(PDF) A responsibility–accountability framework for private sector use of a World Heritage Area

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning ISSN: 1523-908X (Print) 1522-7200 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20 A responsibility–accountability framework for private sector use of a World Heritage Area Brent D. Moyle, Char-lee Moyle & Alexandra Bec To cite this article: Brent D. Moyle, Char-lee Moyle & Alexandra Bec (2017): A responsibility–accountability framework for private sector use of a World Heritage Area, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304209 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304209 Published online: 23 Mar 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjoe20 Download by: [Griffith University] Date: 24 March 2017, At: 00:20 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304209 A responsibility–accountability framework for private sector use of a World Heritage Area Brent D. Moylea, Char-lee Moyleb and Alexandra Beca a Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia; bSkholar, Brisbane, Australia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is a natural asset of global significance, spanning Received 19 August 2016 2600 km’s along the Australian coastline. On the southern tip of the GBR is the Accepted 5 March 2017 Gladstone region, where high levels of industrial activity have been juxtaposed with KEYWORDS the natural wonder, and World Heritage Listed, GBR. Given these competing local Management; policy; priorities, this research explores local perceptions of the GBR and its management. planning; governance; World Exploratory analysis of 38 interviews with residents and stakeholders from Heritage Area Gladstone revealed a potential incongruence between environmental concern and support for more stringent management of the tourism and resources sectors on the GBR. A responsibility–accountability framework (RAF) for managing the use and protection of the GBR is developed by drawing on current theoretical frameworks and the results of the interviews. Importantly the framework highlights the importance of business responsibility combined with monitoring and control mechanisms to ensure accountability and to deliver transparency, education and partnership. Future research should apply the RAF for testing and application in other marine World Heritage Area contexts. Introduction The designation of a place as a World Heritage Area (WHA) informs the constituent public of unique natural, cultural and/or historic values of a place (Eagles, 2014). Concomitantly, designation as a WHA confers an expectation that authorities charged with the management will ensure its protection for future generations to enjoy and experience (Leask & Fyall, 2006). Yet, at a local level, many WHAs form part of the working land- scape and play an important role in the regional society, cultural identity and/or economy, so that the heritage value itself, or its designation, may often be contested (Harrison, 2004). Balancing the economic performance of the WHA with the complex values prescribed to these sites by different stakeholders is often fraught with gov- ernance, management and representation issues (De Cesari, 2010). Examples of these issues in the World Heri- tage context have been captured by Fletcher, Johnson, Bruce, and Khun-Neay (2007), who describe the conflict between heritage, social equity and economic development in Heritage Sites in the Third World. Additionally, Lo Piccolo, Leone, and Pizzuto (2012) explore the controversial management of the tourism sector in WHAs. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is one of the most complex natural ecosystems on earth, composing of unique ecological communities, species and habitats (GBRMPA, 2014). The GBR is one of 46 marine WHA sites inscribed on the UNESCO list (UNESCO, 2016). Unlike many other marine WHAs, the GBR covers both in-shore and off-shelf waters. Indeed much of the GBR WHA can be found adjacent to coastal areas that are heavily developed for the resources (mining) and agricultural (farming) sectors, as well as residential and tourism developments (Becken, McLennan, & Moyle, 2014). Compounding potential points of conflict between economic sectors, areas both in-shore and off-shelf at the southern end of the GBR are heavy transit CONTACT Brent D. Moyle

Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. routes for ports and shipping to support resources sector activity. Such activity in and around the area has been found to have significant implications for the GBR. The significance of the GBR presents a need to balance nature, culture and heritage values, with regional economic development that sustain local communities. Specifically, this research explores locals’ perceptions of management, environmental concerns and responsibilities in relation to the GBR WHA. By adopting the notion of public accountability as the guiding conceptual framework for the collection and analysis of local per- ceptions, this research makes a unique contribution to knowledge through the development of a four pillar responsibility–accountability approach to protecting the GBR for testing and application in other marine WHA contexts. Literature review Management of World Heritage Areas (WHAs) – a contested space WHAs are globally significant and generate immense interest among the constituent public (McLennan, Becken, & Moyle, 2015). With this high level of public interest, the number of stakeholders involved in the management of WHAs is often diverse, increasing the complexity of governance structures (Day & Dobbs, 2013). Baird (2013) highlights that the complex political and management structure of heritage areas is intensified by completing cultural, preservation and economic perspectives. Specifically, within WHAs, core stakeholders range from supra-national organisations, to national- and local-level decision- makers, as well as individuals, including traditional custodians and locals from adjacent communities (Leask & Fyall, 2006). Most commonly, WHAs became contested due to the duality in global versus local values as the sites is assigned ‘universal value’, but remains embedded within the local heritage and living landscape (e.g. Fletcher et al., 2007). Bianchi and Boniface (2002) note the inscription of sites to UNESCO’s list of WHA frequently ‘accentuates tensions around universal values of cosmopolitanism, discourses of citizenship, patterns of exclu- sion and the symbolic meanings attached to these sites’ (p. 80). Smith (2006) argues that the economic use of WHAs which compromises the cultural, historical and social values, making these sites contested spaces. Cultural heritage forms the basis of WHA sites, yet heritage is often constrained by conflicting interest with management decisions over economic and recreational usage (Baird, 2013; Moyle, Croy, & Weiler, 2010). Con- flict is intensified by indigenous and local community representatives frequently being underrepresented within the decision-making process, resulting in their objectives not being considered equally against the other man- agement objectives (Baird, 2013; Meskell, 2010). WHA management is increasingly recognising the importance and challenge of balancing conservation with viable livelihoods (Belz & Peattie, 2009). Consequently, studies have considered the incorporation of sustainability principles in organisational management (Rainey, 2006). Mitchell, Wooliscroft, and Higham (2013) proposed an alternative sustainable market orientation model for balancing public and private interests in national parks, highlighting that organisational learning plays a role in businesses adopting a balanced perspective to economic, social and environmental perspectives. Despite the models relating to the management of national parks and protected areas, there is a lack of a locally con- structed framework recognising the interplay of stakeholder groups for the on-going management of commer- cial use of WHAs, particularly one which recognises the indigenous cultural heritage (Jimura, 2011). Research suggests that local stakeholders can become disengaged, primarily due to a lack of power to protect and manage a WHA (Thapa, 2007). To overcome this barrier, capacity building and considered management policies designed to empower and encourage involvement require further research (Bennett, Lemelin, Koster, & Budke, 2012). There is a clear need for such an approach to be established within Australian WHAs (Nicholas, Thapa, & Ko, 2009). Australia was one of the first countries to adopt the World Heritage Convention in 1974 and is cur- rently home to the greatest number of natural WHAs. However, often WHAs in Australia are also potential sites of high extractive value through mineral exploitation or timber production, as well as sites of great interest to the tourism industry (Bec, Moyle, & McLennan, 2016). As result, Australia WHAs are largely contested, with JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 3 Hall (2006, p. 25) arguing that World Heritage listings in Australia have been ‘more controversial than any other country’. The primary driver of these disputes are issues of spatial scale, causing power struggles tend to arise between adjacent communities and businesses, as well as local, state and federal governments (Hall, 2006). Arguably, the most contested WHAs in Australia include the Wet Tropics WHA in Far North Queensland, the Tasmanian Wilderness, as well as Kakadu National Park, in the Northern Territory due to conflict with the indigenous populations over the co-management of the park, as well as the economic and recreational use of the area. There is considerable discussion on the presence of extractive industries within WHAs and other protected or culturally significant sites, where economic objectives have taken precedent over environmental, cultural and social values (Johnston, 2014; Lane & Rickson, 1997). The values and objectives of residents’ and indigenous groups for a designated area, as opposed to officials, visitors and outsiders, frequently results in differences in strategic priority, presenting difficulties when inter- acting with official policies and proposals relating to the WHA as they may restrict, impede or alter resident behaviour in the area. Consequently, local stakeholders may feel they do not have the power to protect and manage a WHA, requiring capacity building and considered management policies to empower and encourage their involvement (Thapa, 2007). Co-management is a suitable approach for increasing local community invol- vement in the decision-making and governance process of WHAs (Becken & Job, 2014). Co-management of World Heritage Areas The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) refers to co-management as the shar- ing of power between government and resource users, with each given specific rights and responsibilities relat- ing to information and decision-making (OECD, 2001). Co-management is complex, as it requires concerted action towards a certain goal, a shared understanding, an agreement, a willingness to engage and work towards a specific outcome, and an equal partnership (Armitage, Marschke, & Plummer, 2008; Berkes, 2009). The pro- cess of co-management identifies specific stakeholders based on their use of the resource, for commercial, rec- reational or spiritual purposes (Nursey-Bray & Rist, 2009). In the case of a WHA, the site has been recognised as having universal values for all of humanity, including local residents to the WHA. This apparent stakeholder group does not necessarily equate to ‘resource users’. Rather, they should be represented by stakeholder groups such as UNESCO, elected governments at different scales (Hall, 2006), as well as advocacy groups for economic sectors that use the universal values to interpret the WHA for its customers (Svals & Sande, 2016). Management literature provides insights into theoretical approaches which have been applied to establish co-management among stakeholders of a particular site, organisation or community (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). Stakeholder theory has been adopted for WHAs as a mechanism to explain the behaviours of stakeholder groups, and identify connections between them, in order to achieve organisational objectives (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2005). Business ethics is central to the process of co-management within stakeholder theory; how- ever, greater attention is often given to those stakeholders with the power, legitimacy, urgency and proximity to influence decisions (Nicholas et al., 2009). Adaptive theory offers another approach to co-management, encompassing the concepts of adaptive man- agement and adaptive governance to explore the co-management of organisations with complex governance and power structures (Plummer, Armitage, & De Loë, 2013). Adaptive management and adaptive governance often operate simultaneously, involving the process of learning through monitoring system responses to change and utilising evolving knowledge to enable heightened system function (Garmestani & Benson, 2013). Cooperation across different levels of stakeholders for the decision-making process is also fostered, specifically acknowledging power relations (Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005). Only a limited number of studies have applied adaptive management and adaptive governance within the context of WHAs for the purpose of co-management (Hughes et al., 2007; Nursey-Bray & Rist, 2009). However, the concepts have been extensively adopted within environmental systems (Berkes, 2009; Olsson, Folke, & Hahn, 2004), as well as in entities that have multiple divisions of operations (Schneider & Somers, 2006; Voß & Bornemann, 2011). Considerable attention is given to broader aspects of the organisation or system, 4 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. including social, economic, cultural and environmental factors (Benson & Garmestani, 2011; Garmestani & Benson, 2013). Given the multi-use nature of WHA which share similar properties to these entities, adaptive management and adaptive governance can be a useful tool for the co-management of WHA. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is also embraced by adaptive management and governance approaches to achieve co-management (Brooks, 2005). CSR is a well-established and highly evolved body of knowledge that has explored issues of trust, rights and responsibilities, and decision-making (Jenkins, 2005). CSR initiatives have largely been implemented within areas organisations and environments which are involved with activity that generates contention among stakeholders (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Rajak, 2011). Initiatives stem from the notion of voluntarily balancing economic objectives with legal requirements and ethical oper- ations, often through pressure from the community, employees, the media, regulations and the customer (Schwartz & Carroll, 2003). CSR has also been considered as just a token effort to appease marginalised stakeholders groups who have different values and threaten the strategic direction of an organisation (Ndlovu, Simba, & Mariussen, 2015). Recent CSR studies within an adaptive management framework have suggested that responsibility as a volun- tary approach may not be sufficient, and a public accountability approach may be more effective at ensuring that business operates in an ethical manner (Morgera, 2012). An accountability approach requires actions to be accounted for by independent assessors, specifically increasing the importance of the monitoring component in WHAs (Hockings, Stolton, & Dudley, 2004; Morgera, 2012). Monitoring actions rather than shifting policy discourse would shift the paradigm of CSR to find constructive solutions that appease stakeholders at different scales. There is growing support for corporate responsibility (Schwartz & Carroll, 2003), and more recently, cor- porate accountability (Morgera, 2012). This reflects the progressive shift from voluntary approaches based on responsibility, towards accountability mechanisms that guide the conduct of businesses (Morgera, 2012). Studies have proposed that there is a need for public accountability, where organisations are held accountable by external groups (Messner, 2009; Unerman & O’Dwyer, 2007). Morgera (2012) highlights that key initiatives have included monitoring of corporate conduct and mechanisms to evaluate complaints from the public. Such mechanisms can also protect the legitimate private enterprise that is acting responsibly by providing an inde- pendent process that can enable fact-finding activities. Key issues with corporate responsibility relate to corpor- ate authenticity, legislative necessity and the scope of appropriate strategies (Schwartz & Carroll, 2003). The present research draws on corporate responsibility–accountability within an adaptive management fra- mework to analyse the perceptions of the GBR management and use. To explore this issue, an in-depth case study of the Gladstone region is undertaken. This is not a representative case study of all regions adjacent to the GBR. Instead, it is a hotly contested region with a rapidly growing resources sector that provides insight into perspectives and corporate accountability in an economically focused region. Consequently, this research seeks to explore local stakeholder perceptions of the GBR, specifically focusing on the management of the southern industrial hub of the GBR, Gladstone. Management and governance structure of the GBR The GBR was first declared a marine park in 1975, and later became one of the first marine WHAs to be listed under UNESCO. The GBR stretches 2600 along the Queensland coastline, including 70 islands, and represents a biodiversity hotspot, with 625 different species of fish, 1400 types of coral and more than 3000 species of mol- luscs (GBRMPA, 2014). To preserve such a large and complex system, the management and governance struc- ture of the GBR marine park is designed to represent an adaptive co-management process (Becken et al., 2014). The primary management tool is a zoning strategy, creating a multi-use area to accommodate the number of industries, including ports and shipping, tourism and fishing (Coles et al., 2015). The management of the GBR rests predominantly with several Federal and State Government Agencies who work collaboratively within the framework of the GBR Intergovernmental Agreement, revised in 2009 (Depart- ment of the Environment, 2014). The management is implemented primarily by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). Federal Government Departments are also responsible for certain management JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 5 issues, such as primary industries. Compounding the complexity, local councils manage land and water prac- tices adjacent to the GBR Marine Park. In addition, there are also a large number of natural resource manage- ment bodies, industry groups, community groups and individuals involved in governance aspects of the Reef (GBRMPA, 2011). The full complexity of the GBR marine park’s governance and management is presented in Figure 1. Sheaves et al. (2016) identify that the fragmented management structure for the GBR has led to a number of environmental impact assessments being conducted. However, without an independent scientific committee to evaluate these assessments, results are inconsistent and credibility is difficult to establish. Additionally, compet- ing priorities among GBR stakeholders has resulted in considerable tension between managing authorities as well as park users (Grech et al., 2013). Researchers have identified a number of key management issues associ- ated with the GBR, including coastal development; water quality; fishing; shipping; tourism; recreation and tra- ditional use of the GBR by Traditional Owners (Breitling, 2010; Day & Dobbs, 2013; Grech et al., 2013). The GBR is also affected by detrimental activities that occur outside the legislated area, which have a profound effect on the environmental integrity. Run-offs, discharges and dredging can contaminate the water that flows into the GBR marine park, but such occurrences are not covered in the 2003 or 2009 GBR Plan (Brodie & Waterhouse, 2012). This is particularly true for the southern region of the GBR marine park, in the area surrounding the town of Gladstone. This region was highlighted by UNESCO as an area of major concern due to its industrial port development for transporting coal to international markets (Grech et al., 2013; Hedge et al., 2013). Wal- tham and Sheaves (2015) further reinforced these concerns by mapping the extent of port and other urban development near the coastal area of the GBR and the longitudinal impacts on the marine area. Gladstone was found to be one of the major urban and industrial centres along this part of the coast, with development progressing more rapidly than other areas. However, UNESCO has no legal power over the management of the GBR or the urban development, which occurs along the adjacent coast. The fragmented management structure and competing values present challenges for responsible and sus- tainable business practices. A complex legislative framework informed by state and federal policy (as displayed in Figure 1) obscures the collective objectives of stakeholders (Benn & Dunphy, 2007). This is further Figure 1. GBR governance: Commonwealth Government, State Government and International Conventions. 6 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. complicated by the abundance of environmental impact assessments, where the accuracy of these assessments is difficult to ascertain (Sheaves et al., 2016). Thus, establishing CSR initiatives within organisations is challenging due to unclear guidelines (Benn & Dunphy, 2007). Method To explore local perceptions of the management of the GBR, a qualitative inductive approach was undertaken to enable deeper exploration into stakeholder perceptions to be uncovered (Crossman & Clarke, 2010). Follow- ing previous studies which seek to uncover stakeholder perceptions (Bec et al., 2016; Crossman & Clarke, 2010; Lewis, Yound, Mathiassen, Rai, & Welke, 2007), semi-structured in-depth interviews with Gladstone stake- holders were undertaken. Stakeholders consisted of both local residents and regional representatives, including regional advocates, decision-makers, power figures or spokespersons. Both resident and stakeholder percep- tions were deemed valuable, as they provided alternate viewpoints on the management of the GBR. Recruitment of respondents took place through a two-stage process. The first stage of interviews was under- taken with local residents from the region by identifying participants through a random sampling procedure of the White Pages® Residential Directory to obtain a cross section of the community members (Johnston & Brady, 2002). This procedure generated a list of 250 phone numbers that was used by a Research Assistant to contact potential participants. In total, 32 potential respondents answered their phone, with 27 agreeing to participate in a telephone interview. Resident participants ranged from 18 years through to over 80 years, consisting of short- and long-term residents of Gladstone. The second stage of interviews was conducted with key industry and public sector stakeholders in Gladstone, including representatives from the tourism and resources sectors. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in the region. Initially, stakeholders were identified using snowball sampling from recommendations provided by resi- dents in the phone interviews (Goodman, 2011). Additional participants were sourced via an online search for business, government and community members in the region (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). Finally, this research used a secondary snowball sampling technique, whereby key stakeholders were asked to recommend other relevant interviewees. This process resulted in 11 stakeholder interviews, with interviews ranging between 30 and 60 minutes. In total, 38 interviews were conducted with residents and representatives of Gladstone. Interviews started out broadly discussing the economic development of Gladstone and the impact of the resources boom on the City. A detailed set of questions then focused on perceptions of the GBR, the impact of commercial activities and the management and governance of the WHA, particularly in regard to commer- cial use. Questions probed into what the GBR meant to the participant, whether they were aware of the WHA status and whether they thought the GBR should be protected (Maxwell, 2012). These questions were purpose- fully framed broadly to allow people to elaborate freely on their values and attitudes, rather than specifically exploring levels of concern. Next, participants were asked whether they knew who was responsible for protect- ing the GBR. This set of structured set of questions probed into whether respondents felt current levels of com- mercial activity is ‘about right’, ‘too much’ or ‘not enough’, and whether current policies to protect the GBR are ‘about right’, ‘too strict’ or ‘not strict enough’. Interviewing continued until a point of saturation or literal replication was reached (Dwyer, Gill, & See- taram, 2012). The transcribed interviews were then coded for emergent themes using content analysis, a com- monly employed tool that is useful for uncovering knowledge and new insights from the participants’ perspective (Dann, 2005). Qualitative content analysis is a naturalistic inquiry which involves extracting themes through rigorous coding to guide the analysis and interpretation of data (Cho & Lee, 2014). Content analysis was selected due to a lack of research and theory in the area of stakeholder perceptions for the management of WHAs, specifically the GBR. In Excel, the raw quotes were classified into key concepts and later into key themes using open, axial and selective coding, allowing valid inferences to emerge from the text. To explore issues sur- rounding activity on the GBR and its management, an intrapersonal approach was adopted (Joffe, 2003) whereby respondents were grouped depending on their answers to two questions, namely support of current economic activity levels and agreement with current policies. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 7 Findings Respondents were probed about ways that the management of the multi-use GBR could be improved, with four key themes emerging from the results: Transparency, Education and Partnerships; Control Mechanisms; Moni- toring Mechanisms and Business Responsibility. A detailed description of these key themes and the recommen- dations is presented in Table 1. Respondents were asked who they thought was responsible for protecting the GBR, with most (n = 28) indi- cating that everyone should play a role in protecting the Reef (‘Who’s responsible? Everyone is responsible … It doesn’t belong to anyone but it’s up to everyone to try and do their little bit.’ [Res_1]). This was followed by the government (n = 6), GBRMPA (n = 3) and industry (n = 1). This is not unusual for natural resources that have a complex governance structure, yet are open for everyone to enjoy. The interviews revealed that residents and stakeholders in Gladstone felt that everyone needs to contribute to the protection of the GBR; however, there is a risk that nobody will actually put this into action. This problem is known in the context of ‘common-pool resources’, where individual (rational) choices or actions lead to collectively irrational and undesired outcomes (Carpenter, 1998). However, some respondents were able to assign particular roles, for example, one respon- dent indicated everyone should look after the GBR, but businesses should follow guidelines and governments should monitor businesses (‘Anyone who visits it is responsible for what they do there’, [Res_5] and ‘ … the government’s got to put the laws into practice and the people and the industries have to look after it.’ [Res_3]). Despite calls for everyone to protect the GBR, in the case of Gladstone, there was no clear sense of exactly ‘who’ respondents believed should be responsible or accountable for the GBR and significant confusion over who is responsible for protecting the GBR. The most commonly named governance bodies were the Australian Commonwealth Government (n = 3), the Queensland State Government (n = 3), the GBRMPA (n = 3) and Table 1. Gladstone respondents’ existing and proposed strategies for protecting the GBR. Strategy/plan Detail/example quotes Transparency, Education and Partnerships Transparency and management of Increase dissemination of credible research on who uses the Reef and how certain programmes perceptions or uses are impacting the Reef. Transparency and communication surrounding the laws and regulations governing the Reef and decisions made regarding it. Education of GBR users and the community Education and training on environmental protection and use of the GBR. Researchers, government and businesses to share information regarding the GBR through the Healthy Harbour Partnership, the Enviro Education Centre and curriculum development in schools. Partnership between industries and with Greater collaboration between different industries, government and conservation groups to conservation groups protect the Reef (e.g. industrial tours, Healthy Harbour Partnership). Control mechanisms Pollution control Take back rubbish from visit to GBR islands and encourage recycling; keep effluent on board and pump it to shore for sewage treatment. Use of biodegradable products. Environmental permitting and regulation Stringent guidelines and compliance relating the release of substances into the waterways and harbour, as well as sediment and erosion control. Restrict use and development based on Decrease number of shipping routes or move them to areas that will have minimal impacts. potential impact Limit new developments and enhancing the efficiency of existing infrastructure. Increased penalties Increase penalties. Adopt a tiered approach to fines based on potential impact to the Reef. Monitoring mechanisms Monitoring of the GBRs health Partnership with scientific organisations (e.g. CSIRO and Australian Institute of Marine Science) to monitor the health of the GBR by assessing changes to the condition of the reef. The health should be determined in accordance with the GBRMPA guidelines. Monitoring of appropriate use of the GBR Expand the monitoring and policing of GBR use to ensure compliance with regulations. Establish an independent body to evaluate businesses positive/negative actions, promote their good deeds or hold them accountable. Establish an anonymous reporting hotline for community members to contribute to monitoring. Business responsibility Increased business contribution and Businesses to take responsibility for their actions and ensure compliance with laws and responsibility regulations. Businesses to contribute financially to the protection and conservation of the GBR through donations and rehabilitation programmes (e.g. Quoin Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre). Business planning with GBR considerations Businesses should include GBR considerations in their business planning (e.g. logistics and transport plans, internal management strategies, incentives used with ship captains). 8 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. industry (n = 1). This diversity reflects a confusion and lack of awareness among locals and key stakeholders in terms of who is actually managing the GBR and suggests that current management systems are perhaps too complex to show clear leadership creates potential dissonance among the constituent public. Thus, despite sev- eral participants pointing out that they followed the media coverage on the GBR, broader questions on leader- ship and governance were a source of confusion. Reflecting the respondent’s confusion, when asked whether the current laws and regulations relating to the GBR are too strict or not strict enough, interviewees had mixed views. Indeed, six of the respondents felt that they were very ill-informed about what is occurring on the Reef, what is being done to protect it and the laws and regulations governing it (‘I don’t know what the laws are anyway.’ [Res_25]). As a result, they declined to comment further. Of the remaining respondents, 10 thought the laws were not strict enough, 10 believed they are ‘heading in the right direction’ and 5 thought they needed to be more strictly enforced. Regardless, even those who expressed an opinion were not necessarily fully informed, for example in relation to mining activities generally not occurring in the reef areas ‘ … get away from mining on the GBR and when it rains washing all our poisons and sprays and all that all over the GBR.’ [Res_4]. This respondent’s answer shows that there is general unease about certain activities (including other land-based activities such as sugar cane farming), but detailed knowledge about industrial activity on the GBR is lacking. Respondents felt ill-formed about the laws and regulations governing the Reef, with this lack of knowledge potentially a result of ‘New laws … ’ [Stake_5]). A number of respondents indicated that there is a need for more credible research regarding the GBR in order to dispel the myths and understand issues regarding certain impacts (‘A lot of the data, I think, is not really that accurate; the old story: there’s lies, damn lies and statistics.’ [Res_6]). It was also suggested that there was a need to increase cooperation between users of the GBR and for commercial users to partner with conservation groups. Analysis of the interviews indicated that many locals believed that most businesses that come into contact with the GBR are trying to minimise negative impacts. Thus, when asked if the current levels of resources sector and tourism-related activity on and near the GBR should be maintained, increased or decreased, a large number of respondents believed that current levels should be maintained. Only eight respondents clearly expressed that activity should be decreased (Table 2). A few locals displayed fatalism in that they recognised that the export of coal will increase and with it the level of shipping, believing that ‘State Government, the Federal Government, big industries – they want their dollar’ and it is ‘one of those things we have to deal with’ [Stake_10]. Generally, respondents indicated that they felt most businesses were trying their best to minimise negative impacts on the GBR and that the environmental laws in place are ensuring many do the right thing (‘They’re probably doing their best … ’ [Res_1]). However, some respondents commented on the politics and greed that have ‘taken this place down’ [Res_11] and argued that there was a need for changes in regard to company pol- icy. One respondent argued that the incentives in the shipping industry have been harming the GBR by encouraging ship captains to illegally short-cut through the Reef (‘ … ship captains get paid on performance. They get paid for the shortest time they can get here and load up … ’ [Res_11]. Other respondents suggested Table 2. Should current levels of commercial activity in the region be increased or decreased? Theme Example quotes Maintained ‘I think maintained. I think it could stand a little more tourism, at different times. But I wouldn’t like to see too much more in the (n = 16) shipping side of it.’ [Stake_5] ‘I don’t think we need to increase it’ [Res_6] Decreased ‘I think the mining should definitely be decreased or at least no more than what it is. To me, it cannot be anything more than what (n = 8) is here already.’ [Stake_4] ‘Oh decreased. You don’t want any more over around there now, there’s enough trouble now with what it’s doing to the turtles and everything else and the wildlife.’ [Res_24] ‘I think as far as the shipping going through the Reef, I think that should be very controlled. We’ve had a few incidents around here with Chinese ships running aground, taking short cuts. I think that should be really, really cut down on.’ [Res_8] Undecided ‘I don’t have an opinion because I’m not aware of what’s happening.’ [Res_27] (n = 2) Increased ‘Increased, resources industry is extremely environmentally conscious both through their own self-regulation and laws/community (n = 1) expectations.’ [Stake_1] JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 9 collecting funds from the commercial users to direct back towards the protection of the GBR. However, respon- dents emphasised that this should not be about ‘collecting the coin’ [Res_12], rather about improving compli- ance with regulation and policing of the GBR. Consequently, there was a general view that businesses should adopt a responsibility approach towards the GBR, with government monitoring their accountability. The respondents were probed about ways that the management of the multi-use GBR could be improved. Results found that Australia as a collective, rather than regions, needed to work out the main priorities (i.e. the Reef or economic development) and that this should drive policy decision-making (‘The first question they should ask is will this harm the Reef?’ [Stake_4]). Indeed, some respondents further pointed out that there is a need to allocate funding based on priority areas (‘what are the biggest risks to the reef?’ [Stake_10]). Respon- dents generally indicated that increasing activity or developments on or near the GBR should be limited, with most having the opinion ‘develop with caution’ [Stake_8]. Several respondents indicated that fines should vary based on the severity of the impact the business has on the Reef and that the management take a more proactive approach (‘They fine them [the large shipping boats] but it’s too late, the damage that’s spread is enormous.’ [Res_12]). Thus control mechanisms were postulated as a key pillar in protecting the GBR. Closely linked with control mechanisms was the suggestion for improved monitoring of the use of the GBR, particularly of com- mercial activities (‘they have to keep monitoring it at all times … ’ [Res_3]). Respondents pointed out that successful management of the GBR requires a policy framework to be put into place by the government and then complied with by all stakeholders, including those who visit the GBR and businesses. Generally most respondents felt that if the GBR is sustainably managed it could remain a multi- use WHA that could economically support local communities through tourism, fishing and even shipping for generations to come. Indeed, a number emphasised the importance of balancing conservation with use (‘I think that it’s got to be balanced. I think that green zones are great, but we shouldn’t stop people from doing what they like to do … ’ [Res_6]). Overall, analysis of the results revealed that four key pillars should underpin the management of the Reef and that these lead to protection of the GBR (Figure 2). Under these four pillars, framework businesses take responsibility, but are monitored for appropriate behaviour. If businesses do not present appropriate behaviour, their actions are controlled. The responsibility, monitoring and control (accountability) mechanisms deliver outcomes that then feed into the final pillar associated with transparency, education and partnerships (Figure 2). Figure 2. A four pillar responsibility–accountability approach to protecting the GBR. 10 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. Discussion Transparent and readily available information on the management of the GBR was not available, yet it was highlighted as a key strategy for improved co-management. This highlights the importance of improving com- munication between stakeholder groups, where previous studies have supported the notion that strong com- munication channels assist to develop collaborative action among different groups (Booher & Innes, 2002; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Crona and Bodin’s (2006) study also found communication to greatly affect man- agement practices and the ability for co-management to occur between hierarchical power structures. Furthermore, the notion of collaborative action aligns with the finding that there needs to be more partner- ships between industries and representative bodies of the community to enhance the co-management of the GBR. A lack of partnerships across sectors and stakeholders is a common issue with fragmented co-manage- ment (Berkes, 2009; Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). However, the development of formal and informal partnerships is central to CSR initiatives, as it focuses on engaging multiple stakeholders to achieve common objectives (Adams & Zutshi, 2004; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). Additionally, Adams and Zutshi (2004) found that partner- ships can also improve trust among stakeholders, which was an area of concern for management which was acknowledged by the respondents of the present research. Whilst the present research found partnerships to already exist, including industrial tours and the Healthy Harbour Partnership, it was evident that these existing partnerships needed to be strengthened and additional stakeholders needed to be engaged, including local con- servation groups, residents and higher government bodies. Building on existing partnerships, networks and resources is a key process for adaptive management and is highly regarded for the co-management of complex systems (Berkes, 2009; Pomeroy, McConney, & Mahon, 2004). Building on existing partnerships can lead to vulnerability, given the reliance on the strength of existing partnerships (Googins & Rochlin, 2000). To reduce partnership breakdown, Provan, Veazie, Staten, and Teufel-Shone (2005) suggest that clearly defined objectives are needed, as well as have the support and involvement of local government. Local government involvement can also assist to provide resources for redeveloping partnerships if breakdown occurs (Provan et al., 2005). Environmental pollution and degradation is a major management issue for tourism and resource-based areas and is often a significant point of conflict between the two sectors (Huang, Zhou, & Ali, 2011; Pham, Bai- ley, & Spurr, 2013). Similar to previous studies, these findings reveal that increasing control mechanisms for pollution are an area which would improve the co-management of the GBR. While contamination and pol- lution from resource-based activities often lies at the core of control mechanisms for the management of resource-based areas (Chaulya, 2004; Tiwary, 2001), this research found that considerable attention was required for controlling pollution stemming from tourism activity. For example, respondents wanted tourists to recycle more and to take rubbish back after visits to the GBR, as well as for tour operators to keep effluent on board and pump it to shore for sewage treatment. This meant that greater control and accountability of this issue was needed from the tourism industry. Additional control mechanisms also emerged within the findings to improve the management of the GBR. Most notably, this involved developing more stringent social and environmental regulations for economic activity surrounding the GBR. This supports Morgera’s (2012) argument that CSR processes need to move away from voluntary approaches towards more legislative practices which dictate GBR management. Similarly, the findings suggested that stricter regulations should also extend to monitoring the use of the GBR and sur- rounding development, with restrictions in place for activity which has a potentially high negative impact on the GBR. Monitoring corporate conduct can also provide facts to the public on their activities, strengthening communication (Morgera, 2012). Furthermore, respondents acknowledged the need for substantial penalties to be enforced for breaches of these regulations. Ogus and Abbot (2002) support the use of enforcing harsh penal- ties, arguing that they are one of the most effective ways for legislative compliance. Finally, business responsibility was another area which respondents acknowledged as an area which would improve the co-management of the GBR. Business responsibility largely reflects the notion of accountability, where co-management is argued to be determined by stakeholders taking responsibility and initiative in ensur- ing that sustainable practices are paramount to economic and social activity (Grech et al., 2013; Morgera, 2012). Grech et al. (2013) suggests active monitoring and adaptive management as a tool for balancing economic and JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 11 social needs with conservation. Following similar corporate accountability strategies suggested in the literature to improve the accountability of organisations for their CSR initiatives (Adams & McNicholas, 2007; Valor, 2005); increased business responsibility and adaptive management could be achieved through the aforemen- tioned strategies. These included developing and strengthening partnerships between internal stakeholders and external entities, as well as the development of stricter legislation to guide activity, regulate and monitor management processes. The findings of this research also support Sheaves et al.’s (2016) argument for an inde- pendent scientific committee to evaluate scientific environmental impact assessments. Such a committee would support the four pillars and establish transparent guidelines for control and monitoring mechanisms, strength- ening adaptive management strategies. Conclusion The GBR is an environmental asset of global significance and one of Australia’s most iconic attractions. While the GBR has always been governed as a multi-use area, more recently the significant growth in international shipping and port development has caused global concern, exemplified by the threat from UNESCO to place the reef on the list of WHAs under threat. Under this background of contention, this research aimed to explore local stakeholders’ perceptions of the GBR management. A core contribution is the development of a responsibility–accountability framework for the management of business activity on the GBR for testing and application in other contexts. Given the top-down management approach being taken in regard to the GBR, local residents and stake- holders expressed having limited control over its management, relying on the trust of governing organisations to manage the GBR in line with local objectives. Responsibility and accountability within the context of co- management of a WHA requires a shared understanding of the management outcome, which needs to align with stakeholder, including business and local community, objectives. Thus, there is a clear opportunity to build stakeholder engagement for the benefit of managing the GBR, which follows arguments in the broader protected area literature (Heenehan et al., 2015). Consequently, the perceptions of the management processes of the GBR were explored within the present research by uncovering suggestions for improvement of the GBR management. Drawing on principles of adap- tive management, adaptive governance and CSR, a four pillar framework was proposed for the protection of the GBR that related to: transparency, education and partnership; control mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms and business responsibility. Managing the GBR under such a framework could improve community along with domestic and international visitors’ perceptions of the GBR, its management and its users. Future research should aim to undertake a large-scale survey that could further investigate and compare cogitative dissonance arising among residents, visitors and those distanced from the GBR. In addition, there is opportunity to com- pare communities adjacent to the GBR that are dependent on different economic sectors, as there may be differ- ences between those dependent on the Reef for survival (e.g. tourism and fishing), compared with those that just use the Reef as a means to an end (e.g. the resources sector). Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes on contributors Dr Brent Moyle is a Senior Research Fellow in Sustainable Tourism at the Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. His research primarily focuses on people and parks and the sustainable management of tourism destinations. Dr Char-lee Moyle is the Executive Director of Scholar and Grants Advisor with Local Government Area of Queensland (LGAQ). Her research focuses on transformation and resilience theory, tourism destination development, regional development, evolution- ary economics and big data. 12 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. Dr Alexandra Bec currently works as a researcher at the Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Her research interests include resilience and sustainability, change management, community and regional development, emotion and tourism References Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382–402. Adams, C. A., & Zutshi, A. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: Why business should act responsibly and be accountable. Australian Accounting Review, 14(34), 31–39. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98. Baird, M. F. (2013). ‘The breath of the mountain is my heart’: Indigenous cultural landscapes and the politics of heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(4), 327–340. Becken, S., & Job, H. (2014). Protected areas in an era of global-local change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4), 507–527. Becken, S., McLennan, C., & Moyle, B. (2014). World Heritage Area at risk? Resident and stakeholder perceptions of the Great Barrier Reef in Gladstone, Australia (Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report Series, Report No. 2), Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. Bec, A., Moyle, B. D., & McLennan, C. J. (2016). Drilling into community perceptions of coal seam gas in Roma, Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(3), 716–726. Belz, F.-M., & Peattie, K. (2009). Sustainability marketing: A global perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Benn, S., & Dunphy, D. (2007). Corporate governance and sustainability: Challenges for theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 752–766. Benson, M. H., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the national environmental policy act. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1420–1427. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702. Bianchi, R., & Boniface, P. (2002). Editorial: The politics of World Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(2), 79–80. Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236. Breitling, U. (2010). Sustainable shipping and port development. 5th Regional Environment and Transport Forum in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, 23–25 August. Brodie, J., & Waterhouse, J. (2012). A critical review of environmental management of the ‘not so Great’ Barrier Reef. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 104–105, 1–22. Brooks, S. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and strategic management: The prospects for converging discourses. Strategic Change, 14(7), 401–411. Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1–3), 137–148. Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76. Carpenter, S. R. (1998). Sustainability and common-pool resources alternatives to tragedy. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology,, 3(4), 170–183. doi:10.5840/techne19983420 Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. Chaulya, S. K. (2004). Assessment and management of air quality for an opencast coal mining area. Journal of Environmental Management, 70(1), 1–14. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differ- ences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. Coles, R. G., Rasheed, M. A., McKenzie, L. J., Grech, A., York, P. H., Sheaves, M., … Bryant, C. (2015). The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: Managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 153, A1–A12. Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society, 11(2), Article No. 7. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art7/ Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability: Stakeholder perceptions on the connec- tion. Higher Education, 59(5), 599–613. Dann, G. M. S. (2005). Content/semiotic analysis: Applications for tourism research. In J. Aramberri & R. Butler (Eds.), Tourism development: Issues for a vulnerable industry (pp. 27–43). Clevedon: Channel View. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 13 Day, J. C., & Dobbs, K. (2013). Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy, 41, 14–24. De Cesari, C. (2010). World Heritage and mosaic universalism: A view from Palestine. Journal of Social Archaeology, 10(3), 299–324. Department of the Environment. (2014). Annual report 2014–15. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www. environment.gov.au/annual-report-2014-15 Dwyer, L., Gill, A., & Seetaram, N. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research methods in tourism: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Eagles, P. (2014). Research priorities in park tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4), 528–549. Fletcher, R., Johnson, I., Bruce, E., & Khun-Neay, K. (2007). Living with heritage: Site monitoring and heritage values in Greater Angkor and the Angkor World Heritage Site, Cambodia. World Archaeology, 39(3), 385–405. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 30(1), 441–473. Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1), Aricle No. 9. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art9/ Goodman, L. A. (2011). Comment: On respondent-driven sampling and snowball sampling in hard-to-reach populations and snowball sampling not in hard-to-reach populations. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 347–353. Googins, B. K., & Rochlin, S. A. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127–144. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [GBRMPA]. (2011). GBR guardian councils. GBRMPA, Australian Government. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/reef-guardians/reef-guardian-councils Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [GBRMPA]. (2014). Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., … Smith, A. (2013). Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 75(1–2), 8–20. Hall, C. M. (2006). Implementing the World Heritage Convention: What happens after listing? In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing World Heritage sites (pp. 20–34). Burlington, MA: Routledge. Harrison, D. (2004). Introduction: Contested narratives in the domain of World Heritage. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4–5), 281–290. Hedge, P., Molloy, F., Sweatman, H., Hayes, K., Dambacher, J., Chandler, J., … Walshe, T. (2013). An integrated monitoring frame- work for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Canbarra: Department of Environment. Heenehan, H., Basurto, X., Bejder, L., Tyne, J., Higham, J. E. S., & Johnston, D. W. (2015). Using Ostrom’s common-pool resource theory to build towards an integrated ecosystem-based sustainable cetacean tourism system in Hawai’i. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 536–556. Hockings, M., Stolton, S. U. E., & Dudley, N. (2004). Management effectiveness: Assessing management of protected areas? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 6(2), 157–174. Huang, G., Zhou, W., & Ali, S. (2011). Spatial patterns and economic contributions of mining and tourism in biodiversity hotspots: A case study in China. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1492–1498. Hughes, T. P., Gunderson, L. H., Folke, C., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D., Berkes, F., … Worm, B. (2007). Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon World Heritage Areas. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(7), 586–592. Jenkins, R. (2005). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty. International Affairs, 81(3), 525–540. Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – a case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2), 288–296. Joffe, H. (2003). Risk: From perception to social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 55–73. Johnston, H. (2014). The Willandra Lakes region World Heritage Area, New South Wales, Australia: Land use planning and man- agement of aboriginal and archaeological heritage. In A. Castillo (Ed.), Archaeological dimension of World Heritage: From pre- vention to social implications (pp. 39–55). New York: Springer New York. Johnston, R., & Brady, H. E. (2002). The rolling cross-section design. Electoral Studies, 21(2), 283–295. Lane, M. B., & Rickson, R. E. (1997). Resource development and resource dependency of indigenous communities: Australia’s Jawoyn aborigines and mining at coronation hill. Society & Natural Resources, 10(2), 121–142. Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (Eds.). (2006). Managing World Heritage sites. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Lewis, M., Yound, B., Mathiassen, L., Rai, A., & Welke, R. (2007). Business process innovation based on stakeholder perceptions. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 6(1/2), 7–27. Lo Piccolo, F., Leone, D., & Pizzuto, P. (2012). The (controversial) role of the UNESCO WHL management plans in promoting sustainable tourism development. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(3), 249–276. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: Sage. McLennan, C. L. J., Becken, S., & Moyle, B. D. (2015). Framing in a contested space: Media reporting on tourism and mining in Australia. Current Issues in Tourism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.946893. Meskell, L. (2010). Human rights and heritage ethics. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4), 839–859. Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 918–938. 14 B. D. MOYLE ET AL. Mitchell, R. K., Wooliscroft, B., & Higham, J. E. S. (2013). Applying sustainability in national park management: Balancing public and private interests using a sustainable market orientation model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(5), 695–715. Morgera, E. (2012). Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper Series. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Moyle, B. D., Croy, W. G., & Weiler, B. (2010). Community perceptions of tourism: Bruny and Magnetic Islands, Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 15(3), 353–366. Ndlovu, T., Simba, A., & Mariussen, A. (2015). The treacherous path of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the role of infor- mation systems in its implementation. In T. Tsiakis (Ed.), Trends and innovations in marketing information systems (pp. 85– 106). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference. Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, K. J. (2009). Residents perspectives of a World Heritage Site: The pitons management area, St Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 390–412. Nursey-Bray, M., & Rist, P. (2009). Co-management and protected area management: Achieving effective management of a con- tested site, lessons from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). Marine Policy, 33(1), 118–127. OECD. (2001). Glossary of statistical terms. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=382 Ogus, A., & Abbot, C. (2002). Pollution and penalties. Research in Law and Economics, 20, 493–512. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4), Article No. 2. Retrieved from http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/ Pham, T. D., Bailey, G., & Spurr, R. (2013). The positive and negative effects of the mining boom – a technical paper. Canberra: Tourism Research Australia. Plummer, R., Armitage, D. R., & De Loë, R. C. (2013). Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18(1), Artilce No. 21. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art21/ Pomeroy, R. S., McConney, P., & Mahon, R. (2004). Comparative analysis of coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(9–10), 429–447. Provan, K. G., Veazie, M. A., Staten, L. K., & Teufel-Shone, N. I. (2005). The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 603–613. Rainey, D. L. (2006). Sustainable business development: Inventing the future through strategy, innovation, and leadership. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rajak, D. (2011). In good company: An anatomy of corporate social responsibility. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage. Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 351–365. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (04), 503–530. Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institu- tionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429. Sheaves, M., Coles, R., Dale, P., Grech, A., Pressey, R. L., & Waltham, N. J. (2016). Enhancing the value and validity of EIA: Serious science to protect Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Conservation Letters, 9(5), 377–383. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. New York: Routledge. Svels, A., & Sande, K. (2016). Solving landscape-related conflicts through transnational learning? The case of transboundary Nordic World Heritage sites. Landscpae Research, 41(5), 524–537. doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1151485 Thapa, B. (2007). Role of interpretation in management: A case of the protected area system in Nepal. Banko Janakari, 17(2), 40–44. Tiwary, R. K. (2001). Environmental impact of coal mining on water regime and its management. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 132(1–2), 185–199. Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). The business case for regulation of corporate social responsibility and accountability. Accounting Forum, 31(4), 332–353. UNESCO. (2016). World Heritage List. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ Valor, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards corporate accountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191–212. Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5–31. Voß, J.-P., & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and tran- sition management. Ecology and Society, 16(2), Article No. 9. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/ Waltham, N. J., & Sheaves, M. (2015). Expanding coastal urban and industrial seascape in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: Critical need for coordinated planning and policy. Marine Policy, 57, 78–84. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.030 View publication stats