This article was downloaded by: [Appalachian State University]On: 30 August 2012, At: 09:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Developing sustainable tourism throughadaptive resource management: a casestudy of Machu Picchu, PeruLincoln R. Larson a & Neelam C. Poudyal aa Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University ofGeorgia, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, GA, USA

Version of record first published: 19 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Lincoln R. Larson & Neelam C. Poudyal (2012): Developing sustainable tourismthrough adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru, Journal of SustainableTourism, 20:7, 917-938

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.667217

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

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

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

Lincoln R. Larson∗ and Neelam C. Poudyal

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E. Green Street,Athens, GA, USA

(Received 5 August 2011; final version received 6 February 2012)

Machu Picchu, Peru, is recognized as a top international travel destination. Pressurefrom the approximately 900,000 tourists who annually visit the ancient Inca city threat-ens the ecological integrity, physical substance and cultural authenticity of the WorldHeritage Site and surrounding area, including the Inca Trail. Multiple organizations andagencies currently involved in the management of Machu Picchu have distinct agendasfor the conservation and development of the city, and conflicts regarding public access,economic growth and cultural preservation are rampant. Attempts to establish carryingcapacities have failed, with proposed daily visitor levels ranging from 800 to 4000. Thispaper explores the complex issues surrounding tourism at Machu Picchu and presents apotential solution: an adaptive management approach based on the UN World TourismOrganization’s (UNWTO) sustainable tourism framework. This integrative strategy ac-counts for multiple perspectives and synthesizes disparate goals embraced by diversestakeholders, including the Peruvian government, international conservation organi-zations, foreign tourists, private tour operators, regional authorities and indigenouscommunities. The focus on Machu Picchu as an adaptive management case study siteoutlines key steps leading to implementation, offering planning and policy implicationsfor sustainability initiatives at numerous developing-world tourism destinations facingsimilar political and socio-economic challenges.

Keywords: adaptive management; community development; indicators; Machu Picchu;sustainability; world heritage site

Introduction

Few places in the world can match the natural beauty and historical significance of MachuPicchu, Peru. The ecological and cultural allure of the ancient Inca city has earned MachuPicchu a place on the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization’s(UNESCO) World Heritage List (UNEP, 2008). Machu Picchu is also formally recognizedas one of the “New Wonders of the World” (World of New7Wonders, 2011), and the imageof Peru’s “Lost City” remains a powerful symbol of Peruvian culture and heritage. With itsdramatic setting and mysterious past, the former Inca citadel has become a popular tourismdestination and the centerpiece of a booming tourism industry (Desforges, 2000).

About 2500 tourists visit Machu Picchu each day, and the remote site is under increasingpressure from developers and government officials, who want to expand tourism operationsin the area (Leffel, 2005). Threats posed by unregulated use, inadequate planning, deficient

∗Corresponding author. Email: llarson@uga.edu.

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 onlineC© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.667217http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

monitoring mechanisms and weak policy enforcement have caused Machu Picchu to beranked as one of the most rapidly deteriorating World Heritage Sites (Hawkins, Chang, &Warnes, 2009). Because of these concerns, UNESCO has urged the government of Peruto revise its Master Plan for managing the Historic Sanctuary to emphasize sustainabledevelopment and prevent Machu Picchu’s possible inscription on the list of World HeritageSites in danger (UNESCO, 2009). The state is currently working with UNESCO to constructa new Master Plan (Vecchio, 2011), but – with many diverse stakeholders and interests tobalance – reaching consensus regarding Machu Picchu’s future has proven to be extremelydifficult.

Machu Picchu’s governing body consists of multiple organizations and agencies – fromlocal to international – that have very different interests, ranging from preservation toutilization. Advocates of the mass tourism strategy want to increase access to the site,generate revenue for regional governments, private operators and local communities, andpromote Inca culture as a marketable commodity. Opponents of mass tourism want to limitaccess, preserve ecological, archeological and spiritual assets, and protect existing culturesand livelihoods in Peru’s Andean highlands. David Ugarte, a former regional director ofCusco’s National Cultural Institute, summed up the core issue: “The (tour) companies arethinking of profit. Our task is to give to the next generation the opportunity to continueseeing this wonder for centuries to come . . . In ten years’ time there will no longer be aMachu Picchu. It’s not only part of our heritage. It’s a part of humanity’s” (Collyns, 2007).

Although research suggests that resource protection and development are not mutuallyexclusive in the tourism sector (Weaver, 2011), the successful integration of these princi-ples will likely require a shift from reactive to proactive management paradigms (Allen,Fontaine, Pope, & Garmenstani, 2011). In this respect, Machu Picchu presents a compellingopportunity for case study. Tourism management at the site is a classic example of whatMcCool and Moisey (2008) call a “messy situation” – a context where goals conflict,uncertainty abounds and relationships between stakeholders can be polarizing or hostile.However, if a sustainable solution were to emerge under these challenging circumstances,it could be used to resolve tourism problems in similar settings around the world. Thispaper explores the general concept of sustainable tourism, analyzes the complex issues sur-rounding tourism in Machu Picchu and presents a proactive, systematic, objective-driven,indicator-based adaptive management framework that may facilitate a progression from thesustainable rhetoric prevalent in management plans to sustainable solutions and action (Zan& Lusiani, 2011).

What is sustainable tourism?

The issue of sustainable development is at the core of the debate over Machu Picchu’suse. To ecologists, sustainable development is concerned with preserving the status andfunction of ecosystems (Rees, 1990). From the economic standpoint espoused by the WorldCommission on Environment and Development, sustainable development is “developmentthat meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs” (Toman, 1992, p. 3). Within tourism, sustainable developmenttypically refers to tourism that satisfies the needs of present tourists and host regions whileprotecting and enhancing opportunities for the future (Vaughan, 2000).

Multiple meanings have been attached to the term “sustainable” in the tourism context(Bramwell & Lane, 1993). McCool and Moisey (2008) suggest that sustainable tourism canrefer to a business that perseveres and flourishes over a long period of time or an industry thatacknowledges biophysical and social limits and intentionally remains small in scope. Hunter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 919

(1995) observes that, in its purest form, sustainable tourism is a vital tool that augmentslarge-scale economic and social development programs. Butler succinctly summarizes theadaptive paradigm by stating, “sustainable tourism is that which is developed and maintainedin an area in such manner and at such a scale that . . . it remains viable over an infinite periodof time and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which itexists” (1999, p. 12). An effective sustainable tourism approach should maximize benefitsand minimize impacts, thereby increasing the likelihood of long-term persistence. Saarinen(2006) argues that sustainability in tourism accounts for resource-based (e.g. impacts onnatural and cultural capital), activity-based (e.g. growth and development of industry) andcommunity-based (e.g. involvement of social capital in a local context) traditions. Eachof these perspectives is relevant at Machu Picchu, where tourism threatens the ecologicalintegrity and cultural authenticity of a cherished resource while bringing the promise ofeconomic enhancement and community development. To understand how the sustainabletourism model may function in this context, the specific situational factors and challengesthat make Machu Picchu unique must be considered.

Machu Picchu: an overview

The ancient citadel of Machu Picchu was built as a royal estate for the Inca ruler Pachacutibetween 1460 and 1470 AD. The citadel remained hidden for centuries until 1911, whenAmerican explorer Hiram Bingham became the first non-native Peruvian to discover theruins of the mythical “Lost City”. Bingham immediately understood the magnitude of hisfind, noting that “Machu Picchu might prove to be the largest and most important ruindiscovered in South America since the days of the Spanish conquest” (Bingham, 1913).Bingham’s discovery brought international attention to the ancient city and the awe-inspiringlandscape around it. In 1983, UNESCO officially recognized the cultural and natural valueof the area by designating it a World Heritage Site and making the preservation of MachuPicchu a global priority (ICOMOS, 1983).

To further protect its national treasure, the Peruvian government created a National His-toric Sanctuary in 1981. Today, Machu Picchu continues to provide evidence and artifactsthat help archeologists reconstruct elements of Inca civilization (Gordon & Knopf, 2007).The spirit of Machu Picchu has also pervaded the public imagination, fueling a nationalistmovement among Peru’s indigenous people (Flores Ochoa, 2004; van den Berghe & FloresOchoa, 2000). Throughout Peru’s turbulent past, Machu Picchu has also remained a pillarof stability and an emblem of cultural fortitude. Overall, this enduring heritage highlightsa powerful cultural landscape that warrants protection (Alberts & Hazen, 2010).

The Machu Picchu ecosystem contains a variety of habitats and incredible biodiversity.Its elevation ranges from 1850 to 4600 m and includes dry subtropical forest along theriver valleys, humid montane cloud forests on the steep mountain slopes and high-elevationparamo grassland (Galiano Sanchez, 2000; UNEP, 2008). Machu Picchu provides refugefor many wildlife species, including the Andean cock-of-the-rock, the ocelot and the endan-gered spectacled bear (Young & Leon, 2000), and the discovery of new species in the MachuPicchu area is not uncommon. These unique ecological features convinced the InternationalCouncil on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) that Machu Picchu should be expanded intoa biological protected zone for the surrounding areas. Machu Picchu is now recognized as a“managed resource protection area” by the World Conservation Union (International Unionfor Conservation of Nature, IUCN), set aside for the sustainable use of natural ecosystemsand the associated cultural resources (IUCN, 1994). The protected zone currently covers80,535 acres and reaches far beyond the ruins (Flores Ochoa, 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

Tourism at Machu Picchu

Conservation designations by international organizations underscored Machu Picchu’s uni-versal appeal, and the tourism industry was quick to respond (Vaughan, 2000). Before1990, Peru accounted for less than 5% of all tourism in South America (Aguilar, Hinojosa,Milla, & Nordt, 1992). In the 1990s, with the introduction of improved infrastructure andreduction in violence and unrest in Peru, its exceptional natural and cultural features be-came more appealing to tourists (Casado, 1998; Desforges, 2000). A publicity campaignwith the slogan “El turista es su amigo” (The tourist is your friend) was used to encouragepositive public attitudes toward tourists and promote tourism as the panacea for Peru’sstagnant economy (Desforges, 2000). These political changes, economic reforms and ag-gressive marketing strategies created an international tourist boom in the mid-1990s thatcontinues today. From 2000 to 2010, international tourist arrivals and expenditures in Perudoubled (World Economic Forum, 2011) and tourism became the fastest-growing sector ofthe Peruvian economy (Mitchell & Eagles, 2001).

Based on the per capita number of tourist bed nights, the Cusco region assumes a dom-inant position in Peru’s international tourism hierarchy (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999); Cuscois the nearest major city to Machu Picchu, with airline and rail connections (MendozaQuintana, 1997). In fact, over 90% of all international visits to Peru feature a stop in theCusco Department, and nearly half of these trips include a visit to Machu Picchu (Desforges,2000; Solano, 2005). Cusco hotels and hostels receive an average of 1.5 domestic touriststo every foreign traveler, much less than the 7:1 domestic to international ratio observedacross Peru (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999). The spatially uneven nature of tourist promotionin Peru explains a large portion of this discrepancy. Government departments that overseethe tourism industry are hesitant to endorse travel to outlying areas, preferring instead toconcentrate investments in established hotspots. Although there are 36,000 known archeo-logical sites in the Cusco region, the potential for tourism in most of these underdevelopedlocations has not been explored (Del-Arroyo, 2005; McGrath, 2004).

Machu Picchu, however, is threatened by its extreme global visibility and a growinginflux of visitors that threatens the limits of sustainability. Between 400 and 3000 peoplevisit the ancient Inca city every day, and visitor numbers are increasing 6–10% every year(Emmott, 2003; Leffel, 2005; UNEP, 2008). The record annual high of almost 900,000visitors was recorded in 2008 and – despite a slight downturn in 2009 and 2010, primarilydue to site closures related to flooding and mudslides (Andean Tour Operator, personalcommunication, March 21, 2011) – that number is likely to increase (Vecchio, 2011).Although projections indicate that international tourist numbers across Peru may beginto stabilize in the near future (Divino & McAleer, 2010), the intensifying pressure onMachu Picchu itself will not subside (UNEP, 2008). The UNESCO Chief Irina Boklovaacknowledged this alarming pattern in early 2011, remarking that “Machu Picchu is a victimof its own success” (Vecchio, 2011). If Peru is going to protect one of its most valuableresources, then management plans must address multiple challenges.

Management challenges at Machu Picchu

Tourism management within and around Machu Picchu is affected by a variety of en-vironmental, economic and social factors often associated with World Heritage Sites indeveloping countries (Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006; UNEP, 2008). Mitigatingthese factors can be a daunting task, but a successful management framework may be ableto address each of the following concerns.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 921

Ecosystem fragility

The Machu Picchu ecosystem is extremely fragile. Nearly 90% of South America’s Andeancloud forests have already been lost, and anthropogenic changes have already damagedcloud forests on mountain slopes within the Historic Sanctuary (Hamilton, 1995). Sci-entists with Peru’s Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA) believe that noise pollutionfrom helicopters and other vehicular traffic led to the disappearance of Andean condorsin the region (Collyns, 2006). Current expansion of civilization and tourism infrastruc-ture also threatens the migration corridors and montane habitats of several endangeredspecies on the World Conservation Union’s Red List (IUCN, 2011; Peyton, 1980). Theecological viability and resiliency of Machu Picchu is a global concern. With tourist ac-tivity rising, managers need to act swiftly and decisively to protect the area’s biologicaldiversity.

The unique topography and geological instability of Machu Picchu add another elementto the management equation. Landslides are common along the valley’s steep slopes andadditional construction of visitor facilities atop Machu Picchu could precipitate a disaster(Hadfield, 2001; Sassa, Fukuoka, Wang, & Wang, 2005). Scientists report that the easternportion of the ancient city is sliding downhill at a rate of 0.4 inches per month, and thismovement could be the precursor stage of a rockslide (Sassa et al., 2005). ProminentPeruvian archeologist Federico Kauffman believes that in Inca times, no more than 500small, barefooted people occupied Machu Picchu (LaFranchi, 2001), but modern tourists– whose behavior is generally much more destructive – often exceed 2000 on a single day.The UNESCO-supported proposed management plan incorporates a satellite monitoringsystem that will track earth movements and visitor activity patterns around the historicruins, and UNESCO has also urged managers to develop a thorough risk preparedness planfor the site (UNESCO, 2006). As tourist numbers increase, managers must devise consistentand reliable strategies for preventing major site degradation.

Site accessibility

Although tourism in Machu Picchu is increasing, growth in the region has been hindered bythe ruins’ remote location. With relatively limited access, Machu Picchu is a prime exampleof how inadequate transportation systems have constrained spatial expansion of the touristindustry in Peru (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999; World Economic Forum, 2011). About 150 kmof rugged Andean highlands separate the Inca citadel from the urban center of Cusco, buta visit to Machu Picchu is much more than a casual day trip. Most tourists arrive via afour-hour train ride that carries passengers from Cusco to the town of Aguas Calientes atthe foot of Machu Picchu. From there, buses transport visitors on a 20-minute ride along adirt road up to the ruins 350 m above the Urubamba River. The ancient city itself sits onthe saddle (elevation 2430 m), surrounded by the jagged peak of Huayna Picchu (2667 m)and Machu Picchu Mountain (2795 m).

Efforts have been made to increase the accessibility of Peru’s premier tourist destination.The Peruvian company Inkaterra was recently cleared to open a helicopter service fromCusco to Aguas Calientes, but the Peruvian Ministry of Transport and Communications(MTC) reversed the decision after complaints from archeologists and environmentalists(Collyns, 2006; Higgins, 2006). Another government plan to increase tourism capacity– a cable car system that would transport visitors from Aguas Calientes to a proposedtourist village atop the ridge – was indefinitely suspended following public animosityregarding potential destruction of primary forests and important archeological remains(Burger & Salazar, 2004). The newly constructed Carilluchayoc Bridge, inaugurated despite

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

a prohibitory court order, opened a road corridor between Cusco and the small town ofSanta Teresa. This bridge provides alternative road access to Machu Picchu for visitors whowish to bypass the expensive tourist train (however, road travelers must still be willing toendure several treacherous days of travel on perilous unpaved roads).

Limited vehicular access encourages travelers and tourist companies to explore alterna-tive access to the ancient Inca city. A popular option is the Inca Trail, a stone path built by theIncas to connect important sites throughout their Sacred Urubamba Valley. Tourists hike thetrail from near Cusco, spending 3–4 days traversing scenic and historic mountainous terrainbefore descending to Machu Picchu. They experience the physical demands and the spiritualnature of the Inca’s ancient lifestyle in an authentic, ecologically friendly way (Arellano,2004). However, many of these “eco-travelers” are contributing to degradation of a historicpath not built to accommodate such frequent use. In 1984, 6000 tourists hiked the Inca Trail;by 1998, 66,000 hiked the trail, with over 1500 travelers on the Trail any given day (Roach,2002). Because of severe damage, and based on UNESCO’s recommendations, a daily limitof 500 travelers (200 tourists, 300 porters) was implemented in 2001. The entry fee for a fulltrail hike was also raised from US $17 to $50. Today, only licensed tour operators are allowedto sell Inca Trail packages (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). Stringent regulationshave created a three- to six-month waiting list for tourists hoping to hike the Trail, and manyhikers are now seeking cheaper alternative routes (Healy, 2006). To reduce pressure on theruins, UNESCO has discouraged the development of new access routes to Machu Picchu(Flores Ochoa, 2004). Increased access, however, could boost tourist numbers and increaseforeign expenditure in the region. Hence, the debate over access to Machu Picchu continues.

Local development

The promise of huge profits from increased tourist activity around Machu Picchu couldoutweigh the problems of increased access and the related costs of potential site degradationfor many local communities. The Peruvian government formally recognizes the value oftourism in employment creation and endorses the industry as an important developmentstrategy (Brohman, 1996; Desforges, 2000). The Sierra Highlands of Peru contain half ofthe country’s people but produce just 12.5% of its GNP (O’Hare & Barrett, 1999). Manysmall Amerindian villages are scattered throughout Andean Peru, and very few of thesecommunities derive any direct benefits from the tourist boom occurring in the Cusco area.Aguas Calientes (also known as Machu Picchu Pueblo), the small town at the base of theruins, is an exception. The population of Aguas Calientes has grown from 400 to almost4000 in less than a decade, the fastest rate of population growth in Peru (Emmott, 2003;UNEP, 2008). This rapid growth is directly related to the international appeal of MachuPicchu, and Aguas Calientes is earning a reputation as a tourist trap for visitors to the ancientruins (Leffel, 2005). Unplanned commercial growth and an overflow of transient settlershave created other unanticipated problems for the town and its inhabitants. For example,a lack of adequate water treatment facilities forced the town to pump untreated humanwaste into local rivers, polluting the local ecosystem. Seasonal fluctuations in employment,restricted livelihood choices and a lack of collective identity have also been cited as factorscontributing to social inequities (McGowan, 2010; UNEP, 2008).

The unequal distribution of Machu Picchu tourism profits has done little to help theplight of most Aguas Calientes residents (Andean Tour Operator, personal communication,March 21, 2011). PeruRail, owned by the British company Orient Express Hotels, has helda monopoly on transportation in the Sacred Valley for nearly a decade. The company alsoowns the only hotel adjacent to the ruins, the Machu Picchu Sanctuary Lodge. Locals argue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 923

that the foreign company, which carries 92% of the tourists from Cuzco to Machu Picchu,takes all the money out of the region (Collyns, 2007). Studies of other tourism destinationsin the Peruvian Andes highlight the devastating effect of leakages; in many cases, over 90%of gross tourism revenues never reach the local community (Bury, 2008; Mitchell & Eagles,2001). Although tour operators often promote tourism as a sustainable activity, improvingthe welfare of local people, in reality, this is rarely a primary goal (Blamey, 1997). Tocombat this, UNESCO has advised management bodies to give 10% of ticket receipts fromMachu Picchu to the town of Aguas Calientes (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007).This new source of money could help transform local infrastructure, but research showsthat high levels of social integration, communication and trust-building between actors inthe tourism industry are necessary to guarantee enduring socio-economic benefits to hostcommunities (Cole, 2006). For example, tourism’s social ties to the host community areincreased when the industry creates employment opportunities for local residents to serveas educators or interpretive guides (Jensen, 2010; McGrath, 2004). Increased ownershipand control has been a vital component of sustainable tourism projects in rural Andeansettings (Mitchell, 2008; Mitchell & Eagles, 2001); comparable approaches could producepositive results in tourist-busy villages throughout the Machu Picchu area.

Persistence of Peruvian culture

Even if an equitable distribution of tourism revenue in struggling communities can beachieved, local cultures may still suffer. Many of Peru’s indigenous people, the descendantsof Machu Picchu’s Inca builders, resent the government’s push for more tourist facilities andgreater access to the Cusco region (van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). The Andeanpeople, proud of their cultural heritage, are concerned that international tourism threatensthe sanctity of their sacred sites. A Peruvian movement known as incanismo has respondedto these concerns, sparking new controversy over Machu Picchu’s use. Incanismo extolsthe virtues of Inca civilization and vilifies Europeans as the scourge of the Americas (vanden Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). On a local level, incansimo principles advocate thepreservation of historical treasures, such as Machu Picchu, for traditional purposes. Forexample, the residents of Aguas Calientes, hoping to regain ownership of Machu Picchu andrepossess treasures hailed as part of their “cultural identity”, recently asked Yale Universityto return Inca artifacts taken by explorer Hiram Bingham almost a century ago (Cornwell,2006). Yale began returning the artifacts in 2011, and they will eventually be displayed ata museum in Cusco (Regalado, 2011).

On a larger scale, the exploitation of incanismo ideology contributes to a novel formof cultural degradation – ethnic tourism. Modern tourism packages in the Cusco region areall linked in some way to the Inca theme, and foreigners embracing the heritage tourismexperience are eager to accept embellishments of Inca culture propagated by their guides(McGrath, 2004; van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). Tour operators, particularlymembers of the Cusco urban elite, have therefore been able to capitalize on incanismo asa marketable tourist commodity. The phenomenon of “staged authenticity”, where nativepeople adopt a contrived culture to appeal to tourist interests, is slowly pervading thePeruvian highlands (MacCannell, 1973). The subsequent re-invention of tradition andcultural change precipitated by the tourism-mediated commercialization of Inca culture hastransformed many aspects of life in the Machu Picchu area (Cohen, 1988).

Rising entrance fees at Machu Picchu represent another obstacle threatening to diminishthe site’s importance to local residents. Entrance fees have been raised several times in thepast 10 years, from US $10 to $45 for international tourists and approximately half that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

price for Peruvian residents – with occasional free days for locals (Andean Travel Web,2011; Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). Though the price seems to not discourageinternational travelers, Amerindians who wish to visit the site for spiritual or culturalpurposes can rarely afford access and are often displaced by large-scale tourism activities.Such conflicts between local interests and tourism-associated demands are not unique toMachu Picchu (e.g. Rugendyke & Son, 2005). The ICOMOS highlights the difficulties inintegrating cultural resource management and tourism in its International Cultural TourismCharter, asserting that physical, intellectual and emotive access to cultural heritage sites isa right that should not be denied (ICOMOS, 1999).

Many locals believe the cultural “existence value” of a place like Machu Picchu cannotbe expressed in economic terms or exchanges (Navrud & Ready, 2002), and some Peru-vian residents that oppose foreign tourism are fighting to preserve their authentic culturalheritage. In 1999 and 2000, Cusquenos conducted a “March to Machu Picchu” denouncinggovernment management policies in the Historic Sanctuary (Flores Ochoa, 2004). YachayWasi, a Cusco-based nongovernmental organization that works on cultural issues and sus-tainable development to benefit indigenous people, urges the world to critically analyzethe consequences of mass tourism. At a 2006 United Nations forum, Yachay Wasi issuedits Inka Challenge: “Will world governments, scientists, nonprofit sponsors and touristsrespect indigenous people’s spiritual heritage, religion, burial sites, and human remains,and will the international community respect and allow them to protect their sacred sites”(Yachay Wasi, 2006). Concerns of indigenous people are now an integral part of UN agen-das, and efforts to support local pride and regional identity must become an important partof management plans in places like Machu Picchu.

Institutional complexity

To compound the problems already facing the site, the Management Unit of Machu Picchu– the entity charged with carrying out Machu Picchu’s Master Plan – is composed ofmany different agencies. A recent restructuring of the Peruvian government has furthercomplicated matters. Each of the disparate bodies that govern Machu Picchu has a distinctagenda, and each considers management options that balance public access, economicopportunity, and cultural and biological preservation in the region to different degrees.Thus, Peru’s National Institute of Culture (INC, now the Ministry of Culture) is chargedwith preserving the country’s national heritage and manages the cultural and historic aspectsof the site, including the actual ruins. The INRENA (now the National Service of ProtectedAreas – or SERNANP - in the Ministry of the Environment) is responsible for the floraand fauna in the Historic Sanctuary. The Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Integration andInternational Trade Negotiations (MITINCI, now the Ministry of Foreign Commerce andTourism – or MINCETUR) regulates tourism and development in the area, and the state’sTourism Promotion Commission (PromPeru) actively markets the site to potential visitors.All activity in and around Machu Picchu is also overseen and monitored by two internationalorganizations, UNESCO and IUCN. A heavy emphasis on centralized decision-makingorchestrated by powerful government elites, not governance that involves a full rangeof invested individuals and organizations, has been a major constraint for developingcountries trying to promote community participation in the tourism industry (Plummer& Fennell, 2009; Tosun, 2000). At Machu Picchu, regional and local authorities have asmall but growing voice in management decisions, and efforts are underway to expanda management committee that incorporates public and private stakeholders not currentlyrepresented (PromPeru, personal communication, July 22, 2011). Although Machu Picchu’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 925

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

Sustainable tourism priorities at Machu Picchu

To maintain the value of the site and to mollify some of the challenges described above,most management-oriented documents at Machu Picchu have focused on a central question– the establishment and regulation of an appropriate carrying capacity. The concept ofcarrying capacity has been applied in a variety of settings and generally describes the levelof visitor use that can be appropriately accommodated in a site without altering the physicalenvironment or the overall visitor experience (Manning, 1999; McCool & Lime, 2001). AtMachu Picchu, tourism is pushing the limits on both fronts. Excessive use has destroyedimportant archeological remains and overcrowding has negatively affected the aestheticenjoyment, historical immersion, imagination and solitude that appeal to many visitors(Emmott, 2003). Larger crowds may impact the international public’s perception of MachuPicchu as a must-see tourist attraction and detract from its value as a World Heritage Site.

Although Machu Picchu’s managers and operators acknowledge the importance ofcarrying capacity studies for the preservation of their site, they cannot agree on specificnumbers. UNESCO, a conservation-minded organization, suggests that tourist numbersshould be cut to 800 per day and visitors should wear soft shoes to reduce pressure on theruins (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2007). Agencies hoping to increase tourism revenuein the region believe that the estimate is far too conservative. Peru’s INC, which overseesday-to-day running of Machu Picchu, claims that the site can cope with 3000 tourists per day(Emmott, 2003). Orient Express Hotels, the private British company that runs the MachuPicchu Sanctuary Lodge and the PeruRail tourist train from Cuzco, believes that the sitecan easily sustain more than 4000 daily visitors (Collyns, 2007). Seeking a compromise,Peru’s Regional Office of Culture tentatively accepted a management plan (effective 15 July2011) created with input from UNESCO that capped daily entries to Machu Picchu at 2500visitors, with further restrictions for specific locations within the Sanctuary (PromPeru,personal communication, July 22, 2011). However, enduring consensus in Machu Picchu’scarrying capacity debate is unlikely given the conflicting priorities of the site’s complexmanagement conglomerate. In fact, research in multiple tourism settings has shown thatattempts to define optimal carrying capacity in complex real-world situations are generallyfutile (McCool & Lime, 2001). In many cases, the failure of management plans is duein part to an unbalanced emphasis on overall carrying capacity and a lack of specificityregarding management goals and objectives (UNEP, 2008).

The first step toward a sustainable future for tourism at Machu Picchu therefore involvesthe identification of appropriate management priorities. Regional authorities generally placea premium on tourism promotion and economic expansion, while international agenciesoften focus on conservation and preservation. Integration of these concepts is central tosuccessful management in parks where multiple issues influence management decisions(McCool & Moisey, 2008). Therefore, all parties with a vested interest in tourism needto come together and engage in participatory planning focused on unified goals (Mitchell& Eagles, 2001; Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006). At Machu Picchu, these goalscan be expressed in a pyramid of priorities (Figure 1). Site management should begin with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

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

Resource Utility (Support local development, increase economic benefits)

Social Viability (Stakeholder satisfaction, collaborative planning)

Sustainable Use (Maintain resource value)

Sustainable Tourism: A Pyramid of Priorities

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

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

Sustainable tourism: an adaptive resource management framework

Defining management objectives and actions

A major criticism of Machu Picchu’s existing Master Plan, as well as management guidelinesfor international tourist destinations in other developing countries, has been the ambiguityof goals and strategies and a conspicuous absence of detail for possible actions (Schianetz& Kavanagh, 2008; UNEP, 2004; Zan & Lusiani, 2011). This criticism could be resolvedusing an adaptive resource management (ARM) framework, which applies knowledge fromrelated disciplines to address contemporary tourism issues (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004).

Variations of the ARM approach to informed decision-making have been applied ina variety of settings. Early iterations still in use today include the Limits of AcceptableChange (LAC; Stankey, Cole, Lucas, Peterson, & Frissell, 1985) and the Visitor ImpactManagement Model (VIM; Graefe, Kuss, & Vaske, 1990), both of which aim to set limitsand minimize negative impacts from recreation and tourism on public lands in the UnitedStates. Newer strategies such as the Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM;Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002) and the Integrated Moni-toring and Adaptive Management System (iMAMS; QStation, 2009) have been used byAustralian tourism operators to assess, monitor and successfully achieve sustainable out-comes. Although research has identified several distinct decision-making methods usedin the adaptive management process, many similarities exist (McFadden, Hiller, & Tyre,2011). Each framework relies on specific objectives or standards, associated indicators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 927

that facilitate monitoring of these objectives and corresponding actions that help to reduceuncertainty associated with decision outcomes and ensure that desired objectives are beingmet (Allen et al., 2011; McCool & Lime, 2001).

An effective ARM approach consists of several basic steps (Knutson et al. 2011; Miller& Twining-Ward, 2005). First, managers must define the problem and a corresponding keyobjective that represents a desired outcome. At Machu Picchu, the fundamental objectivemight be to maintain the site’s value as a unique natural, cultural and economic resource.Next, managers must identify a set of means objectives that support the fundamentalobjective. At Machu Picchu, these objectives might include simultaneously minimizingthe impacts and maximizing the benefits of tourism. Other targets or means subobjec-tives could then be constructed, creating a transparent network structure to help guide thedecision-making process. For example, means subobjectives under the broader category of“minimizing the impacts of tourism” might address the challenge of ecosystem fragility,whereas means subobjectives under the “maximizing the benefits of tourism” could focuson issues such as site accessibility and community development. Each means subobjectiveis associated with a corresponding set of management actions necessary to achieve thedesired goal (Figure 2). In this proposed framework, objectives are designed to integratestakeholder concerns and specifically address the major challenges facing Machu Picchufrom a social–ecological perspective that incorporates human, natural and support sys-tems (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). The traditionally narrow focus of previous effortsto define tourism goals has restricted progress in other protected areas. By incorporatingnoneconomic factors and simultaneously balancing costs and benefits, the ARM objectivesoutlined here provide a solid foundation for long-term success (Moscardo, 2011).

The input of all groups, including local residents, tourists, tour operators and site man-agers, is a critical component of objective and action specification (Plummer & Fennell,2009; Stronza, 2001). A meta-analysis of international adaptive management supported thisassertion, revealing that decision-theoretic approaches emphasizing stakeholder communi-cation early in the process typically resulted in less complex models with greater efficacyaddressing specific decision problems (McFadden et al., 2011). Adaptive management at-tempts that experience only limited success are often generic top-down systems focusedaround expert opinion, not place-based frameworks guided by local knowledge and con-cerns (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2006; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). For example, a studyof a rural Bolivian ecotourism destination demonstrated the importance of context-specificoutcomes and the invaluable role of local contributions in the accomplishment of long-termgoals (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). For ARM to function properly at Machu Picchu, localstakeholders should be involved throughout the constantly evolving planning process. Thisintentional inclusion of local input could help to resolve two of the major challenges facingMachu Picchu: local development and the persistence of Peruvian culture.

Selecting appropriate indicators

Although the identification of explicit management outcomes is important, goals and objec-tives alone are insufficient. A set of measured attributes must also be included to monitorprogress and ensure that action goals are met. Recognizing the value of this approach,the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has created a guide for the selection ofperformance indicators that measure the effects of tourism on the environment and povertyalleviation in the developing world (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; WTO, 2004). The na-ture of these sustainability indicators varies from site to site, but core indicators in theUNWTO framework generally focus on aspects including critical ecosystems, maintenance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

Figu

re2.

Pro

pose

dad

aptiv

em

anag

emen

tfra

mew

ork

for

His

tori

cS

anct

uary

ofM

achu

Pic

chu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 929

of natural capital stock, long-term use intensity, local involvement, well-developed plans,resident/customer satisfaction and tourism’s contribution to the economy (Miller, 2001;WTO, 1996). Research indicates that tourism experts around the world believe both objec-tive (quantitative) and subjective (qualitative) metrics can provide important information(Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Miller, 2001). Quantitative indicators often include raw data, ratiosand percentages; qualitative indicators might incorporate categorical indices, and normativeor nominal information associated with a resource (WTO, 2004). For indicators to functionproperly, they should be condensed into a concise set carefully selected by integrated, multi-disciplinary advisory panels composed of expert and nonexpert stakeholders (Schianetz &Kavanagh, 2008). The indicators should also be subjected to a systematic screening pro-cess to identify limitations and methodological challenges (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005).Overall, effective indicators are relevant, reliable, feasible and stable over an extendedperiod of time (QStation, 2009; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002).

At Machu Picchu, a diverse suite of quantitative and qualitative indicators based onthe UNWTO’s framework could measure and monitor progress and direct actions relatedto target objectives (Table 1). Some of these indicators include information that is alreadyavailable through standard surveillance monitoring; others require additional research anddata collection. For example, the role of tourism in community development could betracked through quantitative evaluations of tourism integration (e.g. percentage of guidesthat are locals or percentage of hotels operated by locals) or qualitative assessments ofcommunity involvement (e.g. stakeholder ratings of perceived collaboration in the tourismplanning process). Similarly, the economic benefits of tourism could be assessed by quan-titative methods (e.g. daily tourism revenues) or qualitative approaches (e.g. stakeholderratings of the distributional equity of tourism profits). Machu Picchu’s ManagementCommittee has already identified many potential indicators in the site’s comprehensive234-page Master Plan (INC, 2005). However, the Committee has yet to devise a consistentstrategy for implementing and monitoring these performance indicators (UNESCO, 2011;Zan & Lusiani, 2011). This stage of adaptive management – the monitoring phase – iswhere many sustainable tourism projects break down (Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002).

Monitoring progress

Monitoring is more than a stand-alone activity used to detect trends. In the ARM framework,monitoring can help managers determine which management practices meet specifiedobjectives and develop flexible strategies for resolving recurring problems (Knutson etal., 2011; Plummer & Fennell, 2009). In practice, the major limitation of the UNWTO’sapproach to indicators has been a heavy focus on the development of indicators with littleemphasis on their actual implementation (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2006).

For monitoring in ARM to be beneficial, it must be an iterative component ofmanagement-based science (Nichols & Williams, 2006). Managers should initiate a partic-ular management option, evaluate its impact and learn from the results – adjusting manage-ment strategies as understanding improves (Williams, 2011a; Figure 3). This learning canoccur “actively” through the deliberate reduction of uncertainty associated with particularoutcomes, often using an experimental approach involving different actions on multipleunits simultaneously. Alternatively, the learning can occur “passively” as a byproduct ofsystems that focus on changes in resource conditions with respect to desired objectivesusing one model at a time (Williams, 2011b). The passive approach is probably more fea-sible in the nascent stages of ARM at Machu Picchu, where managers are under pressureto implement actions that generate an immediate response (e.g. temporary site closures,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

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

Objectives (with correspondingactions) Potential objective indicatorsb Potential subjective indicatorsb

Protect biological diversityMaximize amount of protected

habitatIncrease populations of T&E

speciesMinimize land use change and

fragmentation in UrubambaValley

No. of local speciesdowngraded on IUCN RedList/yr

Amount of habitat restoredfor T&E species

Size/viability of threatenedpopulations

Percent change in interiorforest area and edge/yr.

Population density within 10km of site

Site protection priority ratings(IUCN conventions)

Site resiliency and habitatintegrity ratings (experts)

Site susceptibility to climatechange ratings (experts)

Prevent physical degradationMinimize erosion and

landslide potentialMinimize and properly

dispose off waste

No. of people and visitordensity acrossspatial/temporal scales

Soil loss in valley and inruins/yr

Total weight of wastegenerated/month

Percent wastewater treatedbefore disposal

Landslide potential ratings(experts)

Ratings of waste managementprocedures

Perceived impacts of waste inlocal communities

General appearance of siteratings

Preserve cultural heritageMinimize damage to historic

Inca structuresNo. of historic structures

damaged/yrPerceived authenticity of

interpretive effortsIncrease site accessibility for

spiritual purposesPercent revenue spent on

structural renovation/yrTour guide knowledge and

performance ratingsMinimize exploitation of

ethnic tourismNo. of people attending

cultural events at site/yrRatings of perceived cultural

degradation among localsMinimize socio-cultural

impacts of tourism-relatedactivities

No. of interpretive signshighlighting Inca heritage

No. of locals visiting site/yrNo. of crimes committed in

region/yr

Opinions toward current tourismpractices

Support local developmentIncrease local involvement in

tourism industryPercentage of guides at site

that are localsPerceived collaboration in

planning processImprove access and local

infrastructurePercentage of hotels operated

by localsRankings for levels of planned

development controlIncrease educational

opportunitiesNo. of locals employed in

tourism industryRegulatory framework efficacy

ratingsRatio of foreign tourists to

local residentsNo. of visitors/week reaching

site from various accesspoints (road, train, etc.)

No. of social services(including educationprograms) available tolocals

Business environment andinfrastructure ratings (localsand managers)

Perceived contribution oftourism to local developmentprojects

(Continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 931

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

Objectives (with correspondingactions) Potential objective indicatorsb Potential subjective indicatorsb

Increase economic benefitsIncrease amount of foreign

expendituresNo. of tourists visiting site per

day, week, etc.Prioritization of tourism

rankings on multiple scalesIncrease flow of tourism

profits to local communities(reduce leakage)

Enhance marketing/promotionof tourism

Tourism revenue per day,week, etc. (+ leakage)

No. of agencies/operatorsusing site

No. of jobs added by tourismsector

Percent economy based ontourism (local, regional,national)

Indirect/direct economicimpacts of tourism in thearea

Tourism marketing materialsefficacy ratings

Distributional efficiency oftourism profit ratings

Perceived impact of importedtourism goods and services

Ensure stakeholder satisfactionMaximize visitors’ satisfactionMaximize locals’ satisfactionMaximize managers’

satisfaction

No. of conflicts/confrontationsbetween tourists andlocals/yr.

No. of protests/complaintsfiled againstmanagement/yr.

No. of repeat visitors/yr.

Satisfaction level ratings forlocals, visitors and managers

Visitor perceptions of trip valuegiven investment

Perceived crowdingSustainability ratings for

operations

aFull adaptive management framework is depicted in Figure 2.bPotential indicators are based on previous research and guidelines specified by the World Tourism Organization(WTO, 2004). The Machu Picchu Management Committee could adapt this framework to provide more specific,measurable and verifiable indicators.

regulating visitor numbers, altered pricing schemes, restorations, education campaigns). Asinformation is gathered, comparisons of desired outcomes and observed responses of theselected indicators facilitate a movement toward more promising management alternatives(Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Tourism managers at North Head Quarantine Station inNew South Wales have already put these principles into practice (QStation, 2009). Usingtheir iMAMS integrated monitoring approach, the QStation team developed a sustainabilityindex to determine the percentage of environmental, cultural, social and economic indica-tors performing within their accepted range. Adaptive management responses are initiatedwhen index scores are unsatisfactory.

Although proposed solutions to complex management problems can be difficult toidentify, ARM is specifically designed to deal with complicated circumstances. The ARMapproach functions best in situations where controllability is high (i.e. management has theability to affect resources) and uncertainty abounds (i.e. responses to management actionsmay vary), making it an ideal fit for remote World Heritage Sites like Machu Picchu (Allenet al., 2011). In summary, the constantly evolving implementation of ARM involves goalsand objectives that are used to specify desired outcomes, indicators that serve as metricsfor measuring the success of these outcomes, and monitoring that provides a mechanism todetermine if these outcomes are being met. These interrelationships highlight the iterative,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

Set objectives/ Define community values

Develop appropriate indicators

Develop a monitoring program/ Inventory conditions

Collect information/ Are objectives being met?

Yes No

Continue monitoring

Initiate a management response

Monitor response

Figure 3. Schematic management diagram demonstrating adaptive management monitoring princi-ples (adapted from Hammitt & Cole, 1998; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Adapted version reprintedwith permission of the authors and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

Implementing ARM at Machu Picchu

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 933

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

Conclusion

Sustainable tourism resource management is an elusive goal in most developing countries,where ecological and cultural heritage is often sacrificed in pursuit of economic wellbeing(Keatinge, 1982). Peru’s economic growth and aggressive promotion of tourism have placedsevere demographic pressure on its most valuable tourism asset, Machu Picchu, creatingdivergent opinions over management priorities. This conflict of interest is magnified by thesite’s unparalleled combination of biological and archeological resources, fragility, remotelocation, extreme local poverty, emerging cultural tensions and institutional complexity. Ex-isting management plans have provided few answers, generally exacerbating disagreementamong stakeholders and pushing the groups charged with protecting Machu Picchu to thebreaking point (Regalado-Pezua & Arias-Valencia, 2006; Zan & Lusiani, 2011). The futureof the ancient Inca city depends on a delicate balance between preservation, utilization andsustainable growth.

This paper suggests that an adaptive resource management approach may help plan-ners and managers guide Machu Picchu’s growth. The ARM tourism framework wouldhelp to identify management priorities, facilitating the creation of cohesive goals and ob-jectives among the various agencies responsible for conservation and development in theHistoric Sanctuary. By individually monitoring specific indicators of quality across variousspatial and temporal scales, managers could potentially address multiple management con-siderations that affect local residents, foreign tourists, private tour operators and regionalgovernments. Furthermore, managers could foster resilience and flexibility by learningfrom inevitable mistakes and surprising responses, adjusting actions to better meet spec-ified goals (Allen et al., 2011; QStation, 2009). Implementation of ARM would likelyrequire substantial international investment, but a global commitment may be necessaryfor long-term conservation and appreciation of Machu Picchu and other premier WorldHeritage Sites (Saarinen, 2006). As more unique places around the world begin to feelthe impending pressure of increased visitation (Weaver, 2011), the ARM approach maybe necessary to support sustainable development that addresses environmental, economicand social challenges. If ARM is adopted successfully at Machu Picchu, then lessonslearned from this sustainability framework could inform tourism practices at other heritagedestinations surrounded by complex political circumstances and socioeconomic contexts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank the anonymous Andean tour operators who supplied first-hand accounts ofthe current tourism situation at Machu Picchu. The authors also wish to thank PromPeru (La Comisionde Promocion del Peru para la Exportacion y el Turismo) for providing updated information aboutthe current state of management efforts within the Historic Sanctuary.

Notes on contributorsLincoln R. Larson is a graduate student in the Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism program at theUniversity of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, USA. His interdisciplinaryresearch focuses on a range of topics, including outdoor recreation, environmental education andhuman dimensions of conservation. Lincoln’s interest in sustainable tourism stems from his work onecotourism projects in Peru.

Neelam C. Poudyal is an Assistant Professor of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism at theWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, USA. He teaches courseson Ecotourism and Sustainable Development and Recreation Resource Management, and the mainthemes of his research program include the human dimensions and economic analysis of naturalresource recreation and tourism in the United States and beyond.

ReferencesAguilar, V., Hinojosa, L., Milla, C., & Nordt, W. (1992). Turismo y desarrollo: Posibilidades en la

region Inka. Cuzco, Peru: CARTUC y CERA.Alberts, H.C., & Hazen, H.D. (2010). Maintaining authenticity and integrity at cultural world heritage

sites. The Geographical Review, 100(1), 56–73.Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J., Pope, K.L., & Garmenstani, A.S. (2011). Adaptive management for a

turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1339–1345.Andean Travel Web. (2011). Machu Picchu tourist information. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from

http://www.andeantravelweb.com/peru/destinations/machupicchu/index.htmlArellano, A. (2004, January). Mobility systems and performance at Machu Picchu. Paper presented

at the Alternative Mobility Futures Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Barcelona Field Studies Centre. (2007). Machu Picchu: Attitudes to management. Retrieved March

8, 2007, from http://geographyfieldwork.com/MachuTourismAttitudes.htmBingham, H. (1913). In the wonderland of Peru. National Geographic, 24(4), 387–573. Retrieved

from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/1913/04/machu-picchu/bingham-textBlamey, R.K. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 5(2), 109–130.Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1–5.Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of Tourism

Research, 23, 48–70.Burger, R.L., & Salazar, L.C. (Eds.). (2004). Machu Picchu: Unveiling the mystery of the Incas. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Bury, J. (2008). New geographies of tourism in Peru: Nature-based tourism and conservation in the

Cordillera Huayhuash. Tourism Geographies, 10(3), 312–333.Butler, R.W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25.Casado, M.A. (1998). Peru’s tourism industry: Growth, setbacks, threats. Cornell Quarterly: Hotel

Restaurant and Administration, 39(1), 68–73.Choi, H.C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism.

Tourism Management, 27, 1274–1289.Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15,

371–386.Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.Collyns, D. (2006, September 8). Peru bans flight over Inca ruins. BBC News. Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5326042.stmCollyns, D. (2007, February 1). Bridge stirs the waters in Machu Picchu. BBC News. Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6292327.stm

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 935

Cornwell, R. (2006, February 3). Peru tells Yale it wants its Machu Picchu treasures back (after 100years). The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/peru-tells-yale-it-wants-its-machu-picchu-treasures-back-after-100-years-465452.html.

Del-Arroyo, T. (2005). Choquequirao: Crib of gold. Retrieved from http://www.american.edu/ted/peru-culture.htm

Desforges, L. (2000). State tourism institutions and neo-liberal development: A case study of Peru.Tourism Geographies, 2(2), 177–192.

Divino, J.A., & McAleer, M. (2010). Modelling and forecasting daily international mass tourism toPeru. Tourism Management, 31(6), 846–854.

Emmott, R. (2003, November 26). Tourist boom threatens Peru’s Machu Picchu. Reuters FoundationAlert Net. Retrieved http://www.alertnet.org

Farrell, B.H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,31(2), 274–295.

Flores Ochoa, J.A. (2004). Contemporary significance of Machu Picchu. In R.L. Burger & L.C.Salazar (Eds.), Machu Picchu: Unveiling the mystery of the Incas (pp. 109–123). New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Galiano Sanchez, W. (2000). Situacion ecologico-ambiental del Santuario Historico de Machupiqc-chu: Una aproximacion. Cuzco, Peru: Programa Machu Picchu.

Gordon, R., & Knopf, R. (2007). Late horizon silver, copper, and tin from Machu Picchu, Peru.Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 38–47.

Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R., & Vaske, J.J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: The planning framework.Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Hadfield, P. (2001, March 7). Slip siding away. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn491-slip-sliding-away.html.

Hamilton, L.S. (1995). Mountain cloud forest conservation and research: A synopsis. MountainResearch and Development, 15(3), 259–266.

Hammitt, W.E., & Cole, D.N. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Hawkins, D.E., Chang, B., & Warnes, K. (2009). A comparison of the National Geographic Stew-ardship Scorecard Ratings by experts and stakeholders for selected World Heritage destinations.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 71–90.

Healy, P.O. (2006, November 12). Taking the back roads to Machu Picchu. New York Times: Travel.Retrieved from http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/travel/12machu.html

Higgins, M. (2006, July 9). A faster way: New helicopter service to Machu Picchu. New York Times:Travel. Retrieved from http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/travel/09transmachu.html

Hunter, C.J. (1995). On the need to reconceptualize sustainable tourism development. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 3, 155–165.

Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INC). (2005). Plan maestro del santuario historic de Machupicchu.Cusco, Peru: Instituo Nacional de Cultura, Instituo Nacional de Recursos Naturales y DireccionRegional de Cusco.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1983). Historic sanc-tuary of Machu Picchu. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/274.pdf

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1999). International cul-tural tourism charter. Retrieved from http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/charters.pdf

Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected ar-eas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2),169–189.

Jensen, O. (2010). Social mediation in remote developing world tourism locations – the significanceof social ties between local guides and host communities in sustainable tourism development.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 615–633.

Keatinge, R.W. (1982). Economic development and cultural resources management in the ThirdWorld: An example from Peru. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38(2), 211–226.

Knutson, M., Laskowski, H., Moore, C., Lonsdorf, E., Lor, S., & Stevenson, L. (2011). Defen-sible decision making: Harnessing the power of adaptive resource management. The WildlifeProfessional, 4(4), 58–62.

LaFranchi, H. (2001). Machu Picchu’s slide. Christian Science Monitor, 93(112), 7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

Leffel, T. (2005, November). Saving Machu Picchu: Responsible tourism is a 3-waydeal. Transitions Abroad. Retrieved from http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0511/saving_machu_picchu.shtml

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603.

Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (2nd ed.).Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

McCool, S.F., & Lime, D.W. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful reality?Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 372–388.

McCool, S.F., & Moisey, R.N. (2008). Introduction: Pathways and pitfalls in the search for sustainabletourism. In S.F. McCool & R.N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability (2nd ed.,pp. 1–16). Wallingford: CAB International.

McFadden, J.E., Hiller, T.L., & Tyre, A.J. (2011). Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management ap-proaches: Is there a formula for success? Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1354–1359.

McGowan, J.L. (2010). The sustainable livelihoods and tourism intersect: Gender, power structuresand local market vendors in Aguas Calientes, Peru. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University.

McGrath, G. (2004). Including the outsiders: The contribution of guides to integrated heritage oftourism management in Cusco, Southern Peru. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4), 426–432.

Mendoza Quintana, A. (1997). Evaluacion del patrimonio turistico del Peru. Investigaciones enTurismo, 1, 149–177.

Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi surveyof tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351–362.

Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition: The challengeof developing and using indicators. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2006). Monitoring as an approach to sustainable tourism. In D.Buhalis & C. Costa (Eds.), Tourism management dynamics: Trends, management, and tools (pp.51–57). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Mitchell, R.E. (2008). Community perspectives in sustainable tourism: Lessons from Peru. In S.F.McCool & R.N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability (2nd ed., pp. 158–182).Wallingford: CAB International.

Mitchell, R.E., & Eagles, P.F.J. (2001). An integrative approach to tourism: Lessons from the Andesof Peru. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(1), 4–28.

Moscardo, G. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4), 423–436.

Navrud, S., & Ready, R.C. (Eds.). (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuationtechniques to historic buildings, monuments and artefacts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Nichols, J.D., & Williams, B.K. (2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,21(12), 668–673.

O’Hare, G., & Barrett, H. (1999). Regional inequalities in the Peruvian tourist industry. The Geo-graphical Journal, 165(1), 47–61.

Peyton, B. (1980). Ecology, distribution, and food habits of spectacled bears, Tremarctus ornatus, inPeru. Journal of Mammalogy, 61(4), 639–652.

Plummer, R., & Fennell, D.A. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospectsfor adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 149–168.

QStation. (2009). Bi-annual monitoring report for the north head quarantine station. Retrieved fromhttp://www.qstation.com.au/pdfs/conservation/Q%20Station%20Bi-Annual%20Report%203.pdf

Rees, W.E. (1990). The ecology of sustainable development. Ecologist, 20(1), 18–23.Regalado, A. (2011, February 14). Yale agrees to return Machu Picchu artifacts to Peru. ScienceIn-

sider. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/02/yale-agrees-to-return-machu-picchu.html

Regalado-Pezua, O., & Arias-Valencia, J. (2006). Sustainable development in tourism: A propositionfor Machu Picchu, Peru. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing world heritage sites (pp.196–204). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Roach, J. (2002, April 15). Machu Picchu under threat from pressures of tourism.National Geographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0415_020415_machu.html

Rugendyke, B., & Son, N.T. (2005). Conservation costs: Nature-based tourism as development atCuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(2), 185–200.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 937

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4),1121–1140.

Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Wang, F., & Wang, G. (Eds.). (2005). Landslides: Risk analysis and sustainabledisaster management. Berlin: Springer.

Schianetz, K., & Kavanagh, L. (2008). Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A complexadaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,16(6), 601–628.

Shackley, M. (2006). Visitor management at World Heritage Sites. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.),Managing world heritage sites (pp. 83–94). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Solano, P. (2005). La esperanza es verde: Areas naturales protegidas en el Peru. Lima: SociedadPeruana de Derecho Ambiental.

Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Peterson, M.E., & Frissell, S.S. (1985). The limits of ac-ceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning (Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176). Ogden, UT:Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service.

Stronza, A. (2001). Anthropology of tourism: Forging new ground for ecotourism and other alterna-tives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 261–283.

Toman, M.A. (1992). The difficulty in defining sustainability. Resources, 106, 3–6.Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing

countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633.Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use

of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5),363–387.

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2006). Decision:30COM 7B.35. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1121

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2009). Decision:30COM 7B.42. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4150

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011). Decision:35COM 7B.38. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4446

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2004). Tourism and local agenda 21: Therole of local authorities in sustainable tourism. Paris: UNEP Division Techonology, Industryand Economics & International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/3207-TourismAgenda.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2008). World Conservation Monitor-ing Centre, Protected Areas and World Heritage Sites: Historic sanctuary of MachuPicchu, Peru. Retrieved from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/medialibrary/2011/06/29/91fbcd4e/Machu%20Picchu.pdf

van den Berghe, P.L., & Flores Ochoa, J. (2000). Tourism and nativistic ideology in Cuzco, Peru.Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 7–26.

Vaughan, D. (2000). Tourism & biodiversity: A convergence of interests? International Affairs (Spe-cial Biodiversity Issue), 76(2), 283–297.

Vecchio, R. (2011, February 22). UNESCO Chief: “Machu Picchu is a victim of its own success”.Fertur Peru Travel Blog. Retrieved from http://www.ferturperu.info/2011/unesco-chief-machu-picchu-is-a-victim-of-its-own-success/2297#more-2297

Weaver, D.B. (2011). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism conver-gence. Tourism Management. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.011

Williams, B.K. (2011a). Adaptive management of natural resources – framework and issues. Journalof Environmental Management, 92, 1346–1353.

Williams, B.K. (2011b). Passive and active adaptive management: Approaches and an example.Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1371–1378.

World Conservation Union (IUCN). (1994). Guidelines for protected area management categories.Retrieved from http://app.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/1994-007-En.pdf

World Conservation Union (IUCN). (2011). The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Retrieved fromIUCN: http://www.iucnredlist.org/

World Economic Forum. (2011). Peru: Travel & tourism indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.weforum.org/reports/travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2011

World of New Seven Wonders. (2011). The official New7Wonders of the World. Retrieved fromhttp://world.n7w.com/the-official-new7wonders-of-the-world/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2

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

World Tourism Organization (WTO). (1996). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guideto the development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid: WTO.

World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2004). Indicators of sustainable development fortourism destinations. Madrid: WTO. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/indicators-sustainability-tourism-destinations

Yachay Wasi. (2006, May). Sacred sites and the environment from an indigenous perspective. Paperpresented at the Fifth UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, New York. Retrieved fromhttp://www.yachaywasi-ngo.org/InkaChallenge06

Young, K.R., & Leon, B. (2000). Biodiversity conservation in Peru’s eastern montane forests. Moun-tain Research and Development, 20(3), 208–211.

Zan, L., & Lusiani, M. (2011). Managing change and master plans: Machu Picchu between con-servation and exploitation. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. doi:10.1007/s11759-011-9167-7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

App

alac

hian

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

41 3

0 A

ugus

t 201

2