Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Sanding and Thermal Compression of Wood, Varnish Type and Artificial Aging in Indoor Conditions on the Varnished Surface Color
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Environmental Changes on Plant Species and Forest Dependent Communities in the Amazon Region
Previous Article in Journal
The Functional Structure of Tropical Plant Communities and Soil Properties Enhance Ecosystem Functioning and Multifunctionality in Different Ecosystems in Ghana
Previous Article in Special Issue
What Makes Agroforestry a Potential Restoration Measure in a Degraded Conservation Forest?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/f13020298
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Indigenous Forestry Tourism Dimensions: A Systematic Review

by
Guido Salazar-Sepúlveda
1,2,
Alejandro Vega-Muñoz
3,*,
Nicolás Contreras-Barraza
4,
Muhammad Zada
5 and
José Carmelo Adsuar
6
1
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción 4090541, Chile
2
International Graduate School, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
3
Public Policy Observatory, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago 7500912, Chile
4
Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Andres Bello, Viña del Mar 2531015, Chile
5
Postdoc Business School, Henan University, Kaifeng 475001, China
6
Promoting a Healthy Society (PHeSo) Research Group, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(2), 298; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13020298
Submission received: 8 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 12 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Dynamic Interaction between People and Forest Ecosystems)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tourism activities developed in forested areas are a non-wood forest exploitation method that contributes to sustainability objectives, even more so when they consider the participation of the community and the government in favor of its conservation. Under this context, this article will review the different investigations that relate to indigenous tourism, the conservation of the ecosystem and what attributes are important when measuring them. To do this, a scientometric meta-analysis was carried out, which extracts a set of articles that strictly refer to the themes of indigenous tourism in forests, considering two databases integrated into the Core Collection Web of Science, the selection process of which is aligned with the guidelines of the PRISMA methodology, establishing, with the PICOS tool, the eligibility criteria of the articles, which were applied to a qualitative systematic review. Finally, a model for measuring attributes in levels on indigenous tourism stands out, which incorporates the limit between the number of visitors to the tourist destination; the incorporation of tourists guides the identification of the necessary infrastructure facilities for an adequate experience and environmental conservation.

1. Introduction

At present, the benefits that forest ecosystems bring to communities stand out, both through the sustainable exploitation of the products of origin and in the improvement of recreational, tourist and scenic services offered by visiting these places, which are defined as non-wood forest products and services [1,2,3].
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to systematically review the state of the art on research currents and advances in the services, promotion, conservation, and policies of indigenous forestry tourism, and to mention the main challenges that contribute to new lines of research. For this aim, a scientometric meta-analysis is proposed, which extracts a set of articles that refer strictly to the topic of indigenous tourism in forests, considering two databases integrated in the Core Collection Web of Science, whose selection process is aligned with the guidelines of the PRISMA methodology, establishing, with the PICOS tool, the eligibility criteria of the articles, to which a qualitative meta-analysis is applied.

1.1. Non-Wood Forest

Mitigating the effects of climate change (SDG 13) has generated social and economic interest in non-wood forests (SDG 15), as they provide environmentally sustainable products and services [2,4,5].
The characteristics of these places are their biodiversity, potential for tourism development and forestry recreation, ancestral and sacred cosmovision, carbon mitigation, supply of different fruits of the forest, generation of non-exploited wood and non-wood crafts and provision of social services such as recreation, tourism, hunting and gastronomic industries [6,7,8].
The factors that promote its development are the local demographics, forest heritage, skills, and regional cultural values. It is a framework for action for those ventures that seek to improve the experiences of local consumers and the recreational places for tourists [1,9,10,11].
From a governmental point of view, there is a need to encourage and support local businesses, forest management and planning, and to promote landscapes and the conservation of forest ecosystems and biodiversity, the interface between science and vital policy at various scales, the sustainable protection of landscape heritage, innovative policies, and creative approaches to enhance this kind of market [3,9].

1.2. Indigenous Tourism, Ecotourism and Forestry

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

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

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

2. Materials and Methods

In the review presented, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [45] were used, and the PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes and Study) tool was used to establish the eligibility criteria for the articles [46,47], for which the publication by Sundara et al. [48] on the evaluation of Urban Forest Research in Malaysia was used as a methodological reference for thematic proximity. Initial article search was reinforced with the use of scientometrics [49], recently used in article-related topics [50,51,52]. The use of scientometrics in a meta-analysis [53] focuses on knowledge production, the spatiality of knowledge production and knowledge relationships within the global actor-network [54,55], allowing refining the initial article selection based on a search vector using field labels and Boolean and wildcard operators [56]. Its incorporation of sequential mixed usage with PRISMA guidelines has also been previously addressed [57,58,59].
The articles with the search vector TS = (Tour* AND Forest* AND indigenous) were identified using 2 databases of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS): Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), both containing journals indexed in the WoS Journal Citation Report (JCR), which are considered high-quality journals for which impact is calculated annually based on the average number of citations received. With respect to Scopus, the journals indexed in SSCI-WoS have high duplicity of indexing. By using PRISMA, the selection of articles was specified based on eligibility criteria: the target population, the interventions in this population, the elements of comparison of these studies, the outcomes to which these studies are oriented and the study designs (a set of criteria called the PICOS tool, as shown in Table 1). Finally, the selected studies were classified according to the emerging dimensions into services, promotion, conservation, and policies.

3. Results

The scientometric search of articles identified a total of 99 articles from two different databases of the Web of Science Core Collection (SSCI and SCIE). There were 76 unique titles and abstracts (no repeats) but excluding articles with no linkage to indigenous tourism reduced this to 19 full-text articles retrieved and screened using the selection criteria defined with the PICOS tool (See Appendix A). The screening thus identified eight articles that met our inclusion criteria, shown in Figure 1.

3.1. Qualitative Review Analysis

The eleven articles that met the eligibility criteria were reviewed at the full-text level to determine, with precision, if their characteristics offered homogeneous criteria that made them comparable. Table 2 shows the main identification and retrieval information obtained from the WoS databases.
In terms of thematic coverage, Table 2, below, shows that the eleven articles are mainly associated with the environmental issues in the WoS categories: Ecology, Environmental Sciences/Studies and Geography. However, the main difference is the methodology used in the different articles and the dimensions covered by their studies. Thus, the set of six articles to be reviewed in quantitative terms consisted of Chiawo et al. [60], Chen et al. [61], Karst, H. [13], Martin, A. et al. [31], De Zoysa, M. [16] and Dangi, M.B. et al. [41].

3.2. Quantitative Review Analysis

The set of selected articles was valued according to the breadth of topics on environmental sustainability and non-wood forest.
As for these two authors, in Table 3, they use a quantitative methodology. Their indicators coincide in the conservation dimension focused on the family component and its roots and management for ecosystem conservation. They differ in the governmental dimension, Chiawo, D.O. et al. [60], and service and promotion dimension Chen, H.S. [61].
In Table 4, all the articles used qualitative methodologies, mainly through surveys, and only one of them did not show the question items.
As for the studies conducted, all of them considered the conservation dimension associated with the cultural implications of people. Three considered the governmental policies associated with tourism development and only two considered the service and promotion of tourism in operational issues.

4. Discussion

When reviewing the advances in non-wood forest studies concerning the research carried out, we consider that cultural and community aspects have not been considered at the time of scaling and implementing government policies for the development of the local sector. In addition, although the use of innovation tools is mentioned as a differentiating aspect, the relationship between academia and the private world to finance and opt for other paths that allow the advancement of the society is not mentioned either, when compared with the studies [1].
One of the aspects that we consider relevant to highlight in this research is the importance of having a verifiable methodology to evaluate and identify the category and factors that enhance the tourist experience in an integrated manner with protected environmental conservation areas and indigenous communities, as indicated in the study by Han-Shen Chen [61]. This methodology, proposed by the researcher, allows considering relevant aspects between local interests, development and the conservation of space, measuring attributes such as: the limit of the number of visitors to the tourist destination; the incorporation of tourist guides with knowledge of the sector, to generate a better user experience and cultural and environmental care; the identification of the infrastructure facilities necessary for an adequate tourist experience and environmental conservation; the contextualization of the different activities of the indigenous peoples, respecting their culture and cosmovision; and to promote the care of the entire ecological ecosystem.
Although within the literature on indigenous tourism we find some approaches to systematize the attributes and levels that allow measuring an adequate tourism experience, these do not consider the integration of attributes as a relevant aspect and generally use more comprehensive and descriptive methodologies. For example, in Wierucka’s research [14], there is an approach to the identification of factors that enhances indigenous tourism, highlighting the local tourist guides and, in an uncertain way, the experiences of commercial activities by the local inhabitants, but not incorporating in an integral way the dimensions of recreational facilities or the limitation of visitor numbers. On the other hand, the research proposed by Karst, H. [13] only manages to make a classification in human relations, human–nature relations and culture and spirituality, but without the depth of integral analysis in the various dimensions mentioned. Another consideration has to do with the evaluation in the governmental and conservation categories around sustainable forest use and resource generation but does not consider aspects of forest ecotourism in the research of Dangi, M.B., et al. [41].
Another study that we consider noteworthy is the one carried out by De Zoysa [16] and Martin, A. et al. [31], which focuses on highlighting the importance of the development of natural, physical, social, financial, and human capital in indigenous tourism destination areas, describing the case of Sri Lanka and Uganda, but not developing a proposal for comprehensive measurement that allows a contrastable and replicable methodology.
They also add that in the absence of adequate integration strategies for tourist destinations in areas with indigenous communities that are also considered environmental protection zones, many times people are physically moved to other unprotected areas, and, in other cases, the communities continue to live within the protected areas due to the inability of the state to evict them, producing negative externalities in this type of situation.

5. Conclusions

Although there is a high level of interest on the part of researchers to continue deepening community development, the relationship with the territory and the conservation of the environment through non-wood forests is a field that shows several lines of action to be advanced. It is vitally important that progress be made between the state, private enterprise, academy, and the members of the local communities when defining mechanisms to project sustainable development, considering the different interests of the actors that make up each of these systems.
Integrating categories and factors that measure the interests of the inhabitants within non-wood forest areas, the community, the government, and the private sector is of vital importance to measure the impact of the proposed actions. These actions must also be accompanied by controls that evaluate the degree of consumer experience in both the products of origin and the service provided, which will complement the basic guidelines that governments must consider when projecting environmental care and compliance with the proposed SDGs.
Future lines of research are related to the study of other indigenous communities (living heritage) that inhabit forests and the design of new quantitative and qualitative instruments considering the implementation of ordinal scales in each of these categories; in addition, to evaluate their feasibility of use in studies of multiple use strategies in the agricultural, forestry and heritage sectors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.S.-S. and A.V.-M.; methodology, N.C.-B.; software, G.S.-S.; validation, A.V.-M. and M.Z.; formal analysis, G.S.-S. and A.V.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.S.-S. and N.C.-B.; writing—review and editing, A.V.-M. and M.Z.; supervision, A.V.-M. and J.C.A.; project administration, N.C.-B.; funding acquisition, G.S.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Publishing Fee (APC) was partially funded by Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the PhD programme in Tourism of the University of Extremadura (Cáceres, Spain). Programme in which the researcher Guido Salazar-Sepúlveda is studying her doctorate with the research line in Planning and management of tourist destinations, Tourism and local society, studying issues of tourism and local development in Chile, under the direction of Alejandro Vega-Muñoz and the tutorship of Laura Muñoz-Bermejo.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

The appendix shows the digital object identifiers (DOI) for the ten articles selected with the studied search vector: UT=(WOS:000262291600024 OR WOS:000347597100010 OR WOS:000361056800005 OR WOS:000399565200003 OR WOS:000427999100007 OR WOS:000434040000023 OR WOS:000448559400443 OR WOS:000462664200080 OR WOS:000612810000004 OR WOS:000668468900001).

References

  1. Gios, G.; Rizio, D. Payment for forest environmental services: A meta-analysis of successful elements. iForest 2013, 6, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Mandziuk, A.; Parzych, S.; Studnicki, M.; Radomska, J.; Gruchala, A. Valuation of non-wood forest functions by a contingent method on the example of a tourist function. Sylwan 2019, 163, 1025–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tang, L.N.; Li, A.X.; Shao, G.F. Landscape-level Forest Ecosystem Conservation on Changbai Mountain, China and North Korea (DPRK). Mt. Res. Dev. 2011, 31, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Janse, G.; Ottitsch, A. Factors influencing the role of Non-Wood Forest Products and Services. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vuletic, D.; Krajter, S.; Mrazek, M.; Coric, A. Non wood forest products and services—Are we using them enough? Sumar. List 2009, 133, 175–184. [Google Scholar]
  6. Price, M.F. Why mountain forests are important. For. Chron. 2003, 79, 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Buntgen, U.; Latorre, J.; Egli, S.; Martinez-Pena, F. Socio-economic, scientific, and political benefits of mycotourism. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sporcic, M.; Landekic, M.; Lovric, M.; Martinic, I. Planning and Decision Making Models in Forestry. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 443–456. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zivojinovic, I.; Weiss, G.; Wilding, M.; Wong, J.L.; Ludvig, A. Experiencing Forest products—An innovation trend by rural entrepreneurs. Land Use Pol. 2020, 94, 104506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oliach, D.; Vidale, E.; Brenko, A.; Marois, O.; Andrighetto, N.; Stara, K.; de Aragon, J.M.; Colinas, C.; Bonet, J.A. Truffle Market Evolution: An Application of the Delphi Method. Forests 2021, 12, 1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gomes, C.C. Utility of woody vegetation in a Caatinga area in the state of Pernambuco, northeastern Brazil Cristiano 12. Cardoso Gomes. Cienc. Florest. 2019, 29, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Whitford, M.; Ruhanen, L. Tourism research, past and present: Where to from here? J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1080–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Karst, H. This is a holy place of Ama Jomo: Buen vivir, indigenous voices and ecotourism development in a protected area of Bhutan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 746–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wierucka, A. Living with strangers: Huaorani and tourism industry in the 21st century. Anthropol. Noteb. 2018, 24, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zanotti, L.; Chernela, J. Conflicting Cultures of Nature: Ecotourism, Education and the Kayapo of the Brazilian Amazon. Tour. Geogr. 2008, 10, 495–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Zoysa, M. Forest-Based Ecotourism in Sri Lanka: A Review on State of Governance, Livelihoods, and Forest Conservation Outcomes. J. Sustain. For. 2021, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Espeso-Molinero, P.; Pastor-Alfonso, M.J. Governance, Community Resilience, and Indigenous Tourism in Naha, Mexico. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zielinski, S.; Jeong, Y.; Kim, S.I.; Milanes, C.B. Why Community-Based Tourism and Rural Tourism in Developing and Developed Nations are Treated Differently? A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kirkpatrick, J.B. Ecotourism, local and indigenous people, and the conservation of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2001, 31, 819–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Garcia-Frapolli, E.; Toledo, V.M.; Martinez-Alier, J. Adaptations of a Yucatec Maya Multiple-Use Ecological Management Strategy to Ecotourism. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Izurieta, G.; Torres, A.; Patino, J.; Vasco, C.; Vasseur, L.; Reyes, H.; Torres, B. Exploring community and key stakeholders’ perception of scientific tourism as a strategy to achieve SDGs in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 39, 100830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ohl-Schacherer, J.; Mannigel, E.; Kirkby, C.; Shepard, G.H.; Yu, D.W. Indigenous ecotourism in the Amazon: A case study of ‘Casa matsiguenka’ in Manu National Park. Peru. Environ. Conserv. 2008, 35, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marcinek, A.A.; Hunt, C.A. Tourism and cultural commons in the Ecuadorian Amazon. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2019, 17, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kibria, A.; Behie, A.; Costanza, R.; Groves, C.; Farrell, T. Potentials of community-based-ecotourism to improve human wellbeing in Cambodia: An application of millennium ecosystem assessment framework. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2021, 28, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Holmes, A.P.; Grimwood, B.S.R.; King, L.J. Creating an Indigenized visitor code of conduct: The development of Denesoline self-determination for sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1177–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dymond, J.R.; Ausseil, A.G.E.; Kirschbaum, M.U.F.; Carswell, F.E.; Mason, N.W.H. Opportunities for restoring indigenous forest in New Zealand. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2013, 43, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Constant, N.L.; Taylor, P.J. Restoring the forest revives our culture: Ecosystem services and values for ecological restoration across the rural-urban nexus in South Africa. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stork, N.E.; Turton, S.M.; Hill, R.; Lane, M.B. Revisiting crisis, change and institutions in the tropical forests: The multifunctional transition in Australia’s Wet Tropics. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 36, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hausner, V.H.; Engen, S.; Brattland, C.; Fauchald, P. Sami knowledge and ecosystem-based adaptation strategies for managing pastures under threat from multiple land uses. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1656–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Delgado-Aguilar, M.J.; Konold, W.; Schmitt, C.B. Community mapping of ecosystem services in tropical rainforest of Ecuador. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Martin, A.; Akol, A.; Gross-Camp, N. Towards an Explicit Justice Framing of the Social Impacts of Conservation. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Schie, R.; Haider, W. Indigenous-based Approaches to Territorial Conservation: A Case Study of the Algonquin Nation of Wolf Lake. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Johnson, A.; Clavijo, A.E.; Hamar, G.; Head, D.A.; Thoms, A.; Price, W.; Lapke, A.; Crotteau, J.; Cerveny, L.K.; Wilmer, H.; et al. Wood Products for Cultural Uses: Sustaining Native Resilience and Vital Lifeways in Southeast Alaska. USA For. 2021, 12, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rokpelnis, K.; Ho, P.; Cheng, G.; Zhao, H. Consumer Perceptions of the Commodification and Related Conservation of Traditional Indigenous Naxi Forest Products as Credence Goods (China). Sustainability 2018, 10, 3801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Su, K.W.; Ren, J.; Qin, Y.T.; Hou, Y.L.; Wen, Y.L. Efforts of Indigenous Knowledge in Forest and Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study on Bulang People in Mangba Village in Yunnan Province, China. Forests 2020, 11, 1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Estrada-Castillon, E.; Villarreal-Quintanilla, J.A.; Encina-Dominguez, J.A.; Jurado-Ybarra, E.; Cuellar-Rodriguez, L.G.; Garza-Zambrano, P.; Arevalo-Sierra, J.R.; Cantu-Ayala, C.M.; Himmelsbach, W.; Salinas-Rodriguez, M.M.; et al. Ethnobotanical biocultural diversity by rural communities in the Cuatrocienegas Valley, Coahuila; Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2021, 17, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Arevalo-Valenzuela, P.; Pena-Cortes, F.; Pincheira-Ulbrich, J. Ecosystem services and uses of dune systems of the coast of the Araucania Region, Chile: A perception study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 200, 105450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sujarwo, W.; Arinasa, I.B.K.; Caneva, G.; Guarrera, P.M. Traditional knowledge of wild and semi-wild edible plants used in Bali (Indonesia) to maintain biological and cultural diversity. Plant Biosyst. 2016, 150, 971–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, N.A.; Fang, M.; Beauchamp, M.; Jia, Z.Y.; Zhou, Z.X. An indigenous knowledge-based sustainable landscape for mountain villages: The Jiabang rice terraces of Guizhou, China. Habitat Int. 2021, 111, 102360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kibria, A.; Behie, A.; Costanza, R.; Groves, C.; Farrell, T. The value of ecosystem services obtained from the protected forest of Cambodia: The case of Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dangi, M.B.; Chaudhary, R.P.; Rijal, K.; Stahl, P.D.; Belbase, S.; Gerow, K.G.; Fernandez, D.; Pyakurel, B. Impacts of environmental change on agroecosystems and livelihoods in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ. Dev. 2018, 25, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Konovalova, M.E.; Danilina, D.M.; Nazimova, D.I. Thinning-Based Formation of Siberian Pine Forests in the Dark Chern Zone of Western Sayan. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 2018, 11, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pustovalova, L.A.; Veselkin, D.V. Rapid Changes in Plant Communities of Natural Parks due to Recreational Use. Russ. J. Ecol. 2020, 51, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rai, N.D.; Benjaminsen, T.A.; Krishnan, S.; Madegowda, C. Political ecology of tiger conservation in India: Adverse effects of banning customary practices in a protected area. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2019, 40, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Methley, A.M.; Campbell, S.; Chew-Graham, C.; McNally, R.; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Han, H. Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 2, 1021–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sundara Rajoo, K.; Karam, D.S.; Abdu, A.; Rosli, Z.; James Gerusu, G. Urban Forest Research in Malaysia: A Systematic Review. Forests 2021, 12, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Porter, A.L.; Kongthon, A.; Lu, J.C. Research profiling: Improving the literature review. Scientometrics 2002, 53, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sun, J.; Wang, M.-H.; Ho, Y.-S. A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on estuary pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stojanovic, T.; McNae, H.; Tett, P.; Potts, T.W.; Reis, J.; Smith, H.D.; Dillingham, I. The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: A critique of analytical frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Vega-Muñoz, A.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Han, H.; Law, R. In search of ‘a research front’ in cruise tourism studies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 85, 102353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kullenberg, C.; Kasperowski, D. What Is Citizen Science? A Scientometric Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Mikhaylov, A.; Mikhaylova, A.; Hvaley, D. Knowledge Hubs of Russia: Bibliometric Mapping of Research Activity. J. Scientometr. Res. 2020, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Albort-Morant, G.; Henseler, J.; Leal-Millán, A.; Cepeda-Carrión, G. Mapping the Field: A Bibliometric Analysis of Green Innovation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Vega-Muñoz, A.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M. Social Networks and Graph Theory in the Search for Distant Knowledge in the Field of Industrial Engineering. In Advanced Applications of Graph Theory in Modern Society; Pal, M., Samanta, S., Pal, A., Eds.; IGI-Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 397–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kazerani, M.; Davoudian, A.; Zayeri, F.; Soori, H. Assessing abstracts of Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis indexed in WOS and Scopus using PRISMA. Med. J. Islam Repub. Iran 2017, 31, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sott, M.K.; Furstenau, L.B.; Kipper, L.M.; Giraldo, F.D.; Lopez-Robles, J.R.; Cobo, M.J.; Zahid, A.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Imran, M.A. Precision Techniques and Agriculture 4.0 Technologies to Promote Sustainability in the Coffee Sector: State of the Art, Challenges and Future Trends. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 149854–149867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carlucci, S.; De-Simone, M.; Firth, S.K.; Kjærgaard, M.B.; Markovic, R.; Rahaman, M.S.; Annaqeeb, M.K.; Biandrate, S.; Das, A.; Dziedzic, J.W.; et al. Modeling occupant behavior in buildings. Build. Environ. 2020, 174, 106768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chiawo, D.O.; Kombe, W.N.; Craig, A.J.F.K. Conservation and human livelihoods at the crossroads: Local needs and knowledge in the management of Arabuko Sokoke. Forest Afr. J. Ecol. 2018, 56, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, H.S. Establishment and Application of an Evaluation Model for Orchid Island Sustainable Tourism Development. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Forests 13 00298 g001 550
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) analysis flow. * The exclusions correspond to articles that referred to indigenous and non-indigenous species (flora or fauna) that are part of the forest tourism heritage, but for which there are no indigenous ethnic communities.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) analysis flow. * The exclusions correspond to articles that referred to indigenous and non-indigenous species (flora or fauna) that are part of the forest tourism heritage, but for which there are no indigenous ethnic communities.
Forests 13 00298 g001
Table
Table 1. Eligibility criteria (PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study)).
Table 1. Eligibility criteria (PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study)).
PICOSDescription
PopulationForest locations where tourism is developed.
InterventionsSustainable aspects linked to tourism in forests are measured.
ComparatorTourism sustainability indicators in forests.
OutcomesIndigenous tourism cases in forest territories, considering attributes or levels of quantitative results, with a methodology that allows replication and systematization of the information
Study designsQuantitative, qualitative, and mixed study types will be included.
Table
Table 2. Articles included in the qualitative review analysis.
Table 2. Articles included in the qualitative review analysis.
First
Author		JournalPubl.
Year		Affiliation
Author		MethodologyWoS: CategoryDimensions
Stork, N.E., et al. [28]J. Rural Stud.2014Griffith Univ. (AU),
James Cook Univ. (AU), CSIRO Ecosyst Sci. (AU)		QualitativeGeography; Regional & Urban PlanningConservation, Governmental
Chiawo, D.O., et al. [60]Afr. J. Ecol.2018Strathmore Univ. (KE), Kenya Forest Serv. (KE), Rhodes Univ. (ZA)QuantitativeEcologyConservation, Governmental
Chen, H.S. [61]Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2019Chung Shan Med Univ. (TW)QuantitativeEnvironmental Sciences; Public, Environmental & Occupational HealthServices and promotion; Conservation
Karst, H [13]J. Sustain. Tour.2017Waterloo Univ. (ON), Canada.QualitativeGreen & Sustainable Science & Technology; Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & TourismConservation
Rokpelnis, K., et al. [34]Sustainability2018Tsinghua Univ (Ho), London Sch Econ, (U.K)QualitativeGreen & Sustainable Science & Technology; Environmental Sciences; Environmental StudiesConservation, Governmental
Martin, A., et al. [31]Conserv. Soc.2015E Anglia Univ. (U.K)QualitativeBiodiversity Conservation; Environmental StudiesServices and promotion; Conservation
De Zoysa, M [16]J. Sustain. For.2021Ruhuna Univ. (SL)QualitativeForestryServices and promotion; Conservation, Governmental
Dangi, M.B., et al. [41]Environ. Dev.2018California State Univ (USA), Tribhuvan Univ (Nepal), Wyoming Univ, (USA), Zayed Univ, (UAE)QualitativeEnvironmental SciencesConservation, Governmental
Garcia-Frapolli, E; [20]Ecol. Soc.2008Nacl Autonoma Mexico Univ, (M).QualitativeEcology; Environmental StudiesServices and promotion
Arevalo-Valenzuela, P., et al. [37]Ocean Coastal Manage.2021Catolica Temuco Univ, (CL)QualitativeOceanography; Water ResourcesConservation, Governmental
Table
Table 3. Included quantitative articles for the review analysis.
Table 3. Included quantitative articles for the review analysis.
Comparative ItemsChiawo, D.O. et al. [60]Chen, H.S. [61]
JournalAfr. J. Ecol.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
LocalityArabuko Sokoke ForestOrchid Island
CountryKenyaTaiwan
Number variables45
Type variablesScalarOrdinal
MethodParametricAnalytic
Sample (n)109385
Services and promotionNoLimit on the number of visitors; Tour guides; Recreation and facilities
ConservationFamily size; Farm size (acres)Experience activities; Ecosystem conservation trust fund
GovernmentalEstimated economic benefit from the forest (KES/month); Estimated income (KES/month)
Table
Table 4. Included qualitative articles for the review analysis.
Table 4. Included qualitative articles for the review analysis.
Comparative ItemsKarst, H. [13]Martin, A. et al. [31] De Zoysa, M. [16]Dangi, M.B. et al. [41]
JournalJ. Sustain. Tour.Conserv. Soc.J. Sustain. For.Environ. Dev.
LocalitySakteng Wildlife SanctuaryBwindi Impenetrable National ParkForest-Based Ecotourism in Sri LankaAnnapurna Conservation Area
CountryBhutanUgandaSri LankaNepal
Features3441
Questions items17Not present733
MethodStudy approachExpert panel—household surveyReviewed related global literatureSurvey, focus groups
Sample (n)63146Not present64
ConservationHuman relations; Human–nature relations; Culture and spiritualityHousehold experience of conservation; Culture and spiritualityResponsible travel to natural and cultural areas; Tourism activities should be nature-based; Environmental education and supports conservationFactors affecting environmental change; Implications of traditional practices on environment
Services and promotion Tourism operationsResponsible travel to natural and cultural areas; Tourists to live with nature and local people and to understand the nature and local socio-cultural wealth; Multiple responsible traveling and hospitality activities that involve villagers, visitors, facilitators, and others as a group work.
Governmental Tourism industryProtect resources and to eradicate the people’s poverty; Conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local peopleEffects of economic development, construction and expansion of roads, and tourism activities on livelihood
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salazar-Sepúlveda, G.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Contreras-Barraza, N.; Zada, M.; Adsuar, J.C. Indigenous Forestry Tourism Dimensions: A Systematic Review. Forests 2022, 13, 298. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13020298

AMA Style

Salazar-Sepúlveda G, Vega-Muñoz A, Contreras-Barraza N, Zada M, Adsuar JC. Indigenous Forestry Tourism Dimensions: A Systematic Review. Forests. 2022; 13(2):298. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13020298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salazar-Sepúlveda, Guido, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Nicolás Contreras-Barraza, Muhammad Zada, and José Carmelo Adsuar. 2022. "Indigenous Forestry Tourism Dimensions: A Systematic Review" Forests 13, no. 2: 298. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13020298

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop