Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative network governance towards sustainable development

Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative network governance towards sustainable development
s Yuba*, Núria Puig Barata Eduard Ingle
Física de Catalunya) e Barcelona, GISEAFE (Grup d'Investigacio
Social i Educativa de l'Activitat Física i l'Esport), INEFC, INEFC (Institut Nacional d'Educacio Av. Estadi 12-22, 08038 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 31 January 2015 Received in revised form 14 July 2015 Accepted 17 July 2015 Available online xxx

The main objective of this paper is to determine if a collaborative network governance structure in the management of sport practice in coastal areas generates better effects on the degree of sustainability of its territorial development. This paper shows the results of the analysis of the existing governance in the managing processes of 4 conflict situations generated by sport practice in 2 coastal protected areas, and the effects on the dimensions of its development in each case. The information was collected through indepth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Qualitative data was quantified by the definition of indexes of indicators to allow the comparison between cases. Results show that there exists a close relationship between the index of collaborative network and that of sustainability; that means that the greater is the degree of networking and the development of collaboration processes between stakeholders, the higher is the degree of sustainability of the development generated by the strategy of solution adopted in each of the coastal areas. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Governance Collaborative network Sustainable development Sport Coastal protected area

1. Introduction Scholars from a variety of disciplines are becoming increasingly concerned with the impact of sports practice on the natural environment (Dingle, 2009; Fyall and Jago, 2009) and, consequently, with the urgent need to properly manage this practice in order to reduce its negative effects and contribute to more sustainable development (Fraguas et al., 2008; Mallen et al., 2010). In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the sports use of coastal areas, resulting in their massive exploitation (Dienot and Theiller, 1999; Martos, 2002). This increase was generated by the growing social trend towards practising sports outdoors, such as on mountains, in rivers, on/in the sea and so on. This has consequently led to an increase in the impact of sports practices on the natural conditions of the coastal environment (De
s et al., 1995; Lagardera and Martínez, 1998), as well as in Andre their effects on the social- and economic dimensions of the area where they are developed. It is a very recent phenomenon which has hitherto lacked a global response in terms not only of policies but also of regulation and management scopes. Thus, the responsibility falls on the decisions taken by the managers and

* Corresponding author.
s Yuba). E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Ingle

people in charge of controlling the territories. An analysis is therefore required of the governance factors of coastal areas that may determine the achievement of a higher degree of sustainability in their territories. This would contribute to the construction of a management model that offers solutions for sports managers in natural areas. This work aims to contribute to the analysis of the effects of the mode of governance in the management of sports practice on the degree of sustainability of the development achieved in natural areas. In this context, it focuses attention on two main factors: the network of relationships established among the stakeholders involved and the collaborative processes used by them in their decision-making. This means that we empirically assess the effects generated by the relationships established and the collaboration processes used by the stakeholders involved on the management of sports practice and on the different dimensions of the development of natural areas: ecological, economic, social (WCED, 1987) and
s, 2013). Our main objective is institutional (Sepúlveda, 2008; Ingle to determine whether a collaborative network governance structure in the management of sports practice in natural areas generates better effects on the degree of sustainability of development of the area. This paper shows the results of analysis of existing governance in the managing processes of four conflict situations generated by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018 0964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

2

sports practice in two coastal protected areas and the effects on the dimensions of its development in each case. The information was gathered through in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Qualitative data was quantified by the definition of indices of indicators to allow comparison between cases. The remainder of this article is organised as follows: we begin by presenting a review of literature on governance theory, focussing on the network governance and collaborative governance concepts and on sustainable development theory. We then analyse the major features of the selected case studies and their specific conflict situations. We describe the methodology used and present empirical results. In the final section, we relate our findings to existing literature in order to conclude our contribution. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Governance One of the main features analysed in this study is the structure of governance in which the management strategies had been framed; in this study, governance is defined as the structure of relationships between stakeholders and the collaboration that takes place in decision-making processes. The notion of governance has been used in several and diverse scopes and disciplines; consequently, multiple definitions of the concept exist. In order to put forward some of its main ideas, common to most of the multiple existing uses of governance, two of its broadly used meanings are mentioned (Mayntz, 1998): 1) Governance as an alternative to hierarchical control. Governance refers to a new style of government, opposed to the hierarchical authority model. It is characterised by a greater degree of cooperation, by interaction between state and non-state actors in mixed networks of decision and between the public and private sectors (Kooiman, 1993; Rhodes, 1997); 2) Governance as any form of social coordination. Governance refers to a different mode of coordination of individual actions, considered as primary forms of construction of the social order. The term governance, therefore, also indicates any form of social coordination at any level, especially networks (Powell, 1990). Several studies have focused on the modes of governance of sports practice or tourism and recreational activities in natural
n, 2009; Pascual and De la Cruz, 2008; protected areas (Dura Sharma and Kearins, 2011), since these areas are the only ones that have a specific regulation on soil protection and a sufficient management structure for this purpose. These works have evidenced the inexperience and lack of knowledge of the people responsible for managing growing sports practice in coastal areas, against the diversity of interests of stakeholders involved and the difficulties involved when it comes to leading them to the achievement of commitment to resolving conflicts (Barrag
an, 1996;
s, 2013). Brenner, 2010; Ingle The notion of governance has led to multiple uses. In the present study, we focus on the concepts of network governance and collaborative governance as set out below. 2.1.1. Network governance McGuire (2011, p. 437) defines the network as ‘a current structure (as opposed to a metaphorical or analytic tool) that includes multiple nodes -agencies and organisations-, and multiple links, usually involved in collaborative activities'. This definition may be enforced by the notion formulated by Agranoff and McGuire (2003, p. 4), which lays especial emphasis on the objectives of this relational structure, defining a network as ‘a form of collaborative activity that facilitates and implements inter-organisational arrangements to solve problems that could not be solved, or easily

solved, by individuals'. Key elements for the achievement of effective network governance are defined by McGuire (2011, pp. 442e443): consensus decision-making, trust, power distribution and common knowledge creation. Strong and stable relationships between network members increase the ensuing degree of communication and facilitate shared teamwork. The connection between as many stakeholders as possible reduces the emergence of conflicts by increasing the dissemination and flux of information (Davidson-Hunt, 2006), while decentralisation of the network also reduces dependence on some specific stakeholders by reducing hierarchy and increasing confidence (Prell et al., 2009). 2.1.2. Collaborative governance Collaboration may be defined as ‘the union of appreciations and/ or tangible resources, such as information, money, work, etc. between two or more stakeholders, with the aim of solving a set of problems that could not be solved individually’ (Gray, 1985, p. 912). This recent notion, in contrast with previous definitions of the concept, focuses on the process through which political objectives are achieved by partnership between stakeholders and ‘by the usage of consultations and shared, deliberated and negotiated decision-making’ (Bingham, 2011, pp. 387e388). Thus, collaborative governance is defined as ‘a form of governance in which public and private actors work collectively in distinctive ways, using particular processes to establish laws and regulations for the provision of public goods’ (Ansell and Gash, 2008, p. 546). Several studies reveal the importance of the participation of different stakeholders involved in decision-making (Pulido, 2010; Saarikoski et al., 2010) and, in particular, of the directly involved local community (Georgehan and Renard, 2002; Hiwasaki, 2005; Jones and Burgess, 2005) on the effects towards more sustainable development of the territory. These factors are precisely the ones that define a network governance and a collaborative governance structure. A number of other works also point out the importance of network governance in the achievement of more sustainable results in coastal areas (Sharma and Kearins, 2011; Antunes et al. 2006; Salmi and Salmi, 2010; Granek et al., 2008; Pascual and De la Cruz, 2008; Chernela et al., 2002). In this study, the degree of collaborative network governance is defined by the coincidence of objectives among stakeholders, the degree of consensus and trust in decision-making and the intensity,
s, 2013). duration and regularity of their relationships (Ingle 2.2. Sustainable development Sustainable development theory arises from the notion of sustainability. The conceptual core of sustainability, common to most of its multiple definitions, is that ‘current decisions should not impair the expectations for maintaining or improving future living standards’ (Repetto, 1985, p. 10). The variety of approaches and uses of the concept from different and diverse fields such as management, technology, economics and policy decision-making (Pezzoli, 1997), has led scholars to disagree when it comes to defining the notion of sustainable development (Heinen, 1994; Spedding, 1996). The most broadly used is the definition put forward in the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987, p. 43), which conceives sustainable development as ‘the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The concept of sustainable development has been traditionally divided into three parts -environmental, economic and social- and each part represents a pillar (WCED, 1987). Further studies, in an attempt to go beyond this three-dimensional conception, have


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

3

Table 1 Concepts, dimensions and indices of indicators. Concepts

Dimensions

Indices

Mode of governance

Network of relationships Collaborative processes Ecological dimension Social dimension Economic dimension Institutional dimension

Collaborative network index

Consequences on the sustainability of the development

outspread it through the introduction of a fourth element: the institutional dimension (UN-DSD, 1996; Meadowcroft et al., 2005). In this study, sustainable development is conceived as a multidimensional and intertemporal process. As a reflection of recent social complexity, it is based on a system composed of four dimensions -social, economic, environmental and politicalinstitutional- and of the interactions within each of them and be
s, 2013). tween one dimension and another (Sepúlveda, 2008; Ingle Achievement of genuine sustainable development therefore requires meeting the needs of its four pillars or dimensions and achieving a balance between them. Numerous studies in recent decades analyse environmental impact, evidencing its danger in the short and long terms (Villalvilla et al., 2001; Guitart and Mateo, 2006; Baena, 2008; Moscoso, 2008; Luque et al., 2011); however, those that also take into account the effects of these activities on the economic (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004), social (Alves and De Hilal, 2009) or institutional (Sepúlveda, 2008) dimensions of the territory are fewer in number. 3. Method This article is based on a case study design. It consists of the analysis of four cases of conflict developed in two coastal protected areas in Catalonia (Spain). The data for this article has been drawn from a total of sixteen in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, selected by the use of the snowball technique, who had been involved in the decision-making process developed to solve each of the conflicts. The key stakeholders selected are specified below, in the general outline of each of the case studies. Data collection took place between October 2011 and June 2012. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted, in which interviewees were introduced to the topic in a broad way in order to let them express themselves on the different dimensions that were analysed in relation to specific conflicts (see Table 1. Concepts, dimensions and indices of indicators). An interview guide featuring the main dimensions and variables was presented to the interviewees, who were asked to talk about all of them in the order they preferred. Appendix 1 shows the list of dimensions and the variables that the interviewer had used to encourage the interviewee to talk about each of them. The interviews lasted an average of one hour and twelve minutes. The resulting texts of the interview transcriptions were analysed by the use of QSR NVivo (QSR International Pty, 1999e2008). QSR NVivo software facilitates conversion of the research dimensions into tree nodes where the information on each of the transcriptions of the interviews may be classified. Subsequently, all the relevant pieces of information on each of the dimensions could be analysed separately. Once this initial analysis had been conducted, qualitative information was converted into quantitative data in order to allow comparison between the four case studies by the use of indicator indices (see Table 1). The process of quantification of the available qualitative information is explained in the description of indices calculation (Section 3.2. Concepts, dimensions and indices of

Sustainability index

indicators). 3.1. The case studies. Two natural parks: four conflicts The analysis is focused on coastal areas classified under the Natural Park preservation category defined by Law 12/1985 of natural areas, enacted and enforced by the Government of Catalonia (Spain). This selection has allowed us to ensure a minimum management structure with a sufficient number of stakeholders involved, where the mode of governance could be analysed in order to guarantee the fulfilment of our goals. Cases were selected on the basis of a number of criteria, principally their physical characteristics (land or coastal) that determine the kind of sports modalities practised in the protected area. Furthermore, in each of the selected parks we opted for the analysis of two conflicts that had been generated by any kind of sports practice. In this way, we could ensure not only the existence of a management structure, but also the appearance of conflicting interests of the different stakeholders involved, as well as their strategies, relationships and collaborative processes, where these existed. The following maps (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) show the boundaries and situation of the two case studies in Catalonia (Spain): the Montgrí, Baix Ter and Medes Islands Natural Park (GPS coordinates: 42
3.750 N, 3
11.040 E) and the Empord a Wetlands Natural Park (GPS coordinates: 42
130 1000 N, 3
60 3800 E). The red squares in the small maps on the right in each case indicate the situation of the Natural Parks within Catalonia (Spain). The case studies were selected on the basis of an initial exploratory interview with the person responsible for the Natural Parks network in Catalonia (Spain) and on analysis of existing documentation, such as annual reports or minutes of meetings held on the different parks. The selected case studies and the source of the analysed conflicts are defined as follows: 1 The Montgrí, Baix Ter and Medes Islands Natural Park comprises a total area of 8192.19 ha that includes 2036.99 ha of protected marine surface. It was declared a Natural Park in 2010, although previous actions of coastal protection had been developed since 1983. The following map (Fig. 1) shows the location and boundaries of the Montgrí, Baix Ter and Medes Islands Natural Park. - MED.A.1 Underwater fishing. Loss of the mass of fish was caused by the practice of underwater fishing in the near vicinity of the Medes Islands. - MED.B. Scuba diving. The Medes Islands area is one of the most popular sites for scuba divers from all over the world.

1 These acronyms have been used to identify each of the conflict situations in the text and in figures and tables. MED corresponds to Montgrí, Baix Ter and Medes  Wetlands Natural Park. Each letter corIslands Natural Park and EMP to Emporda responds to a conflict (A: underwater fishing; B: scuba diving; C: water-skiing; D: kite-surfing).


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

4

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

Fig. 1. Location and boundaries of the Montgrí, Baix Ter and Medes Islands Natural Park (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2014).

Fig. 2. Location and boundaries of the Emporda Wetlands Natural Park (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2014).

The number of dives had come to reach a figure of over 1000 per day, which directly harmed the fauna and flora biodiversity. The key stakeholders interviewed were the conseller (minister)

of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of the Catalan Government, the director of the Natural Park, and one representative each of the Catalan Underwater Activities Federation, of the fishermen, of the diving centres, of a scientific research group and of an ecologist group (n ¼ 7).


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

 Wetlands Natural Park is a coastal area comprising a 2 The Emporda total of 4723 ha that includes 825 ha of a Natural Integral Reserve. It was declared a National Park in 1985. The following  map (Fig. 2) shows the location and boundaries of the Emporda Wetlands Natural Park. - EMP. C. Water-skiing. The practice of water-skiing generated negative effects on the riverbanks and the flora and fauna of  River. It also hindered the reproduction and nesting the Fluvia of birds. - EMP. D. Kite-surfing. The practice of kite-surfing has grown in recent years, overcrowding the beach line. This increase caused difficulties in the coexistence between kite-surfers and other users of the coastal zone; furthermore, it generated a negative effect on the conservation of the dune ecosystem. The key stakeholders selected in this case were a former director of the Natural Park, the current director, a former biologist, a current specialist in the field of public use and environmental education, a water-skier, the owner of a water-skiing company, a kitesurfer, a kite-surf school manager and a representative of an ecologist group (n ¼ 9). All of them were interviewed. In both cases, although not all the key stakeholders were involved in both the decision-making process of the conflict situations.

5

number of stakeholders directly interconnected during the decision-making process. In this case, decimal values are also used in some cases because the final result of the indicator is also the average of the interviewee's responses. Moreover, in each of the four conflict situations analysed, a maximum of 6 of these key stakeholders were involved in the decision-making process; hence the fact that the range of this first item is 0e6. Although all the key stakeholders were interviewed, not all of them were involved in the two conflicts that occurred in their Natural Park. Therefore, the collaborative network index consists of the sum of the results achieved in each of the indicators shown in the table above, obtained from assessment of each of the interviewees. The following formulae summarise the process of construction of the collaboration network index (CNindex).

Pn X¼

i¼1

n

XL

CNindex

X $10 6

The first step consists of the sum of the average results obtained P on each of the items of analysis ( ni¼1 X L ). By dividing this sum by the (n) of items of analysis, we obtain the global average result (X). Finally, the global average (X) is divided by the maximum possible value of the global average result (30) and then standardised to a basis of 10 points in order to make it comparable to the sustainability index.

3.2. Concepts, dimensions and indices of indicators The theoretical framework presented above is now encapsulated in the main concepts of the research and its corresponding dimensions, as shown in Table 1. The main concepts from which the operationalisation process has been developed are: 1) the determining factors of the mode of governance in which the solutions to the conflicts are framed: the network of relationships created between the stakeholders involved and the collaborative processes they used and 2) the impact on the degree of sustainability of territorial development, in each of its dimensions: ecological, social, economic and institutional. Due to the complexity acquired by both concepts after their operationalisation, an index with which to group together their corresponding indicators was defined for each, as shown in Table 1. Their definition and calculation process are explained as follows: a) Collaborative network index. This assigns a quantitative value to the degree of interconnection and collaboration in the network of relationships created between stakeholders. The information gathered from the interviews was transformed into quantitative data. A set of numerical values was established for the possible degrees of each of the indicators used for its description. Table 2 defines the categories for each of the indicators, covering a range of 0e6 points each, depending on whether they are close to (6) or far from (0) a theoretical collaborative network governance structure. In the first column, the items selected for analysis are mentioned; they refer to the type of connections between stakeholders. In the second column, the indicators of the level of collaboration within the network are established. And the third column shows the numerical gradations of values or each of these indicators. The values for each of the items of analysis were obtained from assessment of each of the interviewees. Decimal values are used in the numerical values of each of the indicators because, although each of the interviewees assigned an integer value to each of them, the final result obtained is the average of all their assignments. The first element analysed is not a grading scale but rather the

b) Sustainability index. This assigns a quantitative value to the effects of the different strategies identified on the degree of sustainability of territorial development. The effects of the diverse strategies were analysed by means of the interviewees' assessments based on their own perceptions. It must be pointed out that the interviewees have professional or political experience in relation to the analysed topics and that their perceptions were made through the filter of their formation and professional experience. They are not based only on common sense perceptions (Bourdieu et al., 1991). The process consisted of allocating 10 points to a particular dimension when an interviewee assessed that the overall solution had generated a positive effect on it, and of deducting 10 points when an interviewee considered that the strategy was harmful to that dimension. If the interviewee reckoned that the strategy had not had any effect on that dimension, 5 points were scored to this dimension if they thought that the situation was positive before the implementation of the strategy, and 5 points were deducted when the situation was previously negative. Table 3 shows the scores given to the interviewees' perception on the impact of the solution on each dimension, in order to quantify the initial qualitative data. Addition of the scores given to the perceptions of each of the interviewees indicates assessment of the impact of the solution on each of the dimensions. Thus, if a total of 10 people were interviewed in a case, the maximum value of the effects of the strategy on each of the dimensions was 100 points. To make results of the 4 conflicts comparable, a value of 10 points has been given in each case, based on its highest score in each dimension. This process was conducted throughout for the four dimensions of sustainability. The addition of these four values results in the sustainability index, with a maximum value of 40 points in each case. Finally, in order to allow comparison between the indices of collaborative network and of sustainability, and in the 4 study cases, the scores of both indices were standardised to a basis of 10 points. As in the collaborative network index, the following formulae


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

6

Table 2 Indicators of measurement of the collaborative network structure degree. Items of analysis

Indicators of the level of collaboration within the network

Numerical gradations

Directly interconnected stakeholders Coincidence of objectives

Stakeholders in direct relation during the process Totally opposed Opposed but trying to align their positions Totally coincidental objectives Power of decision of a central stakeholder Unbalance in stakeholders' power but attempt to consensus Total consensus in the decisions Bad relationship/general social tension Tension between some stakeholders and trust among others Good relationship/general trust Occasional collaboration Contact maintenance/intermittent meetings Collaboration maintenance/permanent relationship

0e6 0e2 2.1e4 4.1e6 0e2 2.1e4 4.1e6 0e2 2.1e4 4.1e6 0e2 2.1e4 4.1e6

Degree of consensus

Intensity/trust

Duration/regularity

Table 3 Scores for the quantification of the interviewee's perception on the impact of the solution on each dimension. Interviewee's perception

Score for quantification

Positive effects No effects

þ10 þ5 5 10

Negative effects

summarise the process of construction of the sustainability index (SUSindex).

Pn X¼

i¼1

XL

n

SUSindex

X $10 40

Firstly, the sum of the average results obtained on each of the P items of analysis ( ni¼1 X L ) is calculated. By dividing this sum by the (n) of items of analysis, the global average result (X) is obtained. Finally, the global average (X) is divided by the maximum possible value of the global average result (40) and then standardised to a basis of 10 points in order to make it comparable to the collaborative network index. 4. Results Each of the cases has been analysed independently through the use of qualitative information given by the interviewees who had been involved in the conflicts, although in this paper we focus on comparison between them through the use of the data resulting from quantification. In this section the main results of the research are given as follows. Firstly, we show the structure of governance achieved in each case by the use of the collaborative network index and its indicators. We then describe the interviewees' perception of the consequences of the solution on the sustainability of territorial development by making use of the values for each of the dimensions and the resulting sustainability index in each case. Finally, we show the existing correlation between both the collaborative network and sustainability indices. 4.1. The mode of governance: Collaborative network index Numerical values given to relations and collaboration processes established between stakeholders in each case are shown in Fig. 3. It is a radial graph where each vertex represents one of the abovementioned indicators (see Table 2). The area delimited by the lines of each conflict situation represents its degree of network collaboration. The greater the value given to the different elements of analysis in each case, the greater the area covered on the graph. Table 4 shows the numerical values for each of the indicators and

(if the situation was previously perceived as positive) (if the situation was previously perceived as negative)

the resulting value of the collaborative network index in each conflict. The area of the MED.B (scuba diving) conflict is totally displaced towards the apex of interconnected stakeholders and duration/regularity, which obtained a maximum score; the values of the other indicators, however, are non-existent. The solution to the conflict is established under the Advisory Council and the Permanent Board of the protected area, which involved the representative of all stakeholders. Even so, the relationship among the stakeholders involved can be defined as a tense opposition between two groups with opposing stances that resulted in a conflict at the personal level, which made the process of dialogue impossible. The negotiation was unbalanced because of the hierarchical position of the Government and due to the economic interests of the diving centres. A consensus was not reached, only an equitable decision without any scientific or well-argued justification. The Advisory Council was established when the area was protected but, as this case highlights, it does not ensure the attainment of consensus. The different stakeholders' interests and influences of power conditioned the decisions undertaken. In the case of water-skiing (EMP.C), the area is reduced to a line joining the low values of the number of interconnected stakeholders and the trust/intensity of their relationship, because the rest of the indicators are not scored. This happened because the park managers took the eventual decision to prohibit the activity, which they were empowered to do, without any consensus or collaborative process, despite the previously existing trust between water-skiers and their predecessors in the management of the Park. In the same way, the MED.A (underwater fishing) conflict sketches a triangle shaped by two vertices: the first one indicating a considerable overlap between the objectives of all stakeholders involved, and the other one showing that the decision was taken unilaterally by the Government without any direct connection with the other stakeholders. The area of the EMP.D (kite-surf) case consists of a polygon that, despite the differences in the length of its sides, indicates that a score has been given to all the elements of analysis. In this case, the coincidence of objectives between the stakeholders involved is remarkable. The majority of stakeholders participating in the Protection Board pursued regulation of the activity, despite the


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

7

Fig. 3. Collaborative network indicators, by conflict situations.

Table 4 Collaborative network index and indicators by conflict situations: numerical values.

MED.A. MED.B. EMP.C. EMP.D.

Interconnected stakeholders (X1)

Coincidence of objectives (X2)

Degree of consensus (X3)

Intensity/trust (X4)

Duration/regularity (X5)

Index (in a 10 scale)

Interviewees (n)

1.5 6 2.5 4

5 0 0 5

0 0 0 4

3 0 3 3

0 6 0 2

3.17 4.00 1.83 6.00

7 7 9 9

differences between the desired level of practice -only environmentalists wanted to ban it-, and they reached a consensual solution. The collaborative network index is calculated over 10 (Table 4) in order to allow comparison between cases and, subsequently, with the sustainability index. Thus, the values of the collaborative network index allow us to assess the existing degree of relationship and collaboration in each case that lead us to define the mode of governance established in the process of conflict resolution. 4.2. Impact of the conflict solutions: index of sustainability Fig. 4 shows interviewees' perception of the consequences of the global strategy applied in each case, differentiating effects on the different dimensions of its development. Each column represents a conflict and its four parts embody, in each instance, one of the dimensions of development: ecological, economic, social- and

institutional. We may observe that, in a number of cases, some values are below 0. This is due to the fact that the interviewees, in relation to the corresponding conflicts, regarded the strategy adopted as causing negative effects on a dimension of the development. The value of the effects on each dimension is over a maximum of 2.5 points and, therefore, the maximum possible overall score for each solution adopted is 10 points. From the combination of the values of the effects of the solutions adopted in each of the cases analysed on each dimension, we may determine the value of its sustainability index, as shown in Table 5. Fig. 4 reveals that none of the solutions applied to the analysed conflict situations have generated positive effects on the four dimensions of development. Therefore, and basing ourselves on the interviewees' perception, none of them may be categorised as sustainable. While two of the conflicts have positive effects on two of the

Fig. 4. Sustainability index, by dimensions and conflict situations.


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

8

Table 5 Sustainability index, by dimensions and conflicts: numerical values.

Ecologic dimension (X1) Economic dimension (X1) Social dimension (X1) Institutional dimension (X1) Sustainability index (in a 10 scale) Interviewees (n)

MED.A

MED.B

EMP.C

EMP.D

1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 3.5 7

0.42 1.46 0.42 0.83 0.63 7

1.25 2.50 2.50 0.63 4.38 9

0.25 1.75 0.50 1.75 2.75 9

four dimensions, they are detrimental to the remaining two. The solution to the EMP.D (kite-surf) conflict consisted of coastal zoning to regulate the areas where kite-surfing was permitted. It generated positive effects on the economic and institutional dimensions. However, their effects on the ecological dimension were negative, because the final solution generated an extension of human pressure on most coastal areas, as the majority of the interviewees stated. Regarding the MED.B (scuba diving) conflict, Fig. 4 shows how the parts of the column corresponding to both the social- and economic dimensions have positive values, while the ecological and institutional dimensions are below 0. In this case, even though the proliferation of scuba diving generated economic development, ecosystem imbalance occurred in the flora and fauna of the area, according to the perception of the specialists and scientists interviewed. Interviewees perceive that solutions to the MED.A (underwater fishing) and EMP.C (water-skiing) conflicts generated positive effects only on the ecological dimension. In MED.A the prohibition of the activity has caused a significant increase in the fish biomass, as the Director of the Park stated, basing his observation on the periodical reports submitted by specialists. On the other hand, however, social movement and economic activity have disappeared. Moreover, the prohibition of water-skiing (EMP.C), although the levels of fish biomass were recovered, was entirely detrimental to the economic development that the activity had generated over many years. As we learn from these last two examples, those solution strategies that conclude with total prohibition of the activity are those that have led to a lesser degree of sustainability of territorial development. 4.3. Correlation between the collaborative network degree and the sustainability of the development Lastly, this section sets out to show the relationship between the mode of governance in which the global solution was framed and its effects on the degree of sustainability of territorial development, in each case, by use of the correlation of their resulting indices. From the data provided in Fig. 5, we observe a close relationship between the index of collaborative network and that of sustainability; this means that the greater the degree of networking and the development of collaboration processes between stakeholders, the higher the degree of sustainability of the development generated by the solution strategy adopted. This assumption may be illustrated with examples. In the case of EMP.D (kite-surf), the consensual solution reached by the participation of all stakeholders in decision-making generated better results on the territorial development of the coastal area. Furthermore, those cases that have obtained a lower value of their collaborative network index have also generated a less sustainable solution. This correlation may be clearly seen both in the case of underwater fishing in the Medes Islands (MED.A) and of water-skiing in the Empord a Wetlands Natural Park (EMP.C), where the managers of the Park determined the prohibition of the activities unilaterally. This hierarchical structure resulted in a negative value of its index of

sustainability. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between these two indices confirms this statement with a value of 0.9475 (P ¼ 0.001). 5. Discussion and conclusions This study attempts to define the different modes of governance established in each of the conflicts analysed, to determine the factors that served to constitute these modes in each case, and how they affected the sustainability of corresponding territorial development. Analysis of each of the selected cases and comparison between them has demonstrated that a connection exists between the collaborative network index and the sustainability index. Thus, the stakeholders involved in a collaborative network regard the impact of their decisions as being closer to sustainability. This fact indicates that a greater degree of network relationship and the application of collaboration processes among the stakeholders that constitute the network generate a perception of a greater degree of sustainability in the development of the territory. We discuss this discovery through a number of reflections generated on the basis of the relationship between the results obtained and the conclusions drawn in several related studies. We may observe that other studies also point out this connec
n (2009) shows how a form of governance of a natural tion. Dura area, based on a horizontal relationship between the park's environmental authorities, scientists and the local community, generates more sustainable solutions. Geneletti and Van Duren (2008) propose a method of zoning of a natural site in terms of different levels of protection, based on the participation of all the stakeholders involved in the definition of criteria and in the subsequent decision-making processes. In their study they assess its efficiency, concluding that its success lies in communication between and the contribution of all the parties involved and in the opportunity to discuss and reorient decisions in terms of reality and the context. 5.1. The relations and collaboration network: real benefits to the degree of sustainability Numerous authors emphasise the benefits of collaboration between organisations when it comes to achieving a greater degree of sustainability in the recreational management of protected natural sites. For example, Sharma and Kearins (2011) highlight the creation of new forms of conflict settlement and the development of integrated policies and practices on the economic, environmental and social levels; while Antunes et al. (2006) point out the benefits to sustainability of a participative management model of the Ria Formosa wetlands in Portugal. The study conducted by Merinero and Pulido (2009), applied to urban areas, notes the existence of a direct relationship between tourist development of a given territory and the relational dynamics established between the agents involved. In this case, however, although they reveal this correlation, they fail to determine its direction. In our study we see how the establishment of collaboration relationships and processes generates more sustainable development.
of the benefits of shared management, Martínez In his expose (2004) coined the concept of ‘co-ecotourism’ to refer to the comanagement of a natural site, in which tourist development is compatible with biodiversity conservation by all the agents involved. As principles of this mode of governance he identifies conflict management, established social relations and decentralisation of central power as means to involve local communities in planning and execution processes. We thus see how Martínez's arguments connect with our results.


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

9

Fig. 5. Collaborative network index and sustainability index, by conflict situations.

5.2. Governance in collaborative network, the panacea of sustainability? The results obtained in both this study and in those mentioned hitherto seem to regard the existence of a collaborative network structure as a panacea when it comes to attaining more sustainable development. We should like to take advantage of this discussion to point out that this correlation is produced only when a set of favourable conditions is guaranteed, as the following studies, among others, point out. In their analyses of recreational fishing area management, several authors note in the first place, as do the studies mentioned so far, that co-management and collaboration between stakeholders are key elements when it comes to attaining a greater degree of sustainability (Salmi and Salmi, 2010; Granek et al., 2008; Pascual and De la Cruz, 2008; Chernela et al., 2002). They contend, however, that such attainment is conditioned by the existence of scientific knowledge of the specific activity and its effects, and that it is the connection structure between stakeholders that guarantees the transmission of such knowledge (Stensland, 2012; Gleason et al., 2010; Arlinghaus et al., 2002). Other authors contend, furthermore, that scientific knowledge must be applied also to evaluation of the efficiency of the measures adopted, to ensure that they are constantly optimised (Geneletti and Van Duren, 2008; Heylings and Bravo, 2007). Other authors also regard as indispensable the establishment of educational and environmental awareness programmes in order to foster commitment on the part of everybody involved in sustainable development of the natural site (De la Cruz and Pascual, 2013;
nech and Sanz, 2010; Martínez, 2004; Schusler et al., 2003), Dome as well as to establish a common perception of actions that may be regarded as having either a negative or positive impact on sustainable development (Rech and Mounet, 2011). We may conclude, therefore, that although a collaborative network governance structure undoubtedly generates benefits, such a structure cannot be regarded as a panacea for the attainment of a greater degree of sustainability of the territory (Sharma and Kearins, 2011). The establishment of links or the participation and collaboration of all stakeholders involved are not therefore enough in themselves, since they must of necessity be combined with education, awareness fostering and personal commitment to sustainability, shared scientific knowledge and common agreement on real goals. 5.3. Final conclusions In conclusion, as our results have shown, though a major

correlation exists between collaborative network and sustainability indices, the effects generated also depend largely on specific strategies applied by each of the stakeholders and on their commitment to the above-mentioned elements. This study is impaired by several limitations that must be considered when generalising our results. One such limitation is the fact that the analysis was based on conflicts that occurred in the past. Although it has allowed us to attain our initial objectives, this decision has meant that the information obtained is conditioned by interviewees' memories. Another limitation is that both the mode of governance and its effects on the sustainability of the territorial development were assessed using the perceptions of the stakeholders involved. This fact, although the veracity of events described has been verified through comparison with information provided by the rest of the people involved in the same conflict and by related documents, might have limited the reliability of such information. As previously mentioned, the values of the sustainability indices are based on the perception of the interviewed stakeholders. Although they were knowledgeable of the conflict situations, the impact on sustainability in each case was assessed by subjective information and no objective indicator was used. Thus, the assessment by the use of objective indicators poses a future research challenge. These limitations highlight a compelling opportunity for future studies, which should shed additional light on this topic by assessing a longitudinal study of a current conflict situation. This would therefore allow us to engage in a present, real-time monitoring process from the genesis of a conflict and during the entire conflict settlement process until we are in a position to assess the effects resulting from the strategy developed on the territory, by the development of periodical ecological, social- and economic impact analysis. To conclude, this article provides support for the idea of the importance of a collaborative network governance structure when managing sports practice on coastal sites and their effect on the achievement of more sustainable development. Only through additional research shall we be able to fully understand how better to guide the stakeholders of coastal protected areas towards a more sustainable sports practice. Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Institut Nacional d'Educacio Física de Catalunya (INEFC), of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Part of
the research was developed at the Institut de Hautes Etudes en


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11

10

Administration Publique (IDHEAP e Lausanne, Switzerland), supported by the Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) in Catalunya (BE DGR - 2012). The authors would like to specially thank Professor Klaus Heinemann for his support and assistance. Appendix 1. List of dimensions and variables to help the interviewer Conflict situation - General description: origin/development/final solution

Context - Legal, political, economic, sociocultural

Involved stakeholders -

Actions and strategies Interests/ideology/opinion Collaborative relations Power/legitimacy/urgency

Consequences of the solution - Ecologic dimension/social dimension/economic dimension/ institutional dimension References Agranoff, R., McGuire, M., 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. Alves, S., de Hilal, A.V., 2009. Tourism development: sustainable or sustained? Intercultural reflections on the case of Praia do Forte-Bahia, Brazil. PASOS. Rev. Tur. Pat. Cult. 7 (3), 503e514. Ansell, C., Gash, A., 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18, 543e571. Antunes, P., Santos, R., Videira, N., 2006. Participatory decision making for sustainable development e the use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use Policy 23 (1), 44e52. Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T., Cowx, I.G., 2002. Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish Fish. 3, 261e316.
lisis del Perfil Sociodemogr
Baena, A., 2008. Ana afico y Deportivo de los Com~ a. Doctoral thesis. Universidad de petidores de Raids de Aventura en Espan Granada.
n y Gestio
n en las Regiones Litorales LatinBarrag
an, J.M., 1996. Planificacio oamericanas. El Conurbo Bonaerense. Rev. Estud. Reg. 45, 111e128. Bingham, L.B., 2011. Collaborative governance. In: Bevir, M. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance. SAGE Publications, London, pp. 386e401. Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J.-C., Passeron, J.-C., 1991. The Craft of Sociology. Epistemological Preliminaries. Walter de Guyter, Berlin.
Brenner, L., 2010. Gobernanza Ambiental, Actores Sociales y Conflictos en las Areas Naturales Protegidas Mexicanas. Rev. Mex. Sociol. 72 (2), 283e310. Chalip, L., McGuirty, J., 2004. Bundling sport events with the host destination. J. Sport Tour. 9 (3), 267e282. Chernela, J.M., Ahmad, A., Khalid, F., Sinnamon, V., Jaireth, H., 2002. Innovative governance of fisheries and ecotourism in community based protected areas. Parks 12 (2), 28e41. Davidson-Hunt, I.J., 2006. Adaptive learning networks: developing resource management knowledge through social learning forums. Hum. Ecol. 34, 593e614.
s, A., Blanco, R., Pertejo, J., Prats, M.J., 1995. Manual para la Mejora de la De Andre Calidad Ambiental de las Actividades Recreativas en la Naturaleza (Madrid).
De la Cruz, R., Pascual, J.J., 2013. ¿Areas Marinas Protegidas para Mejorar la Gobernabilidad Local? El Caso de la Reserva Marina de la Restinga. Rev. Andal. Antropol. 4, 10e32. Dienot, J., Theiller, D., 1999. Les Nouveaux Loisirs Sportifs en Montagne. Les Aventuriers du Quotidien. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d'Aquitaine, Bordeaux. Dingle, G., 2009. Sustaining the race: a review of literature pertaining to the environmental sustainability of motorsport. Int. J. Sports Mark. Spons. 11 (1),

80e96.
nech, J.L., Sanz, F.J. (Eds.), 2010. Guía para la implementacio
n de un sistema de Dome
n integrada de zonas costeras. Netbiblo, La Corun ~ a. gestio
n, C.A., 2009. Gobernanza en los Parques Nacionales Naturales Colombianos. Dura
n en la Reflexiones a partir del Caso de la Comunidad Orika y su Participacio
n del Parque Nacional Natural Corales del Rosario y San Bernardo. Conservacio Rev. Estud. Sociales 32, 60e73.
rez, I., Queralt, J., 2008. La Guía de Medio Ambiente y Fraguas, A., Perero, E., Pe
Barcelona Sostenibilidad aplicado a los Deportes No Olímpicos. Fundacio
Ernest Lluch, Barcelona. Olímpica i la Fundacio Fyall, A., Jago, L., 2009. Sustainability in sport & tourism. J. Sport Tour. 14 (2/3), 77e81. Geneletti, D., van Duren, I., 2008. Protected area zoning for conservation and use: a combination of spatial multicriteria and multiobjective evaluation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85 (2), 97e110. Generalitat de Catalunya, 2014. SIMA. Servei Interactiu de Mapes Ambientals. Retrieved March 25 from. http://sima.gencat.cat/. Georgehan, T., Renard, Y., 2002. Beyond community involvement: lessons from the insular Caribbean. Parks 12 (2), 16e27. Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Serpa, P., Hoffman, K., 2010. Science-based and stakeholderdriven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from north central California. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (2), 52e68. Granek, E.F., Madin, E.M.P., Brown, M.A., Figueira, W., Cameron, D.S., Hogan, Z., Kristianson, G., De Villiers, P., Williaims, J.E., Post, J., Zahn, S., Arlinghaus, R., 2008. Engaging recreational Fishers in management and conservation: global case studies. Conserv. Biol. 22 (5), 1125e1134. Gray, B., 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Hum. Relat. 38, 911e936. Guitart, R., Mateo, R., 2006. El Empleo de Plomo en los Deportes como Causa de
n y de Contaminacio
n. Apunt. Cienc. Tecnol. 21, 2e8. Intoxicacio Heinen, J., 1994. Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 1, 22e33. Heylings, P., Bravo, M., 2007. Evaluating governance: a process for understanding how co-management is functioning, and why, in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (3e4), 174e208. Hiwasaki, L., 2005. Toward sustainable management of national parks in Japan: securing local community and stakeholder participation. Environ. Manag. 35 (5), 753e764.
s, E., 2013. Estrate gies de Gestio
de la Pr Ingle actica Esportiva per al Desenvolupament Sostenible. Un Estudi de Casos sobre Governança i Stakeholders. Doctoral thesis. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. Jones, P.J.S., Burgess, J., 2005. Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 77 (3), 227e243. Kooiman, J. (Ed.), 1993. Modern Governance: New Government e Society Interactions. Sage, London. Lagardera, F., Martínez, J.R., 1998. Deporte y Ecología: la Emergencia de un Conflicto. In: García Ferrando, M., Puig, N., Lagardera, F. (Eds.), Sociología del deporte. Alianza, Madrid, pp. 179e204. Luque, P., Baena, A., Granero, A., 2011. Buenas Pr
acticas para un Desarrollo Sostenible en los Eventos Deportivos en el Medio Natural. Interciencia 36 (7), 531e537. Mallen, C., Stevens, J., Adams, L., McRoberts, S., 2010. The assessment of the environmental performance of an international multi-sport event. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 10 (1), 97e122.
n de Recursos Naturales en la Regio
n Atl
Martínez, Z., 2004. Cogestio antica de Colombia. Innovar 14 (23), 158e167. Martos, P., 2002. El Medio Natural como Punto de Encuentro de Turismo y Deporte.
n”. In: Rebollo, S., Simoes, M. (Eds.), Nuevas TenCrecimiento y Diversificacio dencias de Pr
actica Físico-Deportiva en el Medio Natural. Universidad de Granada, Granada, pp. 3e14. Mayntz, R., 1998. New Challenges to Governance Theory. Jean Monnet Chair Paper no. 50. Robert Schuman Centre of the European University, Florence. McGuire, M., 2011. Network management. In: Bevir, M. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance. SAGE Publications, London, pp. 436e453. Meadowcroft, J., Farrell, N.K., Spangenberg, J., 2005. Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 9, 3e11.
mica Relacional. MetoMerinero, R., Pulido, J.I., 2009. Desarrollo Turístico y Dina
n Activa de Destinos Turísticos. Cuad. Tur. 23, dología de An
alisis para la Gestio 173e193.
lisis de las Pra
cticas Deportivas de Naturaleza en el DesarMoscoso, D., 2008. Ana
n a Distancia, rollo Rural de Andalucía. Thesis. Universidad Nacional de Educacio Madrid. ~ a: Pascual, J.J., De la Cruz, R., 2008. Los Espacios Marinos Protegidos en Espan
n?”. In: ¿Nuevas Formas Institucionales para las Estrategias de Apropiacio
n de la naturaleza. El Beltran, O., Pascual, J., Vaccaro, I. (Eds.), Patrimonializacio marco social de las políticas ambientales. Ankulegi, Donosti, pp. 199e221. Pezzoli, K., 1997. Sustainable development: a transdisciplinary overview of the literature. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 40, 549e574. Powell, W.W., 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Res. Organ. Behav. 12, 295e336. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. An Int. J. 22 (6), 501e518.


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018

E. Ingl
es Yuba, N. Puig Barata / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2015) 1e11
n Turística de los Parques NatPulido, J.I., 2010. Las Partes Interesadas en la Gestio
n de Interrelaciones e Intereses. Rev. Estud. Reg. urales Andaluces. Identificacio 88, 147e175.
es Rech, Y., Mounet, J.P., 2011. Les sports de nature en debat: receptions differencie de la gestion participative dans le Parc naturel regional de Chartreuse. Dev. Durable Territ. 2 (3), 1e18. Repetto, R., 1985. The Global Possible-resources, Development and the New Century. Yale University Press, New Haven. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1997. Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham/ Philadelphia. Saarikoski, H., Tikkanen, J., Leskinen, L.A., 2010. Public participation in practice eassessing public participation in the preparation of regional forest programs in Northern Finland. For. Policy Econ. 12 (5), 349e356. Salmi, J., Salmi, P., 2010. Fishing tourism, biodiversity protection and regional politics in the River Tornionjoki, Finland. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 17 (2), 192e198. Schusler, T.M., Decker, D.J., Pfeffer, M.J., 2003. Social learning for collaborative

11

natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16 (4), 309e326.
n del Desarrollo Sostenible en Territorios Rurales: Sepúlveda, S., 2008. Gestio
todos para la Planificacio
n. IICA (Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacio
n Me
, C.R. para la Agricultura), San Jose Sharma, A., Kearins, K., 2011. Interorganizational collaboration for regional sustainability: what happens when organizational representatives come together? J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 47 (2), 168e203. Spedding, C.R.W., 1996. Agriculture and the Citizen. Chapman & Hall, London. Stensland, S., 2012. Typology of landowners in Norwegian salmon angling: attitudes towards river owner organisations and management actions. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 19 (4), 273e282. UN-DSD, 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodologies. United Nations, New York.
zquez, A., S
Villalvilla, H., Bla anchez, J., 2001. Deporte y Naturaleza. El Impacto de las Actividades Deportivas y de Ocio en el Medio Natural. Talasa, Madrid. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our Common Future. Report of the United Nations WCED. Oxford University Press, Oxford.


s Yuba, E., Puig Barata, N., Sports management in coastal protected areas. A case study on collaborative Please cite this article in press as: Ingle network governance towards sustainable development, Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ocecoaman.2015.07.018