| Literature DB >> 36148340 |
Mehdi Rahimian1, Mandana Masoudi Rad2, Hossein Zareei3.
Abstract
Most tourism researchers agree on the effects of the COVID-19 on ecotourism. The present study aims to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ecotourism status in Lorestan province in Iran. To this aim, 29 effects were identified using Delphi technique. According to results, the effects were divided into six categories including the decreased number of incoming tourists, the reduced activity of hotels and resorts, the declined income of goods and service suppliers for tourists, the decreased activity of travel agencies and tourist tours, as well as positive and negative environmental effects. Generally, the results provide new knowledge in the field of ecotourism crisis management. In addition, the identified effects provide the basis for further research on the method of reducing the negative effects.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Iran; ecotourism; fuzzy Delphi; sustainable tourism
Year: 2022 PMID: 36148340 PMCID: PMC9485483 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.983025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Survey locations for the study (38).
Characteristics of experts and their participation in rounds of the Delphi method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 1 | Male | 33 | Private sector employee | Tourism NGO |
|
|
|
| 2 | Female | 45 | Government employee | Department of Tourism and Cultural Heritage |
|
|
|
| 3 | Male | 46 | Government employee | Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
|
| 4 | Male | 38 | Faculty member | University |
|
|
|
| 5 | Male | 55 | Government employee | Department of Tourism and Cultural Heritage |
|
|
|
| 6 | Male | 39 | Private sector employee | Tourism NGO |
|
|
|
| 7 | Male | 44 | Government employee | Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
|
| 8 | Female | 42 | Private sector employee | Tourism NGO |
|
|
|
| 9 | Female | 48 | Private sector employee | Tourism NGO |
|
|
|
| 10 | Male | 53 | Government employee | Environment Department |
|
|
|
| 11 | Male | 40 | Tour Leader | Travel agency |
|
|
|
| 12 | Male | 33 | Government employee | Department of Natural Resources |
|
|
|
| 13 | Male | 35 | Faculty member | University |
|
|
|
| 14 | Female | 28 | Tour Leader | Travel agency |
|
|
|
| 15 | Male | 50 | Government employee | Environment Department |
|
|
|
| 16 | Male | 49 | Government employee | Department of Tourism and Cultural Heritage |
|
|
|
| 17 | Female | 39 | Tour Leader | Travel agency |
|
|
|
| 18 | Male | 53 | Faculty member | University |
|
|
|
| 19 | Male | 58 | Government employee | Department of Tourism and Cultural Heritage |
|
|
|
| 20 | Female | 43 | Tour Leader | Travel agency |
|
|
|
| 21 | Female | 51 | Private sector employee | Tourism NGO |
|
|
|
| 22 | Female | 29 | Tour Leader | Travel agency |
|
|
|
√ Participation in each round and × Non-Participation in each round.
Interpretation of Kendall rank correlation coefficient values.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | Very weak consensus | Does not exist |
| 0.3 | Poor consensus | Low |
| 0.5 | Medium consensus | Moderate |
| 0.7 | Strong consensus | High |
| 0.9 | Very strong consensus | Very high |
Identified effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on ecotourism status.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Number of tourists (4.90) | Decreased number of tourists entering the ecotourism areas of the province | √ | 4.35 | 4.20 | 0.83 | 4.95 | 0.89 |
| Decreased number of tourists entering the Lorestan province | √ | 4.60 | 4.70 | 0.87 | 4.85 | 0.90 | |
| Activity of hotels and accommodations (4.81) | Decreased number of travelers applying to use eco-lodges | × | - | 4.60 | 0.73 | 4.90 | 0.77 |
| Decreased number of travelers applying to use the guest house | × | - | 4.70 | 0.85 | 4.85 | 0.88 | |
| Decreased number of travelers applying to use the hotel | √ | 4.55 | 4.50 | 0.88 | 4.80 | 0.91 | |
| Adjusting the manpower by hotels | √ | 4.55 | 4.60 | 0.72 | 4.70 | 0.79 | |
| Income of suppliers of tourist | Decreased income of restaurants in ecotourism areas | √ | 4.55 | 4.70 | 0.81 | 4.60 | 0.89 |
| Decreased income of contractors of service companies located in ecotourism areas including cleaning companies, parking lots, and the like | √ | 4.30 | 4.45 | 0.90 | 4.55 | 0.92 | |
| Decreased income of tourist entertainment jobs including children's play equipment and the like | √ | 4.40 | 4.60 | 0.86 | 4.55 | 0.90 | |
| Decreased sales of local conversion and complementary industries in ecotourism areas | √ | 4.20 | 4.30 | 0.69 | 4.40 | 0.75 | |
| Decreased sales of handicrafts in ecotourism areas | √ | 4.30 | 4.45 | 0.84 | 4.40 | 0.89 | |
| Decreased income of food sellers including supermarkets and chain stores in ecotourism areas | × | - | 4.15 | 0.71 | 4.10 | 0.77 | |
| Decreased income of locals living in ecotourism areas | √ | 3.90 | 3.85 | 0.69 | 3.80 | 0.76 | |
| Adjusting the manpower by service companies located in ecotourism areas | √ | 3.50 | 3.45 | 0.83 | 3.35 | 0.86 | |
| Decreased income of jobs such as peddling in ecotourism areas | × | - | 3.35 | 0.88 | 3.20 | 0.91 | |
| Activities of travel agencies and tourist tours (3.81) | Decreased income of tour companies | √ | 4.45 | 4.60 | 0.80 | 4.65 | 0.87 |
| Unemployment of tour guides | √ | 4.35 | 4.40 | 0.89 | 4.30 | 0.94 | |
| Decreased ticket sales by ground public transport terminals | √ | 3.45 | 3.40 | 0.79 | 3.45 | 0.82 | |
| Adjusting the manpower by tour companies | √ | 3.45 | 3.30 | 0.75 | 3.35 | 0.80 | |
| Decreased ticket sales by airline travel agencies | √ | 3.20 | 3.15 | 0.88 | 3.25 | 0.90 | |
| Positive environmental effects | Reduced pollution including waste and the like in forest and natural areas due to decreased number of tourists entering the forest areas | √ | 4.00 | 4.10 | 0.90 | 4.30 | 0.91 |
| Reduced deforestation due to decreased number of tourists entering the forest areas | √ | 4.00 | 4.05 | 0.87 | 4.20 | 0.91 | |
| Reduced disease due to restrictions on human contact during tourism | √ | 3.50 | 3.45 | 0.83 | 3.55 | 0.88 | |
| Reduced air pollution due to decreased travel | √ | 2.90 | 3.10 | 0.78 | 3.20 | 0.82 | |
| Creation of an appropriate opportunity for successful reproduction of endangered species in the absence of tourists | × | - | 2.50 | 0.75 | 2.70 | 0.76 | |
| Negative environmental effects (3.43) | Increased poaching and deforestation due to reduction of tourism revenues in indigenous communities | √ | 3.85 | 3.75 | 0.90 | 3.70 | 0.93 |
| Reduced oversight by government and forest protection agencies during pandemics and more possibility for timber smuggling by local people | √ | 3.35 | 3.45 | 0.73 | 3.30 | 0.77 | |
| Reduced oversight by government and forest protection agencies during pandemics and more possibility for poaching | √ | 3.30 | 3.40 | 0.87 | 3.30 | 0.90 | |
√ Factors remaining in the pre-Delphi stage and × Factors identified in the first round of Delphi.