on the steep mountain slopes and high-elevation paramo grassland (Galiano Sanchez, 2000; UNEP, 2008). Machu Picchu provides refuge for many wildlife species, including the Andean cock-of-the-rock, the ocelot and the endangered spectacled bear (Young & Leon, 2000), and the discovery of new species in the Machu Picchu area is not uncommon. These unique ecological features convinced the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) that Machu Picchu should be expanded into a biological protected zone for the surrounding areas. Machu Picchu is now recognized as a “managed resource protection area” by the World Conservation Union (International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN), set aside for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems and the associated cultural resources (IUCN, 1994). The protected zone currently covers 80,535 acres and reaches far beyond the ruins (Flores Ochoa, 2004).

920



Tourism at Machu Picchu Conservation designations by international organizations underscored Machu Picchu’s universal appeal, and the tourism industry was quick to respond (Vaughan, 2000). Before 1990, Peru accounted for less than 5% of all tourism in South America (Aguilar, Hinojosa, Milla, & Nordt, 1992). In the 1990s, with the introduction of improved infrastructure and reduction in violence and unrest in Peru, its exceptional natural and cultural features became more appealing to tourists (Casado, 1998; Desforges, 2000). A publicity campaign with the slogan “El turista es su amigo” (The tourist is your friend) was used to encourage positive public attitudes toward tourists and promote tourism as the panacea for Peru’s stagnant economy (Desforges, 2000). These political changes, economic reforms and aggressive marketing strategies created an international tourist boom in the mid-1990s that continues today. From 2000 to 2010, international tourist arrivals and expenditures in Peru doubled (World Economic Forum, 2011) and tourism became the fastest-growing sector of the Peruvian economy (Mitchell & Eagles, 2001). Based on the per capita number of tourist bed nights, the Cusco region assumes a dominant position in Peru’s international tourism hierarchy (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999); Cusco is the nearest major city to Machu Picchu, with airline and rail connections (Mendoza Quintana, 1997). In fact, over 90% of all international visits to Peru feature a stop in the Cusco Department, and nearly half of these trips include a visit to Machu Picchu (Desforges, 2000; Solano, 2005). Cusco hotels and hostels receive an average of 1.5 domestic tourists to every foreign traveler, much less than the 7:1 domestic to international ratio observed across Peru (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999). The spatially uneven nature of tourist promotion in Peru explains a large portion of this discrepancy. Government departments that oversee the tourism industry are hesitant to endorse travel to outlying areas, preferring instead to concentrate investments in established hotspots. Although there are 36,000 known archeological sites in the Cusco region, the potential for tourism in most of these underdeveloped locations has not been explored (Del-Arroyo, 2005; McGrath, 2004). Machu Picchu, however, is threatened by its extreme global visibility and a growing influx of visitors that threatens the limits of sustainability. Between 400 and 3000 people visit the ancient Inca city every day, and visitor numbers are increasing 6–10% every year (Emmott, 2003; Leffel, 2005; UNEP, 2008). The record annual high of almost 900,000 visitors was recorded in 2008 and – despite a slight downturn in 2009 and 2010, primarily due to site closures related to flooding and mudslides (Andean Tour Operator, personal communication, March 21, 2011) – that number is likely to increase (Vecchio, 2011). Although projections indicate that international tourist numbers across Peru may begin to stabilize in the near future (Divino & McAleer, 2010), the intensifying pressure on Machu Picchu itself will not subside (UNEP, 2008). The UNESCO Chief Irina Boklova acknowledged this alarming pattern in early 2011, remarking that “Machu Picchu is a victim of its own success” (Vecchio, 2011). If Peru is going to protect one of its most valuable resources, then management plans must address multiple challenges.

Management challenges at Machu Picchu Tourism management within and around Machu Picchu is affected by a variety of environmental, economic and social factors often associated with World Heritage Sites in developing countries (Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006; UNEP, 2008). Mitigating these factors can be a daunting task, but a successful management framework may be able to address each of the following concerns.


921


Ecosystem fragility The Machu Picchu ecosystem is extremely fragile. Nearly 90% of South America’s Andean cloud forests have already been lost, and anthropogenic changes have already damaged cloud forests on mountain slopes within the Historic Sanctuary (Hamilton, 1995). Scientists with Peru’s Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA) believe that noise pollution from helicopters and other vehicular traffic led to the disappearance of Andean condors in the region (Collyns, 2006). Current expansion of civilization and tourism infrastructure also threatens the migration corridors and montane habitats of several endangered species on the World Conservation Union’s Red List (IUCN, 2011; Peyton, 1980). The ecological viability and resiliency of Machu Picchu is a global concern. With tourist activity rising, managers need to act swiftly and decisively to protect the area’s biological diversity. The unique topography and geological instability of Machu Picchu add another element to the management equation. Landslides are common along the valley’s steep slopes and additional construction of visitor facilities atop Machu Picchu could precipitate a disaster (Hadfield, 2001; Sassa, Fukuoka, Wang, & Wang, 2005). Scientists report that the eastern portion of the ancient city is sliding downhill at a rate of 0.4 inches per month, and this movement could be the precursor stage of a rockslide (Sassa et al., 2005). Prominent Peruvian archeologist Federico Kauffman believes that in Inca times, no more than 500 small, barefooted people occupied Machu Picchu (LaFranchi, 2001), but modern tourists – whose behavior is generally much more destructive – often exceed 2000 on a single day. The UNESCO-supported proposed management plan incorporates a satellite monitoring system that will track earth movements and visitor activity patterns around the historic ruins, and UNESCO has also urged managers to develop a thorough risk preparedness plan for the site (UNESCO, 2006). As tourist numbers increase, managers must devise consistent and reliable strategies for preventing major site degradation. Site accessibility Although tourism in Machu Picchu is increasing, growth in the region has been hindered by the ruins’ remote location. With relatively limited access, Machu Picchu is a prime example of how inadequate transportation systems have constrained spatial expansion of the tourist industry in Peru (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999; World Economic Forum, 2011). About 150 km of rugged Andean highlands separate the Inca citadel from the urban center of Cusco, but a visit to Machu Picchu is much more than a casual day trip. Most tourists arrive via a four-hour train ride that carries passengers from Cusco to the town of Aguas Calientes at the foot of Machu Picchu. From there, buses transport visitors on a 20-minute ride along a dirt road up to the ruins 350 m above the Urubamba River. The ancient city itself sits on the saddle (elevation 2430 m), surrounded by the jagged peak of Huayna Picchu (2667 m) and Machu Picchu Mountain (2795 m). Efforts have been made to increase the accessibility of Peru’s premier tourist destination. The Peruvian company Inkaterra was recently cleared to open a helicopter service from Cusco to Aguas Calientes, but the Peruvian Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) reversed the decision after complaints from archeologists and environmentalists (Collyns, 2006; Higgins, 2006). Another government plan to increase tourism capacity – a cable car system that would transport visitors from Aguas Calientes to a proposed tourist village atop the ridge – was indefinitely suspended following public animosity regarding potential destruction of primary forests and important archeological remains (Burger & Salazar, 2004). The newly constructed Carilluchayoc Bridge, inaugurated despite


922


a prohibitory court order, opened a road corridor between Cusco and the small town of Santa Teresa. This bridge provides alternative road access to Machu Picchu for visitors who wish to bypass the expensive tourist train (however, road travelers must still be willing to endure several treacherous days of travel on perilous unpaved roads). Limited vehicular access encourages travelers and tourist companies to explore alternative access to the ancient Inca city. A popular option is the Inca Trail, a stone path built by the Incas to connect important sites throughout their Sacred Urubamba Valley. Tourists hike the trail from near Cusco, spending 3–4 days traversing scenic and historic mountainous terrain before descending to Machu Picchu. They experience the physical demands and the spiritual nature of the Inca’s ancient lifestyle in an authentic, ecologically friendly way (Arellano, 2004). However, many of these “eco-travelers” are contributing to degradation of a historic path not built to accommodate such frequent use. In 1984, 6000 tourists hiked the Inca Trail; by 1998, 66,000 hiked the trail, with over 1500 travelers on the Trail any given day (Roach, 2002). Because of severe damage, and based on UNESCO’s recommendations, a daily limit of 500 travelers (200 tourists, 300 porters) was implemented in 2001. The entry fee for a full trail hike was also raised from US $17 to $50. Today, only licensed tour operators are allowed to sell Inca Trail packages (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). Stringent regulations have created a three- to six-month waiting list for tourists hoping to hike the Trail, and many hikers are now seeking cheaper alternative routes (Healy, 2006). To reduce pressure on the ruins, UNESCO has discouraged the development of new access routes to Machu Picchu (Flores Ochoa, 2004). Increased access, however, could boost tourist numbers and increase foreign expenditure in the region. Hence, the debate over access to Machu Picchu continues. Local development The promise of huge profits from increased tourist activity around Machu Picchu could outweigh the problems of increased access and the related costs of potential site degradation for many local communities. The Peruvian government formally recognizes the value of tourism in employment creation and endorses the industry as an important development strategy (Brohman, 1996; Desforges, 2000). The Sierra Highlands of Peru contain half of the country’s people but produce just 12.5% of its GNP (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999). Many small Amerindian villages are scattered throughout Andean Peru, and very few of these communities derive any direct benefits from the tourist boom occurring in the Cusco area. Aguas Calientes (also known as Machu Picchu Pueblo), the small town at the base of the ruins, is an exception. The population of Aguas Calientes has grown from 400 to almost 4000 in less than a decade, the fastest rate of population growth in Peru (Emmott, 2003; UNEP, 2008). This rapid growth is directly related to the international appeal of Machu Picchu, and Aguas Calientes is earning a reputation as a tourist trap for visitors to the ancient ruins (Leffel, 2005). Unplanned commercial growth and an overflow of transient settlers have created other unanticipated problems for the town and its inhabitants. For example, a lack of adequate water treatment facilities forced the town to pump untreated human waste into local rivers, polluting the local ecosystem. Seasonal fluctuations in employment, restricted livelihood choices and a lack of collective identity have also been cited as factors contributing to social inequities (McGowan, 2010; UNEP, 2008). The unequal distribution of Machu Picchu tourism profits has done little to help the plight of most Aguas Calientes residents (Andean Tour Operator, personal communication, March 21, 2011). PeruRail, owned by the British company Orient Express Hotels, has held a monopoly on transportation in the Sacred Valley for nearly a decade. The company also owns the only hotel adjacent to the ruins, the Machu Picchu Sanctuary Lodge. Locals argue



923

that the foreign company, which carries 92% of the tourists from Cuzco to Machu Picchu, takes all the money out of the region (Collyns, 2007). Studies of other tourism destinations in the Peruvian Andes highlight the devastating effect of leakages; in many cases, over 90% of gross tourism revenues never reach the local community (Bury, 2008; Mitchell & Eagles, 2001). Although tour operators often promote tourism as a sustainable activity, improving the welfare of local people, in reality, this is rarely a primary goal (Blamey, 1997). To combat this, UNESCO has advised management bodies to give 10% of ticket receipts from Machu Picchu to the town of Aguas Calientes (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). This new source of money could help transform local infrastructure, but research shows that high levels of social integration, communication and trust-building between actors in the tourism industry are necessary to guarantee enduring socio-economic benefits to host communities (Cole, 2006). For example, tourism’s social ties to the host community are increased when the industry creates employment opportunities for local residents to serve as educators or interpretive guides (Jensen, 2010; McGrath, 2004). Increased ownership and control has been a vital component of sustainable tourism projects in rural Andean settings (Mitchell, 2008; Mitchell & Eagles, 2001); comparable approaches could produce positive results in tourist-busy villages throughout the Machu Picchu area. Persistence of Peruvian culture Even if an equitable distribution of tourism revenue in struggling communities can be achieved, local cultures may still suffer. Many of Peru’s indigenous people, the descendants of Machu Picchu’s Inca builders, resent the government’s push for more tourist facilities and greater access to the Cusco region (van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). The Andean people, proud of their cultural heritage, are concerned that international tourism threatens the sanctity of their sacred sites. A Peruvian movement known as incanismo has responded to these concerns, sparking new controversy over Machu Picchu’s use. Incanismo extols the virtues of Inca civilization and vilifies Europeans as the scourge of the Americas (van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). On a local level, incansimo principles advocate the preservation of historical treasures, such as Machu Picchu, for traditional purposes. For example, the residents of Aguas Calientes, hoping to regain ownership of Machu Picchu and repossess treasures hailed as part of their “cultural identity”, recently asked Yale University to return Inca artifacts taken by explorer Hiram Bingham almost a century ago (Cornwell, 2006). Yale began returning the artifacts in 2011, and they will eventually be displayed at a museum in Cusco (Regalado, 2011). On a larger scale, the exploitation of incanismo ideology contributes to a novel form of cultural degradation – ethnic tourism. Modern tourism packages in the Cusco region are all linked in some way to the Inca theme, and foreigners embracing the heritage tourism experience are eager to accept embellishments of Inca culture propagated by their guides (McGrath, 2004; van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). Tour operators, particularly members of the Cusco urban elite, have therefore been able to capitalize on incanismo as a marketable tourist commodity. The phenomenon of “staged authenticity”, where native people adopt a contrived culture to appeal to tourist interests, is slowly pervading the Peruvian highlands (MacCannell, 1973). The subsequent re-invention of tradition and cultural change precipitated by the tourism-mediated commercialization of Inca culture has transformed many aspects of life in the Machu Picchu area (Cohen, 1988). Rising entrance fees at Machu Picchu represent another obstacle threatening to diminish the site’s importance to local residents. Entrance fees have been raised several times in the past 10 years, from US $10 to $45 for international tourists and approximately half that


924


price for Peruvian residents – with occasional free days for locals (Andean Travel Web, 2011; Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). Though the price seems to not discourage international travelers, Amerindians who wish to visit the site for spiritual or cultural purposes can rarely afford access and are often displaced by large-scale tourism activities. Such conflicts between local interests and tourism-associated demands are not unique to Machu Picchu (e.g. Rugendyke & Son, 2005). The ICOMOS highlights the difficulties in integrating cultural resource management and tourism in its International Cultural Tourism Charter, asserting that physical, intellectual and emotive access to cultural heritage sites is a right that should not be denied (ICOMOS, 1999). Many locals believe the cultural “existence value” of a place like Machu Picchu cannot be expressed in economic terms or exchanges (Navrud & Ready, 2002), and some Peruvian residents that oppose foreign tourism are fighting to preserve their authentic cultural heritage. In 1999 and 2000, Cusqueños conducted a “March to Machu Picchu” denouncing government management policies in the Historic Sanctuary (Flores Ochoa, 2004). Yachay Wasi, a Cusco-based nongovernmental organization that works on cultural issues and sustainable development to benefit indigenous people, urges the world to critically analyze the consequences of mass tourism. At a 2006 United Nations forum, Yachay Wasi issued its Inka Challenge: “Will world governments, scientists, nonprofit sponsors and tourists respect indigenous people’s spiritual heritage, religion, burial sites, and human remains, and will the international community respect and allow them to protect their sacred sites” (Yachay Wasi, 2006). Concerns of indigenous people are now an integral part of UN agendas, and efforts to support local pride and regional identity must become an important part of management plans in places like Machu Picchu. Institutional complexity To compound the problems already facing the site, the Management Unit of Machu Picchu – the entity charged with carrying out Machu Picchu’s Master Plan – is composed of many different agencies. A recent restructuring of the Peruvian government has further complicated matters. Each of the disparate bodies that govern Machu Picchu has a distinct agenda, and each considers management options that balance public access, economic opportunity, and cultural and biological preservation in the region to different degrees. Thus, Peru’s National Institute of Culture (INC, now the Ministry of Culture) is charged with preserving the country’s national heritage and manages the cultural and historic aspects of the site, including the actual ruins. The INRENA (now the National Service of Protected Areas – or SERNANP - in the Ministry of the Environment) is responsible for the flora and fauna in the Historic Sanctuary. The Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Integration and International Trade Negotiations (MITINCI, now the Ministry of Foreign Commerce and Tourism – or MINCETUR) regulates tourism and development in the area, and the state’s Tourism Promotion Commission (PromPeru) actively markets the site to potential visitors. All activity in and around Machu Picchu is also overseen and monitored by two international organizations, UNESCO and IUCN. A heavy emphasis on centralized decision-making orchestrated by powerful government elites, not governance that involves a full range of invested individuals and organizations, has been a major constraint for developing countries trying to promote community participation in the tourism industry (Plummer & Fennell, 2009; Tosun, 2000). At Machu Picchu, regional and local authorities have a small but growing voice in management decisions, and efforts are underway to expand a management committee that incorporates public and private stakeholders not currently represented (PromPeru, personal communication, July 22, 2011). Although Machu Picchu’s


925

managers agree on the general goal of sustainable development, the current Master Plan does not adequately describe how this philosophy should dictate management strategies or who should be responsible for implementing them (UNESCO, 2011). The absence of an effective autonomous collaborative committee to create and implement directives and dictate the future course of Machu Picchu represents a major management problem (Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006).


Sustainable tourism priorities at Machu Picchu To maintain the value of the site and to mollify some of the challenges described above, most management-oriented documents at Machu Picchu have focused on a central question – the establishment and regulation of an appropriate carrying capacity. The concept of carrying capacity has been applied in a variety of settings and generally describes the level of visitor use that can be appropriately accommodated in a site without altering the physical environment or the overall visitor experience (Manning, 1999; McCool & Lime, 2001). At Machu Picchu, tourism is pushing the limits on both fronts. Excessive use has destroyed important archeological remains and overcrowding has negatively affected the aesthetic enjoyment, historical immersion, imagination and solitude that appeal to many visitors (Emmott, 2003). Larger crowds may impact the international public’s perception of Machu Picchu as a must-see tourist attraction and detract from its value as a World Heritage Site. Although Machu Picchu’s managers and operators acknowledge the importance of carrying capacity studies for the preservation of their site, they cannot agree on specific numbers. UNESCO, a conservation-minded organization, suggests that tourist numbers should be cut to 800 per day and visitors should wear soft shoes to reduce pressure on the ruins (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). Agencies hoping to increase tourism revenue in the region believe that the estimate is far too conservative. Peru’s INC, which oversees day-to-day running of Machu Picchu, claims that the site can cope with 3000 tourists per day (Emmott, 2003). Orient Express Hotels, the private British company that runs the Machu Picchu Sanctuary Lodge and the PeruRail tourist train from Cuzco, believes that the site can easily sustain more than 4000 daily visitors (Collyns, 2007). Seeking a compromise, Peru’s Regional Office of Culture tentatively accepted a management plan (effective 15 July 2011) created with input from UNESCO that capped daily entries to Machu Picchu at 2500 visitors, with further restrictions for specific locations within the Sanctuary (PromPeru, personal communication, July 22, 2011). However, enduring consensus in Machu Picchu’s carrying capacity debate is unlikely given the conflicting priorities of the site’s complex management conglomerate. In fact, research in multiple tourism settings has shown that attempts to define optimal carrying capacity in complex real-world situations are generally futile (McCool & Lime, 2001). In many cases, the failure of management plans is due in part to an unbalanced emphasis on overall carrying capacity and a lack of specificity regarding management goals and objectives (UNEP, 2008). The first step toward a sustainable future for tourism at Machu Picchu therefore involves the identification of appropriate management priorities. Regional authorities generally place a premium on tourism promotion and economic expansion, while international agencies often focus on conservation and preservation. Integration of these concepts is central to successful management in parks where multiple issues influence management decisions (McCool & Moisey, 2008). Therefore, all parties with a vested interest in tourism need to come together and engage in participatory planning focused on unified goals (Mitchell & Eagles, 2001; Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006). At Machu Picchu, these goals can be expressed in a pyramid of priorities (Figure 1). Site management should begin with

926

L.R. Larson and N.C. Poudyal Sustainable Tourism: A Pyramid of Priorities

Sustainable Use (Maintain resource value)

Social Viability (Stakeholder satisfaction, collaborative planning)

Resource Utility (Support local development, increase economic benefits)

Resource Integrity


(Protect biological diversity, prevent site degradation, preserve cultural heritage)

Figure 1. Pyramid of priorities to guide sustainable tourism management.

foundational efforts to preserve resource integrity, capturing the fundamental essence of the site and its unique “spirit of place” (Shackley, 2006). Once the protection of basic assets is secured, resource utility leading to social viability becomes the primary focus. This synergistic, hierarchical network of factors results in sustainable resource use, generating a positive feedback loop that theoretically persists in perpetuity. Although the pyramid of priorities concept may serve as a valuable point of origin for planning efforts, actual management requires far more explicit goals and actions. Successful growth of tourism in Machu Picchu and other World Heritage Sites may ultimately depend on an objective-driven, indicator-based adaptive management framework.

Sustainable tourism: an adaptive resource management framework Defining management objectives and actions A major criticism of Machu Picchu’s existing Master Plan, as well as management guidelines for international tourist destinations in other developing countries, has been the ambiguity of goals and strategies and a conspicuous absence of detail for possible actions (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008; UNEP, 2004; Zan & Lusiani, 2011). This criticism could be resolved using an adaptive resource management (ARM) framework, which applies knowledge from related disciplines to address contemporary tourism issues (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004). Variations of the ARM approach to informed decision-making have been applied in a variety of settings. Early iterations still in use today include the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC; Stankey, Cole, Lucas, Peterson, & Frissell, 1985) and the Visitor Impact Management Model (VIM; Graefe, Kuss, & Vaske, 1990), both of which aim to set limits and minimize negative impacts from recreation and tourism on public lands in the United States. Newer strategies such as the Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002) and the Integrated Monitoring and Adaptive Management System (iMAMS; QStation, 2009) have been used by Australian tourism operators to assess, monitor and successfully achieve sustainable outcomes. Although research has identified several distinct decision-making methods used in the adaptive management process, many similarities exist (McFadden, Hiller, & Tyre, 2011). Each framework relies on specific objectives or standards, associated indicators



927

that facilitate monitoring of these objectives and corresponding actions that help to reduce uncertainty associated with decision outcomes and ensure that desired objectives are being met (Allen et al., 2011; McCool & Lime, 2001). An effective ARM approach consists of several basic steps (Knutson et al. 2011; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). First, managers must define the problem and a corresponding key objective that represents a desired outcome. At Machu Picchu, the fundamental objective might be to maintain the site’s value as a unique natural, cultural and economic resource. Next, managers must identify a set of means objectives that support the fundamental objective. At Machu Picchu, these objectives might include simultaneously minimizing the impacts and maximizing the benefits of tourism. Other targets or means subobjectives could then be constructed, creating a transparent network structure to help guide the decision-making process. For example, means subobjectives under the broader category of “minimizing the impacts of tourism” might address the challenge of ecosystem fragility, whereas means subobjectives under the “maximizing the benefits of tourism” could focus on issues such as site accessibility and community development. Each means subobjective is associated with a corresponding set of management actions necessary to achieve the desired goal (Figure 2). In this proposed framework, objectives are designed to integrate stakeholder concerns and specifically address the major challenges facing Machu Picchu from a social–ecological perspective that incorporates human, natural and support systems (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). The traditionally narrow focus of previous efforts to define tourism goals has restricted progress in other protected areas. By incorporating noneconomic factors and simultaneously balancing costs and benefits, the ARM objectives outlined here provide a solid foundation for long-term success (Moscardo, 2011). The input of all groups, including local residents, tourists, tour operators and site managers, is a critical component of objective and action specification (Plummer & Fennell, 2009; Stronza, 2001). A meta-analysis of international adaptive management supported this assertion, revealing that decision-theoretic approaches emphasizing stakeholder communication early in the process typically resulted in less complex models with greater efficacy addressing specific decision problems (McFadden et al., 2011). Adaptive management attempts that experience only limited success are often generic top-down systems focused around expert opinion, not place-based frameworks guided by local knowledge and concerns (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2006; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). For example, a study of a rural Bolivian ecotourism destination demonstrated the importance of context-specific outcomes and the invaluable role of local contributions in the accomplishment of long-term goals (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). For ARM to function properly at Machu Picchu, local stakeholders should be involved throughout the constantly evolving planning process. This intentional inclusion of local input could help to resolve two of the major challenges facing Machu Picchu: local development and the persistence of Peruvian culture. Selecting appropriate indicators Although the identification of explicit management outcomes is important, goals and objectives alone are insufficient. A set of measured attributes must also be included to monitor progress and ensure that action goals are met. Recognizing the value of this approach, the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has created a guide for the selection of performance indicators that measure the effects of tourism on the environment and poverty alleviation in the developing world (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; WTO, 2004). The nature of these sustainability indicators varies from site to site, but core indicators in the UNWTO framework generally focus on aspects including critical ecosystems, maintenance

Figure 2. Proposed adaptive management framework for Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu.


928 L.R. Larson and N.C. Poudyal



929

of natural capital stock, long-term use intensity, local involvement, well-developed plans, resident/customer satisfaction and tourism’s contribution to the economy (Miller, 2001; WTO, 1996). Research indicates that tourism experts around the world believe both objective (quantitative) and subjective (qualitative) metrics can provide important information (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Miller, 2001). Quantitative indicators often include raw data, ratios and percentages; qualitative indicators might incorporate categorical indices, and normative or nominal information associated with a resource (WTO, 2004). For indicators to function properly, they should be condensed into a concise set carefully selected by integrated, multidisciplinary advisory panels composed of expert and nonexpert stakeholders (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). The indicators should also be subjected to a systematic screening process to identify limitations and methodological challenges (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Overall, effective indicators are relevant, reliable, feasible and stable over an extended period of time (QStation, 2009; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). At Machu Picchu, a diverse suite of quantitative and qualitative indicators based on the UNWTO’s framework could measure and monitor progress and direct actions related to target objectives (Table 1). Some of these indicators include information that is already available through standard surveillance monitoring; others require additional research and data collection. For example, the role of tourism in community development could be tracked through quantitative evaluations of tourism integration (e.g. percentage of guides that are locals or percentage of hotels operated by locals) or qualitative assessments of community involvement (e.g. stakeholder ratings of perceived collaboration in the tourism planning process). Similarly, the economic benefits of tourism could be assessed by quantitative methods (e.g. daily tourism revenues) or qualitative approaches (e.g. stakeholder ratings of the distributional equity of tourism profits). Machu Picchu’s Management Committee has already identified many potential indicators in the site’s comprehensive 234-page Master Plan (INC, 2005). However, the Committee has yet to devise a consistent strategy for implementing and monitoring these performance indicators (UNESCO, 2011; Zan & Lusiani, 2011). This stage of adaptive management – the monitoring phase – is where many sustainable tourism projects break down (Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). Monitoring progress Monitoring is more than a stand-alone activity used to detect trends. In the ARM framework, monitoring can help managers determine which management practices meet specified objectives and develop flexible strategies for resolving recurring problems (Knutson et al., 2011; Plummer & Fennell, 2009). In practice, the major limitation of the UNWTO’s approach to indicators has been a heavy focus on the development of indicators with little emphasis on their actual implementation (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2006). For monitoring in ARM to be beneficial, it must be an iterative component of management-based science (Nichols & Williams, 2006). Managers should initiate a particular management option, evaluate its impact and learn from the results – adjusting management strategies as understanding improves (Williams, 2011a; Figure 3). This learning can occur “actively” through the deliberate reduction of uncertainty associated with particular outcomes, often using an experimental approach involving different actions on multiple units simultaneously. Alternatively, the learning can occur “passively” as a byproduct of systems that focus on changes in resource conditions with respect to desired objectives using one model at a time (Williams, 2011b). The passive approach is probably more feasible in the nascent stages of ARM at Machu Picchu, where managers are under pressure to implement actions that generate an immediate response (e.g. temporary site closures,

930


Table 1. Suggested indicators for specified objectives in adaptive management framework at Machu Picchua.


Objectives (with corresponding actions)

Potential objective indicatorsb

Protect biological diversity Maximize amount of protected No. of local species habitat downgraded on IUCN Red Increase populations of T&E List/yr species Amount of habitat restored Minimize land use change and for T&E species fragmentation in Urubamba Size/viability of threatened Valley populations Percent change in interior forest area and edge/yr. Population density within 10 km of site Prevent physical degradation Minimize erosion and No. of people and visitor landslide potential density across Minimize and properly spatial/temporal scales dispose off waste Soil loss in valley and in ruins/yr Total weight of waste generated/month Percent wastewater treated before disposal Preserve cultural heritage Minimize damage to historic No. of historic structures Inca structures damaged/yr Increase site accessibility for Percent revenue spent on spiritual purposes structural renovation/yr Minimize exploitation of No. of people attending ethnic tourism cultural events at site/yr Minimize socio-cultural No. of interpretive signs impacts of tourism-related highlighting Inca heritage activities No. of locals visiting site/yr No. of crimes committed in region/yr Support local development Increase local involvement in Percentage of guides at site tourism industry that are locals Improve access and local Percentage of hotels operated infrastructure by locals Increase educational No. of locals employed in opportunities tourism industry Ratio of foreign tourists to local residents No. of visitors/week reaching site from various access points (road, train, etc.) No. of social services (including education programs) available to locals

Potential subjective indicatorsb Site protection priority ratings (IUCN conventions) Site resiliency and habitat integrity ratings (experts) Site susceptibility to climate change ratings (experts)

Landslide potential ratings (experts) Ratings of waste management procedures Perceived impacts of waste in local communities General appearance of site ratings Perceived authenticity of interpretive efforts Tour guide knowledge and performance ratings Ratings of perceived cultural degradation among locals Opinions toward current tourism practices

Perceived collaboration in planning process Rankings for levels of planned development control Regulatory framework efficacy ratings Business environment and infrastructure ratings (locals and managers) Perceived contribution of tourism to local development projects

(Continued on next page)


931

Table 1. Suggested indicators for specified objectives in adaptive management framework at Machu Picchua. (Continued)


Objectives (with corresponding actions)

Potential objective indicatorsb

Increase economic benefits Increase amount of foreign No. of tourists visiting site per expenditures day, week, etc. Increase flow of tourism Tourism revenue per day, profits to local communities week, etc. (+ leakage) (reduce leakage) No. of agencies/operators Enhance marketing/promotion using site of tourism No. of jobs added by tourism sector Percent economy based on tourism (local, regional, national) Indirect/direct economic impacts of tourism in the area Ensure stakeholder satisfaction Maximize visitors’ satisfaction No. of conflicts/confrontations Maximize locals’ satisfaction between tourists and Maximize managers’ locals/yr. satisfaction No. of protests/complaints filed against management/yr. No. of repeat visitors/yr.

Potential subjective indicatorsb Prioritization of tourism rankings on multiple scales Tourism marketing materials efficacy ratings Distributional efficiency of tourism profit ratings Perceived impact of imported tourism goods and services

Satisfaction level ratings for locals, visitors and managers Visitor perceptions of trip value given investment Perceived crowding Sustainability ratings for operations

aFull adaptive management framework is depicted in Figure 2. bPotential indicators are based on previous research and guidelines

specified by the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 2004). The Machu Picchu Management Committee could adapt this framework to provide more specific, measurable and verifiable indicators.

regulating visitor numbers, altered pricing schemes, restorations, education campaigns). As information is gathered, comparisons of desired outcomes and observed responses of the selected indicators facilitate a movement toward more promising management alternatives (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Tourism managers at North Head Quarantine Station in New South Wales have already put these principles into practice (QStation, 2009). Using their iMAMS integrated monitoring approach, the QStation team developed a sustainability index to determine the percentage of environmental, cultural, social and economic indicators performing within their accepted range. Adaptive management responses are initiated when index scores are unsatisfactory. Although proposed solutions to complex management problems can be difficult to identify, ARM is specifically designed to deal with complicated circumstances. The ARM approach functions best in situations where controllability is high (i.e. management has the ability to affect resources) and uncertainty abounds (i.e. responses to management actions may vary), making it an ideal fit for remote World Heritage Sites like Machu Picchu (Allen et al., 2011). In summary, the constantly evolving implementation of ARM involves goals and objectives that are used to specify desired outcomes, indicators that serve as metrics for measuring the success of these outcomes, and monitoring that provides a mechanism to determine if these outcomes are being met. These interrelationships highlight the iterative,

932

L.R. Larson and N.C. Poudyal Set objectives/ Define community values

Develop appropriate indicators


Develop a monitoring program/ Inventory conditions

Collect information/ Are objectives being met?

Continue monitoring Yes

Monitor response

No

Initiate a management response Figure 3. Schematic management diagram demonstrating adaptive management monitoring principles (adapted from Hammitt & Cole, 1998; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Adapted version reprinted with permission of the authors and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

cyclical nature of an effectively flexible implementation of ARM and help explain why adoption of ARM may be critical to promoting sustainable tourism at Machu Picchu.

Implementing ARM at Machu Picchu The Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu already has many of the essential ingredients for ARM in place. The site’s Master Plan, backed by UNESCO, encompasses a comprehensive resource assessment and outlines management recommendations (INC, 2005). The Plan would provide a valuable starting point for conversations among stakeholders focused on objectives, potential actions and corresponding indicators (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). The Machu Picchu Management Committee, composed of local to international agencies, has already expressed a desire to expand and incorporate a broader range of actors in the public and private sectors (PromPeru, personal communication, July 22, 2011). If open lines of communication are established and the ARM process is initiated, Machu Picchu’s managers may finally be able to successfully overcome the obstacle of institutional complexity with a long-term management framework that is flexible and open to participatory decision-making (Williams, 2011a). Presumably, this cooperative approach would generate greater social and financial support across multiple scales.


933


Other challenges remain, however. The Management Committee must determine which agencies and entities are responsible for implementing specified actions and monitoring progress. These agencies must be individually accountable for certain aspects of the site (e.g. protected habitat, historic structures, tourism profits, visitor satisfaction), and they must be collectively devoted to the fundamental objective of resource protection. Managers must simultaneously recognize the local value and global importance of Machu Picchu, balancing conservation-oriented edicts from organizations such as UNESCO with regional economic growth (Saarinen, 2006). A stakeholder meeting would set the ARM process in motion (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005), extending the framework described here to create a more explicit action plan guided by site-specific knowledge of management objectives and measurable indicators of immediate, mid-term and long-term utility. Ultimately, a collaborative ARM approach should help to systematically resolve some of the challenges that impede the development of sustainable tourism at Machu Picchu, helping Peru to ensure that its “Lost City” is preserved in perpetuity.

Conclusion Sustainable tourism resource management is an elusive goal in most developing countries, where ecological and cultural heritage is often sacrificed in pursuit of economic wellbeing (Keatinge, 1982). Peru’s economic growth and aggressive promotion of tourism have placed severe demographic pressure on its most valuable tourism asset, Machu Picchu, creating divergent opinions over management priorities. This conflict of interest is magnified by the site’s unparalleled combination of biological and archeological resources, fragility, remote location, extreme local poverty, emerging cultural tensions and institutional complexity. Existing management plans have provided few answers, generally exacerbating disagreement among stakeholders and pushing the groups charged with protecting Machu Picchu to the breaking point (Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006; Zan & Lusiani, 2011). The future of the ancient Inca city depends on a delicate balance between preservation, utilization and sustainable growth. This paper suggests that an adaptive resource management approach may help planners and managers guide Machu Picchu’s growth. The ARM tourism framework would help to identify management priorities, facilitating the creation of cohesive goals and objectives among the various agencies responsible for conservation and development in the Historic Sanctuary. By individually monitoring specific indicators of quality across various spatial and temporal scales, managers could potentially address multiple management considerations that affect local residents, foreign tourists, private tour operators and regional governments. Furthermore, managers could foster resilience and flexibility by learning from inevitable mistakes and surprising responses, adjusting actions to better meet specified goals (Allen et al., 2011; QStation, 2009). Implementation of ARM would likely require substantial international investment, but a global commitment may be necessary for long-term conservation and appreciation of Machu Picchu and other premier World Heritage Sites (Saarinen, 2006). As more unique places around the world begin to feel the impending pressure of increased visitation (Weaver, 2011), the ARM approach may be necessary to support sustainable development that addresses environmental, economic and social challenges. If ARM is adopted successfully at Machu Picchu, then lessons learned from this sustainability framework could inform tourism practices at other heritage destinations surrounded by complex political circumstances and socioeconomic contexts.

934


Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the anonymous Andean tour operators who supplied first-hand accounts of the current tourism situation at Machu Picchu. The authors also wish to thank PromPeru (La Comisión de Promoción del Perú para la Exportación y el Turismo) for providing updated information about the current state of management efforts within the Historic Sanctuary.

Notes on contributors


Lincoln R. Larson is a graduate student in the Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism program at the University of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, USA. His interdisciplinary research focuses on a range of topics, including outdoor recreation, environmental education and human dimensions of conservation. Lincoln’s interest in sustainable tourism stems from his work on ecotourism projects in Peru. Neelam C. Poudyal is an Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism at the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, USA. He teaches courses on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development and Recreation Resource Management, and the main themes of his research program include the human dimensions and economic analysis of natural resource recreation and tourism in the United States and beyond.

References Aguilar, V., Hinojosa, L., Milla, C., & Nordt, W. (1992). Turismo y desarrollo: Posibilidades en la region Inka. Cuzco, Peru: CARTUC y CERA. Alberts, H.C., & Hazen, H.D. (2010). Maintaining authenticity and integrity at cultural world heritage sites. The Geographical Review, 100(1), 56–73. Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J., Pope, K.L., & Garmenstani, A.S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1339–1345. Andean Travel Web. (2011). Machu Picchu tourist information. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www.andeantravelweb.com/peru/destinations/machupicchu/index.html Arellano, A. (2004, January). Mobility systems and performance at Machu Picchu. Paper presented at the Alternative Mobility Futures Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Barcelona Field Studies Centre. (2007). Machu Picchu: Attitudes to management. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://geographyfieldwork.com/MachuTourismAttitudes.htm Bingham, H. (1913). In the wonderland of Peru. National Geographic, 24(4), 387–573. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/1913/04/machu-picchu/bingham-text Blamey, R.K. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(2), 109–130. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1–5. Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 48–70. Burger, R.L., & Salazar, L.C. (Eds.). (2004). Machu Picchu: Unveiling the mystery of the Incas. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bury, J. (2008). New geographies of tourism in Peru: Nature-based tourism and conservation in the Cordillera Huayhuash. Tourism Geographies, 10(3), 312–333. Butler, R.W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25. Casado, M.A. (1998). Peru’s tourism industry: Growth, setbacks, threats. Cornell Quarterly: Hotel Restaurant and Administration, 39(1), 68–73. Choi, H.C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274–1289. Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 371–386. Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644. Collyns, D. (2006, September 8). Peru bans flight over Inca ruins. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5326042.stm Collyns, D. (2007, February 1). Bridge stirs the waters in Machu Picchu. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6292327.stm



935

Cornwell, R. (2006, February 3). Peru tells Yale it wants its Machu Picchu treasures back (after 100 years). The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ peru-tells-yale-it-wants-its-machu-picchu-treasures-back-after-100-years-465452.html. Del-Arroyo, T. (2005). Choquequirao: Crib of gold. Retrieved from http://www.american.edu/ ted/peru-culture.htm Desforges, L. (2000). State tourism institutions and neo-liberal development: A case study of Peru. Tourism Geographies, 2(2), 177–192. Divino, J.A., & McAleer, M. (2010). Modelling and forecasting daily international mass tourism to Peru. Tourism Management, 31(6), 846–854. Emmott, R. (2003, November 26). Tourist boom threatens Peru’s Machu Picchu. Reuters Foundation Alert Net. Retrieved http://www.alertnet.org Farrell, B.H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274–295. Flores Ochoa, J.A. (2004). Contemporary significance of Machu Picchu. In R.L. Burger & L.C. Salazar (Eds.), Machu Picchu: Unveiling the mystery of the Incas (pp. 109–123). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Galiano Sanchez, W. (2000). Situacion ecologico-ambiental del Santuario Historico de Machupiqcchu: Una aproximacion. Cuzco, Peru: Programa Machu Picchu. Gordon, R., & Knopf, R. (2007). Late horizon silver, copper, and tin from Machu Picchu, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 38–47. Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R., & Vaske, J.J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: The planning framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. Hadfield, P. (2001, March 7). Slip siding away. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www. newscientist.com/article/dn491-slip-sliding-away.html. Hamilton, L.S. (1995). Mountain cloud forest conservation and research: A synopsis. Mountain Research and Development, 15(3), 259–266. Hammitt, W.E., & Cole, D.N. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hawkins, D.E., Chang, B., & Warnes, K. (2009). A comparison of the National Geographic Stewardship Scorecard Ratings by experts and stakeholders for selected World Heritage destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 71–90. Healy, P.O. (2006, November 12). Taking the back roads to Machu Picchu. New York Times: Travel. Retrieved from http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/travel/12machu.html Higgins, M. (2006, July 9). A faster way: New helicopter service to Machu Picchu. New York Times: Travel. Retrieved from http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/travel/09transmachu.html Hunter, C.J. (1995). On the need to reconceptualize sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3, 155–165. Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INC). (2005). Plan maestro del santuario historic de Machupicchu. Cusco, Peru: Instituo Nacional de Cultura, Instituo Nacional de Recursos Naturales y Dirección Regional de Cusco. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1983). Historic sanctuary of Machu Picchu. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_ evaluation/274.pdf International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1999). International cultural tourism charter. Retrieved from http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/ charters.pdf Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 169–189. Jensen, O. (2010). Social mediation in remote developing world tourism locations – the significance of social ties between local guides and host communities in sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 615–633. Keatinge, R.W. (1982). Economic development and cultural resources management in the Third World: An example from Peru. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38(2), 211–226. Knutson, M., Laskowski, H., Moore, C., Lonsdorf, E., Lor, S., & Stevenson, L. (2011). Defensible decision making: Harnessing the power of adaptive resource management. The Wildlife Professional, 4(4), 58–62. LaFranchi, H. (2001). Machu Picchu’s slide. Christian Science Monitor, 93(112), 7.


936


Leffel, T. (2005, November). Saving Machu Picchu: Responsible tourism is a 3-way deal. Transitions Abroad. Retrieved from http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/ magazine/0511/saving_machu_picchu.shtml MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603. Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (2nd ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. McCool, S.F., & Lime, D.W. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 372–388. McCool, S.F., & Moisey, R.N. (2008). Introduction: Pathways and pitfalls in the search for sustainable tourism. In S.F. McCool & R.N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Wallingford: CAB International. McFadden, J.E., Hiller, T.L., & Tyre, A.J. (2011). Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: Is there a formula for success? Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1354–1359. McGowan, J.L. (2010). The sustainable livelihoods and tourism intersect: Gender, power structures and local market vendors in Aguas Calientes, Peru. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University. McGrath, G. (2004). Including the outsiders: The contribution of guides to integrated heritage of tourism management in Cusco, Southern Peru. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4), 426–432. Mendoza Quintana, A. (1997). Evaluacion del patrimonio turistico del Peru. Investigaciones en Turismo, 1, 149–177. Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351–362. Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition: The challenge of developing and using indicators. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2006). Monitoring as an approach to sustainable tourism. In D. Buhalis & C. Costa (Eds.), Tourism management dynamics: Trends, management, and tools (pp. 51–57). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Mitchell, R.E. (2008). Community perspectives in sustainable tourism: Lessons from Peru. In S.F. McCool & R.N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability (2nd ed., pp. 158–182). Wallingford: CAB International. Mitchell, R.E., & Eagles, P.F.J. (2001). An integrative approach to tourism: Lessons from the Andes of Peru. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(1), 4–28. Moscardo, G. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4), 423–436. Navrud, S., & Ready, R.C. (Eds.). (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artefacts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Nichols, J.D., & Williams, B.K. (2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 668–673. O’Hare, G., & Barrett, H. (1999). Regional inequalities in the Peruvian tourist industry. The Geographical Journal, 165(1), 47–61. Peyton, B. (1980). Ecology, distribution, and food habits of spectacled bears, Tremarctus ornatus, in Peru. Journal of Mammalogy, 61(4), 639–652. Plummer, R., & Fennell, D.A. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 149–168. QStation. (2009). Bi-annual monitoring report for the north head quarantine station. Retrieved from http://www.qstation.com.au/pdfs/conservation/Q%20Station%20Bi-Annual%20Report%203.pdf Rees, W.E. (1990). The ecology of sustainable development. Ecologist, 20(1), 18–23. Regalado, A. (2011, February 14). Yale agrees to return Machu Picchu artifacts to Peru. ScienceInsider. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/02/yale-agrees-to-returnmachu-picchu.html Regalado-Pezua, O., & Arias-Valencia, J. (2006). Sustainable development in tourism: A proposition for Machu Picchu, Peru. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing world heritage sites (pp. 196–204). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Roach, J. (2002, April 15). Machu Picchu under threat from pressures of tourism. National Geographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2002/04/0415_020415_machu.html Rugendyke, B., & Son, N.T. (2005). Conservation costs: Nature-based tourism as development at Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(2), 185–200.



937

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1121–1140. Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Wang, F., & Wang, G. (Eds.). (2005). Landslides: Risk analysis and sustainable disaster management. Berlin: Springer. Schianetz, K., & Kavanagh, L. (2008). Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A complex adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 601–628. Shackley, M. (2006). Visitor management at World Heritage Sites. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing world heritage sites (pp. 83–94). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Solano, P. (2005). La esperanza es verde: Areas naturales protegidas en el Peru. Lima: Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental. Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Peterson, M.E., & Frissell, S.S. (1985). The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning (Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176). Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Stronza, A. (2001). Anthropology of tourism: Forging new ground for ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 261–283. Toman, M.A. (1992). The difficulty in defining sustainability. Resources, 106, 3–6. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633. Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 363–387. United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2006). Decision: 30COM 7B.35. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1121 United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2009). Decision: 30COM 7B.42. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4150 United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011). Decision: 35COM 7B.38. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4446 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2004). Tourism and local agenda 21: The role of local authorities in sustainable tourism. Paris: UNEP Division Techonology, Industry and Economics & International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/3207-TourismAgenda.pdf United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2008). World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Protected Areas and World Heritage Sites: Historic sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru. Retrieved from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/medialibrary/2011/06/29/91fbcd4e/ Machu%20Picchu.pdf van den Berghe, P.L., & Flores Ochoa, J. (2000). Tourism and nativistic ideology in Cuzco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 7–26. Vaughan, D. (2000). Tourism & biodiversity: A convergence of interests? International Affairs (Special Biodiversity Issue), 76(2), 283–297. Vecchio, R. (2011, February 22). UNESCO Chief: “Machu Picchu is a victim of its own success”. Fertur Peru Travel Blog. Retrieved from http://www.ferturperu.info/2011/unesco-chief-machupicchu-is-a-victim-of-its-own-success/2297#more-2297 Weaver, D.B. (2011). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.011 Williams, B.K. (2011a). Adaptive management of natural resources – framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1346–1353. Williams, B.K. (2011b). Passive and active adaptive management: Approaches and an example. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1371–1378. World Conservation Union (IUCN). (1994). Guidelines for protected area management categories. Retrieved from http://app.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/1994-007-En.pdf World Conservation Union (IUCN). (2011). The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Retrieved from IUCN: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ World Economic Forum. (2011). Peru: Travel & tourism indicators. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/reports/travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2011 World of New Seven Wonders. (2011). The official New7Wonders of the World. Retrieved from http://world.n7w.com/the-official-new7wonders-of-the-world/

938



World Tourism Organization (WTO). (1996). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guide to the development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid: WTO. World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations. Madrid: WTO. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/ indicators-sustainability-tourism-destinations Yachay Wasi. (2006, May). Sacred sites and the environment from an indigenous perspective. Paper presented at the Fifth UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York. Retrieved from http://www.yachaywasi-ngo.org/InkaChallenge06 Young, K.R., & Leon, B. (2000). Biodiversity conservation in Peru’s eastern montane forests. Mountain Research and Development, 20(3), 208–211. Zan, L., & Lusiani, M. (2011). Managing change and master plans: Machu Picchu between conservation and exploitation. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. doi: 10.1007/s11759-011-9167-7

Developing sustainable tourism through adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru

Recommend Documents