sustainability

Review
Outdoor Recreation, Nature-Based Tourism,
and Sustainability
Patricia L. Winter 1, *, Steven Selin 2 , Lee Cerveny 3 and Kelly Bricker 4
1 US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507, USA
2 Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, Division of Forestry & Natural Resources, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26506, USA; [email protected]
3 US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA 98103, USA; [email protected]
4 Parks, Recreation & Tourism, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-951-680-1557




Received: 31 October 2019; Accepted: 14 December 2019; Published: 20 December 2019


Abstract: This Special Issue addresses the intersections of outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism,
and sustainability. Outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism provide essential benefits to
individuals, communities, and society and thereby contribute to sustainability. Equitable provision of
opportunities, cultural variations in desired experiences, barriers to outdoor recreation, and diverse
perceptions of both nature and recreation add to the complexity in outdoor recreation and
nature-based tourism service delivery. Outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism occur within a
socioecological system with feedback loops to changing social, economic, technological, and ecological
conditions. On a global scale, climate change and other disturbance factors are impacting ecosystems
and opportunities, increasing the importance of adaptation strategies for longer-term planning.
Population growth and regional shifts in demographics and distribution (e.g., urbanization), as
well as socioeconomic trends, affect who engages in outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism,
opportunities sought, nature access, and governance of outdoor services. Overall the complexity
of sustainable outdoor recreation and tourism may suggest a need for different approaches to
service delivery, culture change among service providers and managers of natural spaces, and novel
approaches to inclusive governance and shared stewardship. Given the clear importance of outdoor
recreation and nature-based tourism to society, we invite you to consider this initial introduction
to our assembled collection, which is meant to advance our understanding of the intersections of
outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, and sustainability.

Keywords: outdoor recreation; nature-based tourism; sustainability; health; socioecological

system; governance

1. Introduction
There is growing recognition of the positive benefits of outdoor recreation and nature-based
tourism. Visiting natural settings and being outdoors are widely recognized as important for improving
human health and well-being, enhancing social connections, connecting people with their natural and
cultural heritage, generating revenues for use in conservation, contributing to local economies, fostering
local or indigenous identity, and developing a conservation consciousness [1–3]. These identified
benefits of outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism exemplify the contributions of nature-based
experiences to individual, community, and societal resilience and sustainability. As awareness of these
benefits has increased over time, the importance of an equitable delivery of benefits has continued
to be a focus for communities of interest (defined by shared interests in a topic or set of topics, for

Sustainability 2020, 12, 81; doi:10.3390/su12010081 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 2 of 12

example, recreation access) and communities of place (defined by a shared geographic location),
policy makers, and intended beneficiaries. Equity is paramount to contributions toward current and
future sustainability. Having recognized the growing popularity of natural destinations, the tourism
industry, municipal officials, and development organizations have taken steps to increase tourism
within relevant localities and to turn natural sites into popular trip destinations. Nature-based tourism
is one of the fastest growing tourism sectors, and many public lands and protected areas have become
important tourist destinations. Collectively, protected areas receive 8 billion visits annually, resulting
in $600 billion in visitor spending [4]. Tourism provides an important economic engine for host nations
and is a potential source of revenue for protected areas to meet conservation and biodiversity goals [5].
Furthermore, outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism may provide an opportunity to improve
ecological conditions where visitors are engaged in stewardship experiences [6]. These contributions
represent important aspects of sustainable recreation and tourism delivery [7].
However, rapid growth in nature-based visitation can lead to challenging changes in local
communities, impact on local infrastructure and facilities, create competition for scarce resources, lead
to unwelcome marketing of indigenous products and traditions, and lead to an influx of nonlocal
workers, business owners, and amenity migrants [7–10]. Conflicts can arise when benefits do not
transpire for local tourism investors or jobseekers [5,11]. While nature-based tourism can serve to expand
the constituency of support for biodiversity and conservation efforts, increasing recreation and tourism
visitation can bring lasting changes to the natural and social environment [12,13]. Resource managers
seek to provide quality visitor experiences, while protecting natural and cultural resources and
expanding economic opportunities [14,15]. While collaborative engagement with communities in the
planning and delivery of these opportunities may improve outcomes, staffing and resource constraints
remain a challenge to full and sustained engagement [7,16–18]
Sustainability science encourages tourism development that “takes full account of its current and
future economic, social, and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry,
the environment, and host communities” [19]. The goal is to maintain essential ecological processes
and conserve natural heritage and biodiversity, acknowledge the authenticity of host communities
and cultural heritage, and encourage tourism activity that results in enduring economic opportunities
and poverty reduction strategies [19]. Collaboration and creative governing strategies that involve
multiple agencies, partners, and stakeholders are often required to achieve sustainability.
Our lands, rivers, and seas are being impacted by dramatic changes which affect the management
of resources and the development of tourism [20]. Sustainable tourism practices are more important
than ever to encourage resilience in ecological systems, including human communities. The purpose of
this volume is to explore the components of sustainable tourism and outdoor recreation and to critically
evaluate these relationships in order to foster the effective management of parks and protected areas,
as well as to enhance their contributions to broader socioecological resilience.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Benefits to Individuals, Communities, and Society

Outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism present essential benefits to individuals,
communities, and society and thereby contribute to sustainability [21]. Being outdoors, engaging
in active recreation, and visiting natural attractions provide opportunities for people to learn about
natural systems and develop attachments to places that contribute to positive spillover effects [22,23].
Although these spillover effects appear to vary by type of outdoor recreation activity, prior experience,
and individual differences, the positive outcomes are of considerable importance to inquiries regarding
sustainability [22]. Nature-based experiences in childhood are related to environmental attitudes and
behaviors in adulthood [24]. Other work [25] indicates, however, that the activities engaged in while
being outdoors affect children’s engagement in proenvironmental behaviors. Specifically, children
in rural areas may spend more time outdoors than children in urban areas, but if that time outside
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 3 of 12

is focused on agricultural-related work, the influence on proenvironmental behaviors is reported as

negative [25]. Kil et al. [26] found significant relationships between environmental attitudes, recreation
motivations and outdoor experiences, and environmentally responsible behaviors among adult trail
hikers. They assert that nature-based recreation managers can focus on maintaining high-quality
natural experiences and educational opportunities to support the development of proenvironmental
attitudes and experiences. In addition, recreation activities have a unique potential to foster deeper
connections to outdoor places that result in conservation engagements, such as restoration, stewardship,
or volunteerism [27,28]. These studies suggest nuanced relationships between the time spent outdoors,
the activities pursued while outdoors, and the outcomes desirable for promoting sustainability.

Mental and Physical Health Benefits

Recent work has highlighted the numerous contributions of a connection with nature to mental
and physical health [1,3,29–33]. Connectedness with nature has been found to mediate the relationship
between exposure to nature and mental health benefits, such as improvements in positive affect [32].
In addition, contact with nature has been associated with cognitive benefits, such as greater attention,
concentration, and impulse control, as well as improved working memory [29]. More broadly, outdoor
recreation and nature-based tourism provide experiences that are known to have positive health
outcomes [30,31,34,35]. Nature experiences can lead to an array of positive emotions, including awe,
happiness, joy, and contentment [21], and have been associated with significant stress reduction [34].
Given the association between awe and prosocial behaviors, Ballew and Omoto [21] suggested that
nature exposure contributed to social and mental well-being, even when that exposure involved a
relatively mundane experience. Similarly, Pretty et al. [36] reported findings from 10 case studies
showing a strong association between ‘green exercise’ and psychological well-being assessed as an
increase in self-esteem and a reduction in mood disturbance. Hartig et al. [37] found that Norwegian
adults responding to a cross-sectional survey valued nature for psychological restoration. Furthermore,
it appeared that among this sample’s respondents, valuing nature for restoration, and more generally
positive experiences in nature, served to promote ecologically responsible behaviors. The benefits
to individuals and concurrently increased care for nature highlight the interconnected relationship
between human and environmental sustainability.
Physical health benefits hold considerable interest as well [1,2]. Increased outdoor recreation
opportunities may be associated with decreased health care expenditure [38]. For example,
Cleland et al. [39] reported a significant relationship between the time spent outdoors, the level
of moderate and vigorous physical activity, and the body mass index among elementary school
children. Their findings suggest that children should be encouraged to spend more time outdoors in
order to increase physical activity and reduce the incidence of being overweight or obese, representing
direct contributions to physical health. Similarly, Hansmann et al. [34] reported greater benefits
to well-being with vigorous levels of physical activity. In addition to promoting physical exercise,
forest and natural area visits are believed to aid the immune system through the reduction of stress
hormones, which has a potential benefit in cancer prevention [31,40]. A growing realization of nature’s
myriad benefits to human health has sparked conversations among land managers about their role in
maximizing health benefits, improving access to protected areas, and finding ways to consider the
equitable distribution of health benefits to all members of society [41,42]. Increasingly, human health is
being viewed as a critical component of sustainability [43].

2.2. Cultural Diversity and Opportunities

Equitable provision of opportunities, cultural variations in desired experiences, barriers to outdoor
recreation, and diverse perceptions of both nature and recreation add to the complexity in outdoor
recreation and nature-based tourism service delivery [44–46]. Studies in the US show that participation
in outdoor recreation on national forest lands is not parsimonious to the proportionate distribution of
ethnic and racial minorities in the dominant population [47]. Similar patterns have been observed in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 4 of 12

studies conducted with ethnic minorities in Europe [48]. Communities of color have revealed variations
in preferences for degrees of development and types of activities that are distinct from Caucasian
visitors [46]. Whether these preferences continue to shift over time as a reflection of cultural changes,
such as seeing activities as part of one’s ingroup or culture remains to be seen [49]. Acculturation over
the course of several generations may also affect outdoor recreation trends and preferences, as well
as socioeconomic status, residential status, and other factors. A comparison between two surveys
of national recreation use in the US that were conducted ten years apart suggests, however, that
members of marginalized groups, including ethnic minorities, females, older adults, and rural dwellers,
identified increased perceptions of constraints to outdoor participation [44,45]. Studies in access to
outdoor recreation and leisure opportunities show differences by ethnicity, suggesting the need for
additional focus on identifying barriers [41,44,50].

2.3. Outdoor Recreation and Nature-Based Tourism in Socioecological System

Outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism occur within a socioecological system with feedback
loops to changing social, economic, technological, and ecological conditions [51–53]. Shifts in global
and regional economies and transnational regulations affect trade, business development, infrastructure
and utilities development, investment resources, and access to workers. Visitor preferences for outdoor
activities are often shaped by media images and consumer trends that constantly shift the flow of
visitation, the outdoor activities pursued, and the social patterns of travel [54]. For example, when
certain destinations catch on with social media, site managers may be unprepared for the onslaught of
visitors. Societal trends in work and leisure patterns and practices also shape how much time visitors
have available to explore the outdoors. In the US, for example, there has been a shift toward more day
visitation and accessible destinations [55]. In many settings, guided nature-based tours have replaced
independent travelers, changing the way visitors experience natural settings.

2.3.1. Innovations in Technology and Equipment

Changes in technology (e.g., eco-innovation) and equipment have added to experiential choices
for the participant and increased complexity for the service provider [53,56–58]. Ewert and Shultis [57]
introduced a model of technological impacts specific to backcountry recreation, with a broader
application to outdoor recreation in general. Their model pointed to five areas of technology’s
influence, including access and transportation (e.g., all terrain vehicles and mountain bikes), comfort
(e.g., thinner- and lighter-weight materials for products), safety (e.g., stronger materials and aids,
devices, or gear to support activities), communication (e.g., smartphones and GPS), and information
(e.g., the Internet). Each of these was viewed as increasing participation in backcountry recreation, with
both positive (e.g., greater awareness of opportunities and job creation in the industry) and negative
(e.g., increased environmental impacts or increased crowding) aspects noted. The opportunity to move
into new terrain and take part in unfamiliar and novel uses of that terrain can be both exciting and risk
enhancing for the participant and the service provider, and at the same time may provide a doorway to
increasing awareness of and support for wild areas, such as the wilderness [56–58]. Chavez [59] reported
that the youth involved in an outdoor activity day preferred the technology-dependent activities
offered (e.g., camera safaris and geocaching) to nontechnology-based activities (e.g., etchings and a
nature scavenger hunt). Crawford et al. [60] assessed the use of mobile technology in engaging children
with nature and found the approach equally effective to a more traditional environmental education
approach; however, the technology was rated as more fun. Mackenzie et al. [61] examined social
media and web-based platforms as another route to connect the youth, this time diverse urban youth
from under-represented groups. Findings point to novel opportunities to engage diverse youth who
might not otherwise be interested in nature-based opportunities. Among adults, Schneider et al. [62]
found that geocaching, an outdoor recreation activity dependent on a handheld Global Positioning
System (GPS), fostered physical activity, nature learning, relaxation, socialization, and autonomy.
Additional study is needed on the benefits and drawbacks of integrating technology into outdoor
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 5 of 12

recreation; for example, its possible interference with the processes that lead to developing connections
with nature has been posited [1,63].
The transition to virtual relationships with places, perhaps offered through virtual reality
experiences in nature, characterizes the digital age [64]. Recent work has shown different outcomes
when comparing virtual and in situ nature exposure, with in situ experiences having a greater impact
on connectedness to nature and improved affect [32]. These differences aside, virtual nature experiences
may provide opportunities to those who cannot participate more directly in outdoor recreation or
nature-based tourism. New research is needed to explore the role of virtual nature experiences in
motivating outdoor visitation, shaping visitor expectations of nature and the outdoor experience,
and the potential association with proenvironmental behaviors or support for conservation efforts.

2.3.2. Climate Change and Other Disturbance Factors

On a global scale, climate change and other disturbance factors are impacting ecosystems and
recreation opportunities that warrant consideration, where adaptation strategies are of particular
interest for longer-term planning [65,66] and are essential to sustainable tourism [67]. Changes in climate
are associated with flooding, drought, wildfire, higher temperatures, movement and introduction of
invasive species, and other risks [13,68]. Climate change has been noted for myriad adverse impacts
on the benefits derived from outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism [67,69], and continuing
environmental changes are likely to elevate risks in already vulnerable communities [70]. Where overall
outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism may increase [71] under climate change effects,
opportunities in some geographic locations may shift in terms of activity type or predominant
season of use [65]. Where biodiversity underpins nature-based tourism, shifts in abundance or
locations of species may have considerable effects on destinations [72]. Even within a larger geographic
region, variations in impact may be seen by elevation and ecosystem type. For example, a climate
change vulnerability assessment for outdoor recreation in the forest management units of the Sierra
Nevada reports varying impacts from climate change for the northern, central, and southern Sierra
zones [73]. Shifts in seasonality of use, such as an extended warm season or a decreased cold-weather
season, have mixed effects that are complex but ultimately impact recreation opportunities and
experiences in important ways. For example, while an increased warm-weather season of use in some
regions may provide increased opportunities for extended recreation use, the types of opportunities,
quality of experience, safety, and connections to place may all be impacted [73]. On a global scale,
increases and decreases in demand that represent the redistribution of tourism are central to sustainable
tourism planning [72]. Climate change may interact with fire regimes with mixed results on recreation
and tourism access and experiences in both the short and long term [74]. A loss of assets may mean an
extended loss of opportunities, and these impacts may be intensified for communities of interest and
place that are already most vulnerable [72,73].

2.3.3. Population Growth, Regional Shifts, and Socioeconomic Trends

Population growth and regional shifts in demographics and distribution (e.g., urbanization), as
well as socioeconomic trends, such as changes in culture and consumption patterns, affect who engages
in outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism, the opportunities sought, nature access, and the
governance of outdoor services [53,56,65]. Increased population is associated with increased levels of
recreation use, particularly adjacent to large urban centers [56]. The overall increase in use elevates
challenges for service providers working to deliver quality recreation opportunities, protect the habitat,
and ensure visitor safety [56]. When not properly managed, heavy visitor use can lead to biodiversity
loss and alter ecosystem functioning [75]. Increased use also creates pressure on recreation resources,
potentially leading to perceptions of crowding, which for some visitors is associated with reduced
enjoyment [35,76]. Perceived crowding combines the encounter level experienced by the individual
with a negative evaluation of that encounter level [77]. Conflicts can occur when the presence of or
behavior of one set of visitors interferes with the goals of another set [78,79]. Conflicts may occur among
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 6 of 12

different types of recreation visitors (e.g., hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians), among motorized
and nonmotorized users, and among visitors with different social norms and arrangements (e.g., group
sizes and commercially guided groups) and ethics (e.g., noise levels and littering). High visitation
levels may reduce the quality of the visitor experience for those seeking solitude or whose use of the
nature area conflicts with that of others [35]. For some visitors, crowding or user conflict can lead to
the inhibition, displacement, or dispersion of visitor use [80].

2.4. Ensuring Sustainability under Dynamic Conditions

Given dynamic ecological and socioeconomic conditions, what constitutes sustainable recreation
and tourism? Overall the complexity of sustainable outdoor recreation and tourism may suggest a need
for different approaches to service delivery, culture change among service providers and managers of
natural spaces, and novel approaches to inclusive governance and shared stewardship of our natural
and cultural heritage [16]. Benefit sharing is increasingly important for those living in and around
protected areas as pressures on protected area borders increase due to visitation [5]. Benefit sharing
supports tangible and intangible outcomes. For example, tangible aspects of outdoor recreation
and tourism activities in communities surrounding protected areas have demonstrated increased
support for improved infrastructure (e.g., health facilities, water, roads, and sewage) and increased
diversity of employment opportunities [5]. However, intangible benefits such as capacity building,
skills development, and increased community-level decision-making have demonstrated significant
social and human capital with positive, long-term impacts [81–84]. Snyman and Bricker [5] found that
ultimately “benefit sharing then becomes part of the give and take of a complex socioecological system,
whereby strategies and implementation goals must be adapted to address ever-changing cultural [85],
social [86], and ecological [85,87] systems” [5] (p. 713).
Due to the numerous and diverse stakeholders engaged in tourism and outdoor recreation
(e.g., government, local residents and the private sector), those living in and around protected areas
can be directly impacted, both positively and negatively, by visitation, as mentioned earlier in this
paper [5,10,88]. Brooks and Champ [56] cited the importance of inclusive processes that actively seek
diverse viewpoints and engagement in addressing recreation challenges. These include consideration
of co-management models, inclusive institutional frameworks [89], well-structured partnerships,
and capacity building, especially of marginalized groups, in the provision of services and direct and
indirect visitor support [90–94]. Incorporating the youth into the inclusive processes not only gains
insights across age cohorts but aids building the confidence, engagement, and empowerment of the
next generation of leaders [95], further extending the longer-term contributions to sustainability.

2.5. Sustainable Recreation and Tourism and Capacity Challenges

When planning for sustainability, many uphold the ‘quadruple bottom line’, which refers to
environment, society, economy, and governance [96]. When considering whether outdoor recreation is
sustainable, it is important to address the structures, processes, and institutions that support it and how
these are funded. Many nature-based destinations have experienced increases in visitor demand, owing
to population growth, increasing affordability of travel, ease of global travel restrictions, and efficiencies
in transportation and communication networks. Meanwhile, public agencies that manage tourist
destinations may face constraints to budgetary and human resource capacities. Staffing and funding
constraints make it difficult to (a) keep up with the maintenance and improvement of recreation
facilities and infrastructure, (b) provide quality interpretation programs and signage for visitors,
(c) hire, train, and retain enough skilled workers with professional training in recreation and tourism,
and (d) equip that workforce with science-based decision tools for recreation and tourism planning
and management [17,18]. Although the value of outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism is
increasingly being recognized, this output has not yet translated into increased agency support
for recreation and tourism management. Innovative financial tools and funding mechanisms are
needed to support protected areas and nature-based destinations. Public agencies can augment their
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 7 of 12

adaptive capacity to increase organizational performance through collaboration and working with
partners [6,97]. Agencies working together to achieve common goals can leverage resources and talent.
Capacity-building strategies can be employed to focus agency efforts on critical programs, settings,
and services and to build resources from the top down and the ground up [98].

3. Conclusions
Clearly, a growing body of empirical evidence is convincing scholars, managers, and policymakers
that outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism has the potential to contribute to sustainable
lives, families, communities, economies, and conservation. Tourism has been noted as a path to
improving the resilience capacity of a community through education, skill development, and co-creation,
as well as through economic diversification [52]. Connecting researchers and practitioners using
a transdisciplinary approach will improve environmental sustainability in the long term [99].
More scholarship is needed from a global to local scale to build an even stronger empirical case
for investing in transformational outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism experiences, facilities,
organizations, and policies. However, as emphasized in this introductory article, the transition
to sustainable outdoor recreation and tourism systems will be difficult [17,18]. Governance and
institutional change will be necessary on all scales to align the promise and reality of sustainable
outdoor recreation and tourism systems [100].
In this introductory article, we have also made the case that, to transition successfully to
sustainability, outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism scholars and managers should work
collectively to incorporate the theory, methods, and analytic tools of the Sustainability Sciences [101,102].
The Sustainability Sciences discipline is a problem-based, action-oriented field of research that
employs a wide range of transdisciplinary, community-based, and participatory research designs.
The Sustainability Sciences discipline also strives to integrate science, policy, and action. We need
more science-management partnerships in the outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism arena to
enhance the probability of policy implementation, organizational learning, and agency adoption.
Furthermore, to fully realize the promise of sustainable outdoor recreation and nature-based
tourism, scientists, policymakers, and managers will need to solve the implementation crisis
of translating sustainability science and assessments into management innovations that deliver
sustainability on the ground [103]. While the number of peer-reviewed sustainability articles continues
to grow, a significant gap exists between the publication of ever more sophisticated analyses for
prioritizing different sustainability indicators and translation projects that contribute to on the ground
change. Recent assessments of the impact of climate change on outdoor recreation promise movement
toward an improved model linking science and practice, where adaptation strategies and tactics
are co-developed by scientists, managers, recreation and tourism managers, opportunity providers,
and relevant stakeholders (see for example [104]), though time will reveal the full scope and influence
of these efforts in advancing sustainability.

Author Contributions: Individual contributions from authors occurred as follows: conceptualization, P.L.W., S.S.,
L.C. and K.B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L.W., S.S., L.C. and K.B.; writing—review and editing, P.L.W.,
S.S., L.C. and K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of David Olson, US Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station, in gathering literature for the summary and Michelle Carr of the same organization
for aid in formatting the paper and finalizing references.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 8 of 12

References
1. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.;
Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect.
2017, 125, 075001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 36,
207–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Wolsko, C.; Lindberg, K.; Reese, R. Nature-based physical recreation leads to psychological well-being:
Evidence from five studies. Ecopsychology 2019. [CrossRef]
4. Balmford, A.; Green, J.M.; Anderson, M.; Beresford, J.; Huang, C.; Naidoo, R.; Walpole, M.; Manica, A. Walk
on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol. 2015, 13, e1002074.
[CrossRef]
5. Snyman, S.; Bricker, K.S. Living on the edge: Benefit-sharing from protected area tourism. J. Sustain. Tour.
2019, 27, 705–719. [CrossRef]
6. Schild, R. Civic recreation: Outdoor recreationists as advocates, stewards, and managers of natural resources.
Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 629–646. [CrossRef]
7. Bricker, K.S.; Winter, P.L.; Schultz, J.R. Health, economy, and community: USDA Forest Service managers’
perspectives on sustainable outdoor recreation. Rural Connect. 2010, 5, 38–42.
8. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism
impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 1056–1076. [CrossRef]
9. West, P.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
2006, 35, 251–277. [CrossRef]
10. Jones, N.; McGinlay, J.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Improving social impact assessment of protected areas:
A review of the literature and directions for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 64, 1–7.
[CrossRef]
11. Dhakal, N.P.; Nelson, K.C.; Smith, J.D. Resident well-being in conservation resettlement: The case of
Padampur in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 597–615. [CrossRef]
12. Buckley, R. Ecological indicators of tourism impacts in parks. J. Ecotourism 2003, 2, 54–66. [CrossRef]
13. Bender, N.A.; Crosbie, K.; Lynch, H.J. Patterns of tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula region: A 20-year
analysis. Antarct. Sci. 2016, 28, 194–203. [CrossRef]
14. Eagles, P.F. Research priorities in park tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 528–549. [CrossRef]
15. Kim, Y.; Kim, C.; Lee, D.K.; Lee, H.; Andrada, R. Quantifying nature-based tourism in protected areas in
developing countries by using big social data. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 249–256. [CrossRef]
16. Heslinga, J.; Groote, P.; Vanclay, F. Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit-sharing from
tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 773–787. [CrossRef]
17. Selin, S. Operationalizing sustainable recreation across the National Forest System: A qualitative content
analysis of six regional strategies. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2017, 35, 35–47. [CrossRef]
18. Selin, S. Implementing sustainable recreation on the National Forest System: Aligning the reality and promise.
In 193 Million Acres: Towards a More Healthy and Resilient US Forest Service; Wilent, S., Ed.; Society of American
Foresters: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2018; pp. 371–383.
19. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Making Tourism More Sustainable—A Guide for
Policy Makers; United Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism Organization: Paris, France;
Madrid, Spain, 2005; pp. 11–12. Available online: http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5 (accessed on
19 December 2019).
20. Becken, S.; Job, H. Protected areas in an era of global–local change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 507–527.
[CrossRef]
21. Ballew, M.T.; Omoto, A.M. Absorption: How nature experiences promote awe and other positive emotions.
Ecopsychology 2018, 10, 26–35. [CrossRef]
22. Cartwright, K.S.; Mitten, D. Examining the influence of outdoor recreation, employment, and demographic
variables on the human-nature relationship. J. Sustain. Educ. 2017, 12.
23. Otto, S.; Pensini, P. Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and
connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behavior. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 88–94.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 9 of 12

24. Evans, G.W.; Otto, S.; Kaiser, F.G. Childhood origins of young adult environmental behavior. Psychol. Sci.
2018, 679–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Collado, S.; Corraliza, J.A.; Staats, H.; Ruiz, M. Effect of frequency and mode of contact with nature on
children’s self-reported ecological behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 65–73. [CrossRef]
26. Kil, N.; Holland, S.M.; Stein, T.V. Structural relationships between environmental attitudes, recreation
motivations, and environmentally responsible behaviors. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2014, 7–8, 16–25.
[CrossRef]
27. Larson, L.R.; Usher, L.E.; Chapmon, T. Surfers as environmental stewards: Understanding place-protecting
behavior at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Leis. Sci. 2018, 40, 442–465. [CrossRef]
28. Schild, R. Fostering environmental citizenship: The motivations and outcomes of civic recreation. J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 924–949. [CrossRef]
29. Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function
and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249, 118–136. [CrossRef]
30. Dustin, D.L.; Bricker, K.S.; Schwab, K.A. People and nature: Toward an ecological model of health promotion.
Leis. Sci. 2009, 32, 3–14. [CrossRef]
31. Karjalainen, E.; Sarjala, T.; Raitio, H. Promoting human health through forests: Overview and major
challenges. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2010, 15, 1–8. [CrossRef]
32. Mayer, F.S.; McPherson Frantz, C.; Bruehlman-Senecal, E.; Dolliver, K. Why is nature beneficial? The role of
connectedness to nature. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 607–643. [CrossRef]
33. Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Front. Ecol. 2016, 14,
94–101. [CrossRef]
34. Hansmann, R.; Hug, S.-M.; Seeland, K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and
parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 213–225. [CrossRef]
35. Shin, W.S.; Yeoun, P.S.; Yoo, R.W.; Shin, C.S. Forest experience and psychological health benefits: The state of
the art and future prospect in Korea. Environ. Health Prev. Med 2010, 15, 38–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Hine, R.; Sellens, M.; South, N.; Griffin, M. Green exercise in the UK countryside: Effects
on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
2007, 50, 211–231. [CrossRef]
37. Hartig, T.; Kaiser, F.G.; Strumse, E. Psychological restoration in nature as a source of motivation for ecological
behavior. Environ. Conserv. 2007, 34, 291–299. [CrossRef]
38. Rosenberger, R.S.; Sneh, Y.; Phipps, T.T.; Gurvitch, R. A spatial analysis of linkages between health care
expenditures, physical inactivity, obesity, and recreation supply. J. Leis. Res. 2005, 37, 216–235. [CrossRef]
39. Cleland, V.; Crawford, D.; Baur, L.A.; Hume, C.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J. A prospective examination of
children’s time spent outdoors, objectively measured physical activity and overweight. Int. J. Obes. 2008, 32,
1685–1693. [CrossRef]
40. Ewert, A.; Chang, Y. Levels of nature and stress response. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 49. [CrossRef]
41. Lemieux, C.J.; Eagles, P.F.; Slocombe, D.S.; Doherty, S.T.; Elliott, S.J.; Mock, S.E. Human health and well-being
motivations and benefits associated with protected area experiences: An opportunity for transforming policy
and management in Canada. Parks 2012, 18, 71–85.
42. Romagosa, F.; Eagles, P.F.; Lemieux, C.J. From the inside out to the outside in: Exploring the role of parks
and protected areas as providers of human health and well-being. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 10, 70–77.
[CrossRef]
43. Derrien, M.M.; Cerveny, L.K.; Wolf, K.L. The human health dimensions of sustainable tourism. In A Research
Agenda for Sustainable Tourism; McCool, S.F., Bosak, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK,
2019; pp. 140–158. [CrossRef]
44. Ghimire, R.; Green, G.T.; Poudyal, N.C.; Cordell, H.K. An analysis of perceived constraints to outdoor
recreation. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2014, 32, 52–67.
45. Green, G.T.; Bowker, J.M.; Wang, X.; Cordell, H.K.; Johnson, C.Y. An examination of perceived constraints to
outdoor recreation. J. Public Aff. Issues 2009, 12, 28–53.
46. Roberts, N.S.; Chavez, D.J.; Lara, B.M.; Sheffield, E.A. Serving Culturally Diverse Visitors to Forest in California:
A Resource Guide; Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-222; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 2009.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 10 of 12

47. Flores, D.; Falco, G.; Roberts, N.S.; Valenzuela, F.P., III. Recreation equity: Is the Forest Service serving its
diverse publics? J. For. 2018, 116, 266–272. [CrossRef]
48. Gentin, S. Outdoor recreation and ethnicity in Europe—A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 153–161.
[CrossRef]
49. Flores, D.; Kuhn, K. Latino Outdoors: Using storytelling and social media to increase diversity on public
lands. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 47–62. [CrossRef]
50. Jay, M.; Peters, K.; Buijs, A.E.; Gentin, S.; Kloek, M.E.; O’Brien, L. Towards access for all? Policy and research
on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas in four European countries. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 19,
4–11. [CrossRef]
51. Bosak, K.; McCool, S.F. A research agenda for sustainable tourism: Some ideas worth pursuing. In A Research
Agenda for Sustainable Tourism; McCool, S.F., Bosak, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK,
2019; Chapter 15.
52. Lew, A.A.; Cheer, J. Lessons learned: Globalization, change, and resilience in tourism opportunities. In Tourism,
Resilience, and Sustainability: Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change; Cheer, J., Lew, A.A., Eds.;
Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 319–323.
53. Williams, A.M.; Shaw, G. Future play: Tourism, recreation and land use. Land Use Policy 2009, 26S, S326–S335.
[CrossRef]
54. Wood, S.A.; Guerry, A.D.; Silver, J.M.; Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and
recreation. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2976. [CrossRef]
55. White, E.M.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.L.; Arnold, J.R.; English, D.B.K. Federal Outdoor Recreation
Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities; Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945; U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2016; 46p.
56. Brooks, J.J.; Champ, P.A. Understanding the wicked nature of “unmanaged recreation” in Colorado’s Front
Range. Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 784–798. [CrossRef]
57. Ewert, A.; Shultis, J. Technology and backcountry recreation: Boon to recreation or bust for management?
J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 1999, 70, 23–28. [CrossRef]
58. Watson, A.E.; Cordell, H.K.; Manning, R.; Martin, S. The evolution of wilderness social science and future
research to protect experiences, resources, and societal benefits. J. For. 2016, 114, 329–338. [CrossRef]
59. Chavez, D.J. Youth day in Los Angeles: Evaluating the role of technology in children’s nature activities.
Child. Youth Environ. 2009, 19, 102–124. [CrossRef]
60. Crawford, M.R.; Holder, M.D.; O’Connor, B.P. Using mobile technology to engage children with nature.
Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 959–984. [CrossRef]
61. Mackenzie, S.H.; Schwab, K.; Higgins, L.; Greenwood, P.B.; Goldenberg, M.; Greenwood, J.; Hendricks, W.W.
From social media to the outdoors: Exploring messages that connect with underserved urban youth.
J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh. 2017, 9, 137–151. [CrossRef]
62. Schneider, I.E.; Silverberg, K.E.; Chavez, D. Geocachers: Benefits sought and environmental attitudes.
Larnet Cyber J. Appl. Leis. Recreat. Res. 2011, 14, 1–11.
63. Greenwood, D.A.; Hougham, R.J. Mitigation and adaptation: Critical perspectives toward digital technologies
in place-conscious environmental education. Policy Futures Educ. 2015, 13, 97–116. [CrossRef]
64. Misra, S.; Stokols, D. A typology of people-environment relationships in the Digital Age. Technol. Soc. 2012,
34, 311–325. [CrossRef]
65. Askew, A.E.; Bowker, J.M. Impacts of climate change on outdoor recreation participation: Outlook to 2060.
J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 97–120. [CrossRef]
66. Cheer, J.; Lew, A.A. Environmental change, resilience and tourism: Definitions and frameworks. In Tourism,
Resilience and Adaptation to Environmental Change; Lew, A.A., Cheer, J.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018;
pp. 3–12.
67. Scott, D. Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 17–34. [CrossRef]
68. Pickering, C.M.; Castley, J.G.; Burtt, M. Skiing less often in a warmer world: Attitudes of tourists to climate
change in an Australian ski resort. Geogr. Res. 2010, 48, 137–147. [CrossRef]
69. Evans, G.W. Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019, 70, 449–474.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 11 of 12

70. Winter, P.L.; Padgett, P.E.; Milburn, L.S.; Li, W. Neighborhood parks and recreationists’ exposure to ozone:
A comparison of disadvantaged and affluent communities in Los Angeles, California. Environ. Manag. 2019,
63, 379–395. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Richardson, R.B.; Loomis, J.B. Adaptive recreation planning and climate change: A contingent visitation
approach. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50, 83–99. [CrossRef]
72. Scott, D.; Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. International tourism and climate change. Wires Clim Chang. 2012, 3,
213–232. [CrossRef]
73. Winter, P.L.; Sánchez, J.J.; Olson, D.D. Effects of Climate Change on Outdoor Recreation in the Sierra Nevada
Bioregion; Halofsky, J., Peterson, D., Ho, J., Eds.; PSW-GTR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, In Review; Chapter 4.
74. Winter, P.L.; Long, J.W.; Lake, F.K. Sociocultural perspectives on threats, risks, and health. In Science
Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range; Long, J.W.,
Quinn-Davidson, L., Skinner, C.N., Eds.; Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247; U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 569–598. [CrossRef]
75. Newsome, D.; Moore, S.A.; Dowling, R.K. Natural area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management; Channel
View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2012; Volume 58.
76. Manning, R.E.; Anderson, L.E.; Pettengill, P. Managing Outdoor Recreation: Case Studies in the National Parks;
CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017.
77. Vaske, J.J.; Shelby, L.B. Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years
of research. Leis. Sci. 2008, 30, 111–126. [CrossRef]
78. Kainzinger, S.; Burns, R.C.; Arnberger, A. Whitewater boater and angler conflict, crowding and satisfaction
on the North Umpqua River, Oregon. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2015, 20, 542–552. [CrossRef]
79. Pickering, C.M.; Rossi, S. Mountain-biking in peri-urban parks: Social factors influencing perceptions of
conflicts in three popular national parks in Australia. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2016, 15, 71–81. [CrossRef]
80. Schneider, I.E.; Wynveen, C. Exploring outdoor recreation conflict’s role in evolving constraints models.
J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 9, 37–43. [CrossRef]
81. Ahebwa, W.M.; der Duim, V.; Sandbrook, C. Tourism revenue sharing policy at Bwindi Impenetrable National
Park, Uganda: A policy arrangements approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 377–394. [CrossRef]
82. Bricker, K.S. Ecotourism as a venue for environmental and social justice: A case study of a Fijian Vanua.
In Just Leisure: Things That We Believe In; Schwab, K., Dustin, D., Eds.; Sagamore Publishing LLC: Urbana, IL,
USA, 2013; pp. 160–166.
83. Makame, M.K.; Boon, E.K. Sustainable tourism and benefit-sharing in Zanzibar: The case of
Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve. J. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 24, 93–109. [CrossRef]
84. Snyman, S. Household spending patterns and the flow of ecotourism income into the villages around
Liwonde National Park, Malawi. Dev. South. Afr. 2013, 30, 640–658. [CrossRef]
85. Mbaiwa, J.E.; Stronza, A.L. The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta,
Botswana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 635–656. [CrossRef]
86. Xue, L.; Kerstetter, D.; Hunt, C. Tourism development and changing rural identity in China. Ann. Tour. Res.
2017, 66, 170–182. [CrossRef]
87. Bosak, K. Tourism, development, and sustainability. In Reframing Sustainable Tourism. Environmental
Challenges and Solutions; McCool, S., Bosak, K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 2.
88. Jones, N.; Malesios, C.; Joannidou, E.; Kanakaraki, R.; Kazoli, F.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Understanding
perceptions of the social impacts of protected areas: Evidence from three NATURA 2000 sites in Greece.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 73, 80–89. [CrossRef]
89. Baghai, M.; Miller, J.R.B.; Blanken, L.J.; Dublin, H.T.; Fitzgerald, K.H.; Gandiwa, P.; Laurenson, K.; Milanzi, J.;
Nelson, A.; Lindsey, P. Models for the collaborative management of Africa’s protected areas. Biol. Conserv.
2018, 218, 73–82. [CrossRef]
90. Lackey, N.Q.; Bricker, K. The relationship between parks and protected areas and communities: Two scoping
reviews on the current state of research globally and in North America. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual
National Environment and Recreation Research Symposium, Annapolis, MD, USA, 2–6 April 2019.
91. Panta, S.K.; Thapa, B. Entrepreneurship and women’s empowerment in gateway communities of Bardia
National Park, Nepal. J. Ecotourism 2018, 17, 20–42. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 81 12 of 12

92. Ramos, M.; Prideaux, A.B. Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest of Palenque: Empowerment
issues in sustainable development. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 461–479. [CrossRef]
93. Su, M.M.; Wall, G.; Xu, K. Tourism-induced livelihood changes at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site,
China. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 1024. [CrossRef]
94. Thondhlana, G.; Shackleton, S.; Muchapondwa, E. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and its land claimants: A pre-
and post-land claim conservation and development history. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 024009. [CrossRef]
95. Evans, S.D.; Prilleltensky, I. Youth and democracy: Participation for personal, relational, and collective
well-being. J. Community Psychol. 2007, 35, 681–692. [CrossRef]
96. Alibašić, H. Sustainability and Resilience Planning for Local Governments: The Quadruple Bottom Line Strategy;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [CrossRef]
97. Seekamp, E.; Cerveny, L.K.; McCreary, A. Institutional, individual, and socio-cultural domains of partnerships:
A typology of USDA Forest Service recreation partners. Environ. Manag. 2011, 48, 615–630. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
98. Crisp, B.R.; Swerissen, H.; Duckett, S.J. Four approaches to capacity building in health: Consequences for
measurement and accountability. Health Promot. Int. 2000, 15, 99–107. [CrossRef]
99. Clayton, S.; Litchfield, C.; Geller, E.S. Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 377–382. [CrossRef]
100. Winter, P.; Burn, S. Fostering sustainable operations in a natural resource management agency: Insights from
the field. J. For. 2010, 108, 86–92.
101. Kates, R.; Clark, W.; Corell, R.; Hall, M.; Jaeger, C.; Lowe, I.; McCarthy, J.; Schellnhuber, H.; Bolin, B.;
Dickson, N.; et al. Sustainability science. Science 2001, 292, 641–642. [CrossRef]
102. Lang, D.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.
Trans-disciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci.
2012, 7, 25–43. [CrossRef]
103. Knight, A.; Cowling, R.; Campbell, B. An operational model for implementing conservation action.
Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 408–419. [CrossRef]
104. Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Furniss, M.J.; Joyce, L.A.; Millar, C.I.; Neilson, R.P. Workshop approach for
developing climate change adaptation strategies and actions for natural resource management agencies in
the United States. J. For. 2011, 109, 219–225.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).