Mapping Community–Tourism Conflicts and Collaborative Governance in National Parks: A Bibliometric Analysis (2000–2025)

Mapping Community–Tourism Conflicts and Collaborative Governance in National Parks: A Bibliometric Analysis (2000–2025) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Mapping Community–Tourism Conflicts and Collaborative Governance in National Parks: A Bibliometric Analysis (2000–2025) Prashant Kashyap, Anil Kumar, Shivam Samyal, manju soren This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8707028/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines conflicts and collaborative practices between communities and tourism stakeholders in national parks using a bibliometric analysis of research published between 2000 and 2025. A dataset of 134 Scopus-indexed journal articles was analysed using VOSviewer and RStudio to identify thematic patterns, influential authors, dominant theoretical contributions and emerging research shifts. Three core thematic clusters were identified: protected area tourism management, community participation and sustainability and conservation conflicts and development dynamics. Conflict theory and collaboration theory were found to guide much all the existing scholarship, shaping current understanding of how national parks negotiate tensions between conservation goals and local livelihoods. This review provides a comprehensive mapping of the field’s intellectual structure and highlights gaps for future study. The findings offer practical insights for scholars, policymakers and practitioners working to advance community- based tourism with reduced conflict and improved cooperation in national parks. National Park tourism conflicts thematic clusters community collaboration Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 1. Introduction National parks are important ecological, cultural and recreational resources that contribute significantly to international initiatives for sustainable development and environmental preservation (Goodwin, 2002 ). As per the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) a protected area is defined as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural value” (Dudley, 2008 ). These are designed to preserve biodiversity while accommodating human use. Over recent decades, national parks have emerged not only as centers for conservation but also as focal points for tourism development. This growth in nature based tourism creates opportunities for ecological education and local economic development but it also generates tensions and trade-offs between preservation goals and the pressures of tourism-driven commercialization (Spenceley, 2008 ). Tourism within national parks can yield considerable benefits. It generates essential revenue for conservation projects and supports the operational costs of protected area management. Additionally, tourism can provide critical livelihood opportunities for local communities living in or near park boundaries (Kiconco et al., 2025 ). These include employment in hospitality and guiding services, entrepreneurship in local handicrafts and food services and income through community-based tourism initiatives. In regions with limited economic alternatives, particularly rural and marginalized areas, such benefits can be transformative (Goodwin, 2002 ; Jamal & Stronza, 2009 ). Infrastructure developments associated with tourism such as roads, water supply and health services- often spill over to benefit the broader community. The intersection of tourism and conservation is fraught with its challenges. Conflicts frequently arise from the competing interests of various stakeholders - most notably, conservation authorities, tourism developers and local communities (Larson et al., 2016 ; Ojijo & Steiger, 2025 ; Xu et al., 2009 ). Land use, resource access, economic inequality and cultural identity are frequently the root causes of these conflicts. A primary cause is the lack of clear communication and inclusive decision-making where park officials often fail to engage local stakeholders authentically, leading to choices that don’t reflect community objectives, values or interest (Adewumi, 2018; Hough, 1988 ) (Hough, 1988 ; Zube, 1986 ). This can result in circumstances in which the financial gains from tourism are not fairly shared, leading to feelings of exploitation and unfair treatment among local stakeholders (Al Haija, 2011 ). However, conflict is not the only outcome. There is growing exploration of cooperative strategies that combine conservation, community development and sustainable tourism (Ramaano, 2025 ; Samal & Dash, 2024 ). Models that have demonstrated promise in fostering win-win outcomes include benefit-sharing frameworks, co-management and community – based natural resource management (CBNRM) (Jamal & Stronza, 2009 ). Scholarly interest in these topics has grown dramatically which indicates a greater understanding of the connection between social justice and environmental preservation. Despite this growing body of literature, a comprehensive synthesis of the fields intellectual structure is lacking. While prior reviews exist (e.g., on community participation or park governance) none have employed bibliometric methods to map the entire research landscape of community-tourism conflicts and collaborations specially within national parks. This gap is significant because bibliometric analysis can objectively identify dominant themes, emerging trends, influential works and geographical foci in a way that traditional narrative reviews cannot (Hossain et al., 2020 ). This review aims to fill this gap by systematically analyzing the literature from 2000 onwards- a period chosen because it marks the rise of participatory conservation paradigms post 1992 Earth summit and the wide spread adoption of sustainability frameworks in tourism. This timeframe captures the modern era of grappling with these complex issues. In view of this, the current study conducts a thorough bibliometric review of the literature written between 2000 and 2025 in order to methodically examine research patterns. It poses the following research questions: RQ1: What are the publication trends, key journals and influential authors and countries in this field? RQ2: What are the major thematic clusters defining the intellectual structure of research on community-tourism conflicts and collaborations in national parks? RQ3: What theoretical frame works under pin these thematic clusters? RQ4: What gaps and future research directions emerge from this analysis? This review attempts to support both scholarly discussion and real–world decision-making in national park management by synthesizing the body of existing work. It is anticipated that the study’s conclusions will provide insightful information to local communities, policymakers, conservationists and tourism developers. 2. Methodology 2.1 Data Collection This research paper uses a systematic search of the Scopus database to gather articles on national park tourism and community conflicts or collaboration. The data collection process included the following steps: 2.1.1 Database selection and parameters The Scopus database has been selected due to its extensive coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed journals across social and environmental science making it a standard source of bibliometric reviews (Baas et al., 2020 ). The publication period was restricted to the year 2000 to 2025. The year 2000 was selected as a logical starting point as it marks the beginning of a modern era in conservation and tourism scholarship, characterized by the solidification of sustainable development goals. It is the mainstreaming of community-based conservation models post-1992 Earth summit and a significant increase in academic output addressing community-park relationship. 2.1.2 Keyword Selection and Initial Data Retrieval A systematic and structured approach has been used to find relevant articles during the scanning phase of this bibliometric study. Because it covers a large number of peer-reviewed academic publications, the Scopus database has chosen. “National Park” AND “Tourism” AND “Community” AND “Collaboration” OR “Conflicts” were among the specific keywords that were used in the search strategy. These keywords have been specifically selected to concentrate on studies examining the connections between tourism in national parks, nearby communities, collaborative efforts and developing disputes. Several filters were applied to ensure the documents academic quality and relevance. We considered only journal articles which were published in English. A total of 194 papers from the first search were examined for relevancy using keywords, abstracts and titles. 2.1.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria we used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta–Analyses) framework to ensure a transparent and reproduceable screening process (Page et al., 2021 ). Figure 1 showcases the detailed flow of information through different phase of the review. Initially, 194 records were identified from the Scopus database after removing any duplicates using relevant keywords and search criteria. Out of these, 60 records were excluded based on language and document type which included book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials and non-peer-reviewed content. As a result, 134 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. All were deemed relevant and included in the final analysis, forming the dataset for this bibliometric review. 2.2 Data Analysis The study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using two specialized software tools: VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) for network visualization (Eck & Waltman, 2009 ; Van Raan, 2003 ). and RStudio (version 2024.04.0) with the bibliometrix package (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ) for statistical analysis and data handling. This mixed-method approach is considered robust for bibliometric science mapping to explore the existing literature. We applied various techniques including citation analysis, co-citation analysis, co-word analysis, co-authorship analysis and thematic analysis. We applied various techniques including: Descriptive Performance Analysis : This includes examining publications over the selected time frame between 2000 and 2025 to identify the most productive authors, most productive countries, most cited publications and most productive organizations. Science Mapping : This include co-word analysis (Keyword co-occurrence) to identify key research themes and co-citation analysis to map the intellectual foundations of the field by examining how documents are cited together. The analysis is structured as follows: Basic features analysis (Publication trends, top productive authors, most productive countries, most cited publications and most productive organizations, most cited documents). Science mapping analysis: Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation analysis Thematic cluster interpretation based on co-citation network 3. Results 3.1 Basic Analysis 3.1.1 Main information about data The bibliometric analysis consists of literature published between 2000 and 2025. A total of 134 journal articles has been analyzed which were sourced from 99 different sources, with an average age of 8.81 years, and an average of 26.2 citations per document, indicating the depth of research in this field. A total of 424 authors contributed to the publications, 26 of which were single-authored. The average number of co-authors per document was 3.26, indicating collaborative efforts. Notably, 35.82% of the documents involve international co-authorship, suggesting a global research engagement. All selected documents are articles, ensuring consistency in document type for the analysis. Table 1 represents the data in tabular form for better understanding. Table I: Main information about data Description Results MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT DATA Timespan 2000:2025 Sources (Journals, Books, etc) 99 Documents 134 Annual Growth Rate % 3.73 Document Average Age 8.81 Average citations per doc 26.2 References 6973 DOCUMENT CONTENTS Keywords Plus (ID) 604 Author's Keywords (DE) 534 AUTHORS Authors 424 Authors of single-authored docs 26 AUTHORS COLLABORATION Single-authored docs 26 Co-Authors per Doc 3.26 International co-authorships % 35.82 DOCUMENT TYPES Article 134 Sources: Author’s own work 3.1.2 Annual publications over the years : The line graph titled "Annual Scientific Production" illustrates the number of articles published annually from 2000 to 2024. The trend reveals a fluctuating but generally increasing pattern in scientific output over the years. Early in the years (2000–2009) saw relatively low and inconsistent publication rates often fewer than five articles per year. A noticeable increase begins around 2012 that peaks in 2013 and then again in 2021 and 2023, with more than 10 articles in those years. Despite minor dips, the overall trend indicates growing academic interest in the topic, especially in the last decade, highlighting its rising research significance. 3.1.3 Most productive journals : Fig. 3 presents the top academic journals that have published the highest number of documents related to the selected research topic. It shows that “Conservation and Society" and the "Journal of Sustainable Tourism" are leading the list with each contributing 5 documents. These sources indicate a strong alignment with themes of environmental conservation, community involvement, and sustainable practices within tourism and protected areas. Following closely are four journals “African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure", "Journal of Ecotourism", "Journal of Environmental Management" and "Tropical Conservation Science" each publishing 4 documents. These journals emphasize interdisciplinary research that integrates tourism, ecological sustainability and community collaboration or conflict management that are core to the present study. Overall, the chart highlights that the relevant literature is spread across journals focusing on tourism, sustainability, conservation and environmental management which emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature and growing academic interest in the relationship between communities, tourism and natural resource management. 3.1.4 Most productive authors . Figure 4 titled "Most Relevant Authors" displays the leading contributors to the academic literature concerning national parks, tourism, community collaboration and conflict. The dataset includes 11 authors each having contributed 2 documents. Notable names include Adams CE, Biggs D, Braczkowski A, Fattebert J, Kaltenborn BP, Nyaupane GP and others. The uniformity in contribution indicates that there is no dominant author which suggests a broad and collaborative research community rather than a field driven by a few key figures. These authors likely focus on interdisciplinary themes including ecotourism, community-based conservation, participatory management and the socio-environmental implications of tourism development in protected areas. Their repeated contributions highlight their continued involvement and expertise in the field. This has helped shape the discussion on sustainable tourism and human-nature interactions. This distribution also points to the growing interest and diversification of scholarly perspectives in this area over the past two decades. 3.1.5 Average Citations per Year : Fig. 5 titled "Average Citations per Year" illustrates the average number of citations received by the documents published each year between 2000 and 2024. The trend is notably fluctuating, with peaks observed in 2002, 2008 and 2018 where average citations exceeded 5 citations per document. These peaks suggest that documents from these years had greater academic impact or more frequently referenced in subsequent research. Some years, such as 2006, 2007 and 2010, show near-zero citation averages, indicating either lower visibility or recent publication with insufficient time for citation accumulation. Post-2019, there is a gradual decline in average citations, with 2023 and 2024 showing the lowest citation averages, likely because recent publications have not yet had time to be widely cited. Overall, the graph reflects both the changing academic influence of documents over time and the typical citation lag for newly published works. 3.1.6 Journals Production over Year : Fig. 6 displays the cumulative occurrences of publications over time across six prominent academic sources related to ecotourism, conservation, and environmental management. The x-axis outlines the temporal span from 2000 to 2024 and the y-axis illustrates the cumulative number of occurrences (publications) for each journal. “The Journal of Environmental Management” shows the earliest and most sustained publication trend with steady contributions starting in 2000 and plateauing after 2005. “The African Journal of Hospitality”, “Tourism and Leisure” and “Tropical Conservation Science” also exhibit continuous growth in publications, especially after 2015. This reflects growing academic interest in tourism and biodiversity from an African context. “The Journal of Ecotourism and Conservation and Society” gained momentum around 2016 and 2018 respectively, indicating their increasing relevance in ecotourism and community conservation discussions. “The Journal of Sustainable Tourism” shows a strong upward trend between 2016 and 2020, reaching a cumulative peak by 2020 and sustaining it. This visualization highlights a notable shift in research output post 2010 with newer sources gaining prominence. The diversity in journal sources also suggests a multidisciplinary approach to the research. It covers hospitality, ecology, sustainability and local community issues critical components of ecotourism and protected area research. 3.1.7 Most Relevant Affiliation : The chart showcases the most relevant academic affiliations contributing to research fields of ecotourism, conservation and sustainable tourism, measured by the number of published articles. Lincoln University emerges as the top contributor with 8 articles signifying its strong focus on environmental and tourism-related studies. This reflects Lincoln University's dedication to research that bridges sustainability and practical tourism development. Following closely are Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and IPB University (Indonesia) each contributing 7 articles which highlight their active roles in promoting sustainability-focused scholarship within their regions. These institutions are likely engaged in interdisciplinary research across conservation biology, community-based tourism and environmental management. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, University of Johannesburg, University of Oxford and Yunnan University each published 6 articles which indicate strong research output from both European and African institutions. This suggests a collaborative and geographically diverse academic interest in sustainable development and nature-based tourism. Other institutions like Hainan University, Kyrgyz National University and Beijing Normal University contributed 5 to 4 articles which indicate emerging yet impactful roles in the field. The chart highlights a globally distributed network of research affiliations, showcasing the increasing academic attention to sustainable tourism and conservation across continents. 3.1.8 Most cited documents : Table 2 displays the most globally cited academic documents related to protected areas and tourism. It also provides a visual comparison of citation counts for these documents which showcases their influence in the field based on how often they are referenced in another research. The methods used in these studies are diverse. These studies cover a wide geographical area including India, Nepal, Greece, Norway, China etc., These reflect the global relevance of protected area tourism. The most cited document is (Jamal & and Stronza, 2009) published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, with a significant 384 citations, indicating its foundational impact in the domain. Following closely are (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001a ) in Environmental Conservation with 213 citations and (Karanth & Nepal, 2012a ) in Environmental Management with 185 citations, both contributing prominently to conservation and sustainable practices. Other notable works include (Hemson et al., 2009a ) and (Trakolis, 2001a ) with over 130 citations each, highlighting their importance in biodiversity conservation and visitor management. Studies by (Stone & and Nyaupane, 2018)and (Bello et al., 2017 ) reflect newer but impactful contributions, especially in sustainable tourism development. The range of citation counts reflects the diversity of topics which includes collaboration theories, local community involvement, human-wildlife conflicts, revenue-sharing and innovative conservation strategies. Overall, the table provides a valuable overview of influential research papers. Table II: Most cited documents Serial no. Authors Title Citations Methods 1. (Jamal & and Stronza, 2009) “Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: stakeholders, structuring and sustainability” 364 Mixed Approach 2. (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001a ) “Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities” 213 Quantitative 3. (Karanth & Nepal, 2012a ) “Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses from Protected Areas in India and Nepal” 185 Quantitative 4. (Hemson et al., 2009a ) “Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human-carnivore conflicts in Botswana.” 144 Mixed Approach 5. (Trakolis, 2001a ) “Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece” 136 Quantitative 6. (Kaltenborn & and Williams, 2002) “The meaning of place: Attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals” 118 Mixed method 7. (Stone & and Nyaupane, 2018) “Protected areas, wildlife-based community tourism and community livelihoods dynamics: spiraling up and down of community capitals” 99 Qualitative 8. (Bello et al., 2017 ) “Constraints of community participation in protected areas-based tourism planning: the case of Malawi” 94 Qualitative 9. (Zhang et al., 2013 ) “Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China” 85 Mixed Approach 10. (Mbaiwa, 2005 ) “Wildlife resource utilization at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana” 80 Mixed Approach Source: Author’s own work 3.1.9 Most cited countries : Fig. 8 illustrates the most cited countries in academic literature related to ecotourism, conservation, and environmental studies based on the number of citations. The USA leads by a significant margin with 785 citations, which indicates its dominant influence and scholarly output in this research domain. The United Kingdom follows with 328 citations, which reflects its strong academic presence and research funding in environmental and tourism studies. China ranks third with 201 citations, showing its growing research contributions particularly in sustainable development and conservation. Canada with 159 citations and Germany with 122 citations also demonstrate consistent academic output and influence. Botswana appears in the sixth position with 99 citations, which emphasizes the country's significance in real-world ecotourism models and conservation practices in southern Africa. Other countries such as Norway (90), Malawi (81), India (58) and Portugal (56) show moderate influence contributing to region-specific studies and sustainable tourism efforts. The presence of African nations like Botswana and Malawi underlines the relevance of ecotourism and protected area research in biodiversity-rich, conservation-driven environments. This chart reveals the global distribution of impactful research, with both developed and developing nations contributing to the academic discourse on sustainability and ecotourism. 3.2 Science Mapping Analysis 3.2.1 Author’s keyword co-occurrence analysis : Fig. 9 displays the co-occurrence of author keywords in the bibliometric dataset. The network was created from 534 author keywords, setting a minimum threshold of 4 occurrences per keyword which resulted in 22 keywords being mapped. The size of the node represents the frequency of the keyword and the lines between nodes represent the strength of co-occurrences. The figure highlights several thematic clusters represented by different colour groupings. Central and most prominent keywords include “tourism,” “national park”, “protected areas”, “biodiversity”, “ecotourism” and “local community” indicating their strong relevance and centrality in the research domain. These terms reflect the thematic core of the literature on tourism and community collaboration in protected natural environments. Other frequently used keywords like “sustainable tourism”, “human-wildlife conflict”, “community participation”, “tourism management” and “community conservation” suggest growing scholarly interest in sustainable development, community involvement and conflict resolution within conservation areas. The appearance of region-specific keywords like “India” reflects localized studies, while terms such as “ecosystem services” and “management” highlight interdisciplinary approaches combining ecology and policy. This map helps identify major research trends and key thematic clusters in the literature on tourism, conservation, and community engagement. 3.2.2 Indexed keyword co-occurrence analysis : Fig. 10 visualizes indexed keywords from the bibliometric dataset, highlighting those with a minimum occurrence of four. Out of 604 total keywords, 45 met the threshold for inclusion. This analysis provides a complementary perspective to the author keywords as index keywords are algorithmically generated from the tiles of cited references often capturing broader thematic concepts. The darker blue areas represent keywords with higher frequency and stronger interconnections in the literature. Key terms such as “national park”, “protected area”, “local participation”, “ecotourism”, “tourism” and “conservation” appear most prominently, reflecting central themes around community engagement, biodiversity protection and nature-based tourism. Other notable terms include “tourism management”, “conflict management”, “stakeholder”, “participatory approach” and “wildlife management” which suggest a multidisciplinary interest in governance, participation, and sustainability. Geographical identifiers like “India”, “Africa”, “Sub-Saharan Africa” and “Botswana” reveal the regional focus of many studies. Topics such as “climate change”, “environmental planning” and “cost-benefit analysis” point to the integration of ecological, economic, and policy perspectives. Overall, the heatmap demonstrates a rich and diverse research landscape focused on balancing tourism, conservation and community interests in protected natural environments. 3.2.3 Co-citation analysis : Fig. 11 represents a co-citation network of referenced authors. Co-citation analysis examines how often two documents are cited together by later publications, revealing the intellectual foundations and thematic groups within field of ecotourism, conservation, and sustainable tourism. Each node (circle) represents an author, while the size of the node indicates the number of times that author has been cited in the analysed literature. Lines connecting the nodes reflect co-citation relationships—meaning those authors have been cited together in one or more publications. The colours signify clusters of authors who are commonly cited together, indicating thematic or intellectual similarity in their research focus. For instance, the red cluster includes authors like (Hemson et al., 2009a ) (Bello et al., 2018 ),(Stone, 2015 ) and (Ghoddousi et al., 2018 ) that indicate strong thematic alignment, possibly around wildlife tourism or community-based conservation. The purple cluster, centred on (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001a ) and Karanth KK. (2012) may focus on park management and human-wildlife conflict. The blue cluster, including Goswami R. (2014) and (Simakani et al., 2024 ) Mutanga CN.( 2024), may reflect more recent or region-specific research in sustainable development. Similarly, green and orange clusters represent smaller thematic subfields or newer research directions. Overall, this visualization helps identify influential authors, research trends and academic collaboration patterns within the literature on ecotourism and conservation. Based on this co-citation analysis, three major thematic clusters were identified and are visualized in Fig. 12 . The following section interprets the intellectual content of each cluster. 3.3 Thematic cluster 3.3.1 Co-citation analysis (thematic clusters) : The Co-citation analysis has been employed in this study to clarify the theoretical relationships between keywords in the field of national park tourism and community collaboration or conflicts. The co-citation analysis reveals three distinct yet interconnected thematic. Figure 12 represents the three clusters that encompass themes such as “ Protected area & tourism management”, “Community participation & sustainability” and “conservation conflicts and development Dynamics ”. Cluster 1: Protected area & tourism management : The first thematic cluster explores into the intricate relationship between tourism and the management of protected areas that emphasizes biodiversity conservation, sustainable tourism practices and wildlife protection. Keywords such as biodiversity, national park, nature-based tourism, sustainable tourism, wildlife conservation and community participation underline the primary focus on conserving biodiversity while promoting tourism. Protected areas that include national parks and biosphere reserves serve as key sites for eco-tourism which required thoughtful planning to balance environmental preservation with socio-economic benefits. Seminal works in this cluster such as (Jamal & and Stronza, 2009; Trakolis, 2001b ) focus on the operational challenges of managing visitor flows and ecological impacts. The inclusion of stakeholders and tourism management highlights the critical role of collaborative governance in achieving long-term sustainability for these natural spaces. Cluster 2: Community participation & sustainability : This cluster underscores the essential role of local communities in preservation and tourism efforts with an emphasis on sustainability and participatory governance. Keywords and cited works (Bello et al., 2017 ; Karanth & Nepal, 2012b ) reflect the centrality of community engagement while focusing on understanding local perceptions and designing model for participation. This cluster explores how community participation enhances the sustainability of protected areas and their associated ecosystem services while fostering economic empowerment for local populations. By focusing on stakeholders’ engagement and understanding their attitudes and perceptions the cluster highlights the significance of participatory approaches in ensuring the success of conservation initiatives and sustainable tourism. Cluster 3: conservation conflicts and development dynamics : This cluster focuses on the socio-political and ecological challenges at the interface of conservation and development particularly the issues surrounding human-wildlife conflicts. Keywords like conflicts, political ecology, partnerships, development, local community, sustainable tourism and nature-based tourism illustrate the theme of governance and conflict resolution. Cited works like (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001b ; Hemson et al., 2009b ) examines the realities of exclusion, benefit distribution and resistance. It examines the tradeoffs between development and conservation that consider the role of stakeholders and the importance of fostering partnerships to mitigate conflicts. This cluster also highlights the socio-political dimensions of conservation through political ecology that addresses how governance structures and policies affect local communities and biodiversity. By integrating conflict resolution strategies and development dynamics, this cluster contributes to understanding the complexities of achieving harmony between human activities and wildlife conservation. 4. Theoretical perspectives This bibliometric review utilizes a multi-framework approach to examine the dynamics of disputes and partnerships between communities and tourists in national parks. The theoretical framework is based on stakeholder engagement, adaptive governance and the collaborative governance aspects of tourism in protected areas. These theories are interrelated and often used in combination. 4.1 Stakeholder theory (community participation and sustainability ) Stakeholder theory (Byrd,2007) establishes a framework for analyzing the interactions, negotiations of interests and impacts of various actors - local communities, governments, visitor and NGOs on tourism development results. It highlights that discord among stakeholders frequently leads to conflicts over resource utilization and opposition to conservation initiatives. It is essential for understanding the Who in collaboration and conflict, making it a cross-cutting theory that informs all three clusters from managing multiple stakeholders in cluster 1 to negotiating participation in cluster 2 and navigating power struggles in cluster 3. 4.2 Commons Theory and the Socio-Ecological Systems Framework (Protected areas and Tourism Management) Ostrom’s commons theory, elaborated through the social Ecological Systems (SES) framework, explains how communities might autonomously organize and govern common-pool resources such as biodiversity and forest ecosystems (Berkes et al. 2000 ). This viewpoint is essential for realizing collaboration in tourist governance. This theory is particularly relevant to cluster 2 as it provides the structural and design principles for successful community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and community-based tourism, offering a proven model for achieving the participation and sustainability goals central to that cluster. 4.3 Conflict Theory in Tourism (Conservation Conflicts and Development Dynamics) Conflict theory offers frameworks to analyses power imbalances, displacement and resistance in conservation areas. It provides the critical lens for cluster 3 explaining why conflicts arise from systematic discrimination and unequal distribution of costs and benefits, rather than merely from divergent objectives. Its insights are also crucial for cluster 2 as failed participation often stems from these underlying conflicts. 4.4 Collaborative Governance and Adaptive Co- Management (Bridging all three clusters ) This methodology emphasizes collaborative decision-making, continuous learning and the establishment of trust among stakeholders. (Plummer, 2009 ; Plummer & Fennell, 2009 ) demonstrate that adaptive co-management in protected areas enhances sustainability results and mitigates conflicts arising from tourism. It represents the practical How- the set of processes and models that seek to overcome the challenges identified by stakeholder and conflict theory. It is the theoretical response to the problems outlined in cluster 3 and the operationalization of the ideals presented in cluster 1 and 2, aiming to achieve the sustainability and management goals they pursue. 5. Discussion The bibliometric analysis provides an in-depth understanding of the scholarly landscape on ecotourism, conservation and sustainable tourism. Within 134 articles from 99 sources spanning 2000 to 2025, this field demonstrates steady growth, with an annual publication rate of 3.73%. Thematic diversity as reflected by 534 author keywords and 604 keywords plus, highlights the multidisciplinary nature of research. The research focuses on key areas such as biodiversity conservation, protected areas and community engagement. Collaboration among 424 authors and a 35.82% rate of international co-authorship underscore the global relevance and collective effort in addressing the complex challenges of sustainable tourism and environmental management. The steady growth in annual publications, particularly post 2010 reflects a rising global recognition of the critical need to balance conservation objective with socio economic equity. The prominence of journals like “The Journal of Sustainable Tourism” reveal the fields interdisciplinary nature, straddling environment management, sociology and tourism studies. Moreover, co-authorship and institutional collaborations illustrate a small but highly influential network driving advancement in this domain. The analysis also highlights the rising prominence of research contributions from regions like Africa and Asia. This pattern signifies that the empirical context for this research is often situated in biodiversity-rich developing nations where community-park conflicts are most acute, even if the theoretical frameworks are frequently developed in the global North. The keyword and co-citation analyses converge to define the fields core preoccupations through three clusters. The progression from cluster 1 (management) to cluster 2 (participation) represent a normative shift in the field towards participatory models. However, the persistent strength of cluster 3 (conflict) acts as a critical counterpoint, demonstrating that the implementation of these models remains deeply challenging due to entrenched power dynamic and inequities. The proposed theoretical frameworks- stakeholder, conflict, collaboration and common theories are not mutually exclusive but are instead used in combination throughout the literature to explain the phenomena within these clusters. For example, the work of (Jamal & and Stronza, 2009) successfully integrates stakeholder and conflict theory to analyze collaboration, demonstrating this synthesis. The challenges as our analysis shows, is moving from theoretical aspiration to practical implementation where inclusive collaboration often remains elusive. The high citation of studies on local perception (Karanth & Nepal, 2012b ) indicates a field that is strong on diagnosing problems but is still developing and robustly evaluating effective solutions. The modest international co-authorship rate (35.82%) suggests there is still room for grater collaboration between researchers in the global north and global south to ensure contextually grounded and equitable research outcomes. The findings highlight the necessity of multidisciplinary methods and the incorporation of various stakeholder viewpoints in planning for ecotourism and conservation. Improved partnerships among local communities, policymakers and academic institutions can promote sustainable practices and increase the impact of research. 6. Conclusion The growing need to address environmental and social issues is reflected in the growing scholarly interest in ecotourism and conservation. The introduction of ideas such as community involvement, sustainable development and biodiversity conservation shows how the field has progressed from theoretical debate to practical research with practical applications. The bibliometric review has systematically mapped the extensive body of literature on community tourism conflicts and collaborations in the national parks. By delineating the key thematic clusters, influential works and underlying theoretical foundations. This study provides a robust foundation for understanding the field’s current state. The analysis confirms that the central challenges remain reconciling ecological preservation with social justice through effective, equitable and adaptive governance. Addressing these challenges require continued interdisciplinary effort that prioritize genuine community engagement, learns from diverse geographical contexts and adapts to an increasingly complex global environment. This research serves as a roadmap for scholars and practitioners committed to fostering a more sustainable and equitable future for the world’s national parks. The trend towards interdisciplinary approaches that combine ecology, sociology and economics is highlighted by the co-word analysis. Notably, new developments like the effects of climate change, ecosystem services and regional research in places like Africa and India are in line with international goals for sustainable development. Despite the distribution of research worldwide being encouraging, there are still gaps in under-represented areas. Because of its ecological and cultural diversity, the Global South presents a wealth of opportunities for research on ecotourism. The delay in scholarly engagement with emerging research is also indicated by the decline in citation rates for recent publications, which could be a result of delays in paradigm shift adaptation. 7. Implications Theoretical implication The findings from this bibliometric analysis carry significant and actionable implications for researchers, policymakers and practitioners engaged in the nexus of national parks, tourism and community development. For researchers, the study charts a clear course for future inquiry by highlighting critical geographical and thematic gaps. The strong focus on specific regions like Africa and India, while valuable, points to the need for more comparative studies in under-represented biodiversity hotspots, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, to build a truly global knowledge base. Furthermore, the identification of distinct yet interconnected thematic clusters underscores the necessity for deeply interdisciplinary methodologies that integrate ecological, sociological and economic lenses to fully capture the complexity of community-park dynamics. The emergence of keywords like "ecosystem services" and the looming challenge of "climate change" present fertile ground for research that explores the resilience of community-based tourism models in an era of environmental crisis. Managerial Implications For policymakers and park managers, the analysis offers a compelling evidence base for shifting from top-down directives to inclusive, collaborative governance. The centrality of Community Participation and Sustainability (Cluster 2) in the literature is a powerful mandate to move beyond tokenistic consultation and institutionalize genuine co-management structures, equitable benefit-sharing agreements and transparent decision-making processes. Simultaneously, the persistent relevance of Conservation Conflicts and Development Dynamics (Cluster 3) serves as a critical warning, urging the development of conflict-sensitive management frameworks that include proactive stakeholder analysis and accessible grievance mechanisms. Policymakers are also positioned to foster the multi-stakeholder partnerships necessary to ensure tourism revenue directly supports both conservation targets and local livelihood goals, thereby aligning the interests of all parties. Practical Implications For practitioners on the ground, including tourism operators and NGOs, the study reinforces the operational value of ethical and equitable engagement. The principles derived from the literature, particularly from Commons Theory, advocate for a model where tourism products are co-designed with local communities to ensure cultural appropriateness, environmental sustainability and local ownership, which in turn mitigates conflict. To address the economic disparities that often fuel tensions, operators should implement policies for preferential local hiring and sourcing, transforming communities from passive beneficiaries into active economic partners. Finally, NGOs and developers can play a pivotal role by investing in capacity-building programs that equip community members with the skills in business, hospitality and conservation management needed to engage as confident and equal partners in the tourism enterprise. Collectively, these implications provide a roadmap for transforming research insights into practical actions that foster more sustainable, just and resilient futures for the world's national parks and their surrounding communities. 8. Future Directions This study highlights several areas for future research to deepen our understanding of ecotourism and its broader implications. One key area is addressing geographical gaps by focusing on regions that are under-represented. Especially the Global South where rich biodiversity and cultural heritage offer unique insights into the connections between conservation, community development and tourism. The Incorporation of indigenous knowledge systems into ecotourism research represents an appealing possibility for explorations. Exploring the way in which traditional ecological practices contribute to sustainability and empower local communities can provide valuable lessons. This is particularly true where indigenous communities play a central role in tourism initiatives. Long-term studies are also needed to evaluate the real environmental, social and economic outcomes of ecotourism projects. This will give stakeholders clearer evidence to improve policies and practices. Technology offers exciting opportunities to enhance ecotourism management. Tools like artificial intelligence, big data analytics and geographic information systems (GIS) can help monitor biodiversity, track tourist behavior and optimize resource use. In the context of climatic change future research should explore resilience and adaptation strategies for ecotourism destinations and examine how ecotourism can raise climate awareness and promote environmental justice. Overall future work should embrace interdisciplinary approaches, prioritize local voices and focus on building sustainable and equitable partnerships between communities and protected areas. Declarations Author’s Contributions: Prashant Kashyap led the study by designing the research methodology, performing the data extraction and analysis using VOSviewer and Bibliometrix, and writing the first draft. Dr. Anil Kumar provided overall supervision, managed the project, and performed the final editing and critical review of the paper. Shivam Samyal assisted with data validation, created the visualizations and maps, and helped with the literature review. Manju Soren contributed to the formal analysis, formatted the manuscript, and helped write the discussion and conclusion sections. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. Ethical Approval This study is bibliometric review based on secondary data obtained from the Scopus database. It did not involve human participations, animals or any field experiments. Therefore, IRB approval and informed consent were not required. Funding The research received no external funding. Consent to Publish Not Applicable Consent to Participate Not Applicable Data Availability Statement Conflicts of interest The author declares no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgement Not applicable References Adewumi IB. (2018, December 31). Community-Based Tourism in National Parks in Developed and Developing Countries: Comparative Study of Yakushima National Park, Japan and Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Community-Based-Tourism-in-National-Parks-in-and-of-Adewumi/7d7bfda354568e96700040cf630010216a44f7d6?utm_source=consensus Al Haija AA. Jordan: Tourism and conflict with local communities. Habitat Int. 2011;35(1):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.04.002 . Archabald K, Naughton-Treves L. Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environ Conserv. 2001a;28(2):135–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000145 . Archabald K, Naughton-Treves L. Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environ Conserv. 2001b;28(2):135–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000145 . Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetrics. 2017;11(4):959–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 . Baas J, Schotten M, Plume A, Côté G, Karimi R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):377–86. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019 . Bello FG, Lovelock B, Carr N. Enhancing community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in developing countries: Lessons from Malawi. Tourism Hospitality Res. 2018;18(3):309–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416647763 . Bello FG, Lovelock, Brent,and, Carr N. Constraints of community participation in protected area-based tourism planning: The case of Malawi. J Ecotourism. 2017;16(2):131–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2016.1251444 . Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Dudley N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en van Eck N, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2009;84(2):523–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 . Ghoddousi S, Pintassilgo P, Mendes J, Ghoddousi A, Sequeira B. Tourism and nature conservation: A case study in Golestan National Park, Iran. Tourism Manage Perspect. 2018;26:20–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.12.006 . Goodwin H. Local Community Involvement in Tourism around National Parks: Opportunities and Constraints. Curr Issues Tourism. 2002;5(3–4):338–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500208667928 . Hemson G, Maclennan S, Mills G, Johnson P, Macdonald D. Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol Conserv. 2009a;142(11):2718–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024 . Hemson G, Maclennan S, Mills G, Johnson P, Macdonald D. Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol Conserv. 2009b;142(11):2718–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024 . Hossain NUI, Dayarathna VL, Nagahi M, Jaradat R. Systems Thinking: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Systems. 2020;8(3):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8030023 . Hough JL. Obstacles to Effective Management of Conflicts Between National Parks and Surrounding Human Communities in Developing Countries. Environ Conserv. 1988;15(2):129–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900028939 . Jamal T,and, Stronza A. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. J Sustainable Tourism. 2009;17(2):169–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495741 . Jamal T, Stronza A. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. J Sustainable Tourism. 2009;17(2):169–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495741 . Jena RK, Goswami R. Measuring the Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Global Bus Rev. 2014;15(2):381–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914523587 . Kaltenborn BP,and, Williams DR. The meaning of place: Attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Nor J Geogr. 2002;56(3):189–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950260293011 . Karanth KK, Nepal SK. Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses From Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environ Manage. 2012a;49(2):372–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1 . Karanth KK, Nepal SK. Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses From Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environ Manage. 2012b;49(2):372–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1 . Kiconco M, Alinda K, Mwebaza S, Ssemata R. (2025). Livelihood strategies for achieving sustainable livelihood outcomes among communities near national parks in Uganda: A study of tourism-related and non-tourism-related approaches. Tourism Critiques: Practice and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1108/TRC-09-2024-0052 Larson LR, Conway AL, Krafte KE, Hernandez SM, Carroll JP. Community-based conservation as a potential source of conflict around a protected area in Sierra Leone. Environ Conserv. 2016;43(3):242–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000096 . Mbaiwa JE. Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J Environ Manage. 2005;77(2):144–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.007 . Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open Medicine; 2009. Ojijo CR, Steiger R. Residents’ preferences for tourism development in a protected area: A choice experiment. Tourism Rev. 2025;80(2):529–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-10-2023-0713 . Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001 . Plummer R. The Adaptive Co-Management Process: An Initial Synthesis of Representative Models and Influential Variables. Ecol Soc. 2009;14(2):art24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03130-140224 . Plummer R, Fennell DA. Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. J Sustainable Tourism. 2009;17(2):149–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802359301 . PRISMA statement. (n.d.). PRISMA Statement. Retrieved May 21. 2025, from https://www.prisma-statement.org Ramaano AI. Toward tourism-oriented community-based natural resource management for sustainability and climate change mitigation leadership in rural municipalities. J Humanit Appl Social Sci. 2025;7(2):107–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-07-2024-0099 . Samal R, Dash M. Stakeholder engagement in advancing sustainable ecotourism: An exploratory case study of Chilika Wetland. Discover Sustain. 2024;5(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00233-2 . Simakani A, Mashapa C, Muboko N, Mutanga CN, Gandiwa E. Trends and local perceptions of human-crocodile conflicts in Kariba town, northern Zimbabwe. Hum Dimensions Wildl. 2024;29(4):432–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2243970 . Spenceley A, editor. Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development. Earthscan; 2008. Stone MT. Community-based ecotourism: A collaborative partnerships perspective. J Ecotourism. 2015;14(2–3):166–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2015.1023309 . Stone MT,and, Nyaupane GP. Protected areas, wildlife-based community tourism and community livelihoods dynamics: Spiraling up and down of community capitals. J Sustainable Tourism. 2018;26(2):307–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1349774 . Trakolis D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. J Environ Manage. 2001a;61(3):227–41. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0410 . Trakolis D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. J Environ Manage. 2001b;61(3):227–41. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0410 . Van Raan A. The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. TATuP - Z Für Technikfolgenabschätzung Theorie Und Praxis. 2003;12(1):20–9. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.12.1.20 . Xu J, Lü Y, Chen L, Liu Y. Contribution of tourism development to protected area management: Local stakeholder perspectives. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 2009;16(1):30–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500902757189 . Zakaria R, Ahmi A, Ahmad AH, Othman Z, Azman KF, Aziz A, Ismail CB, C. A. N., Shafin N. Visualising and mapping a decade of literature on honey research: A bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2020. J Apic Res. 2021;60(3):359–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2021.1898789 . Zhang Z, Sherman R, Yang Z, Wu R, Wang W, Yin M, Yang G, Ou X. Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China. J Nat Conserv. 2013;21(4):225–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.12.006 . Zube EH. Local and extra-local perceptions of national parks and protected areas. Landsc Urban Plann. 1986;13:11–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90003-4 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 04 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 12 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 12 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8707028","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":592552487,"identity":"2c13f3fc-d7d4-44fd-902e-a09dd0a1d225","order_by":0,"name":"Prashant Kashyap","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Haryana","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Prashant","middleName":"","lastName":"Kashyap","suffix":""},{"id":592552489,"identity":"7b86f9a4-4f43-42ed-8505-accd9dbb4228","order_by":1,"name":"Anil Kumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Haryana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anil","middleName":"","lastName":"Kumar","suffix":""},{"id":592552491,"identity":"3f5a2093-8331-403b-8f2a-7cf1f2b91415","order_by":2,"name":"Shivam Samyal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Haryana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shivam","middleName":"","lastName":"Samyal","suffix":""},{"id":592552493,"identity":"c7130514-f49a-44a9-9133-441867529328","order_by":3,"name":"manju soren","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Haryana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"manju","middleName":"","lastName":"soren","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-27 07:23:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8707028/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8707028/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102970942,"identity":"04972d8c-1695-4b49-bd90-57a21a1de472","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 06:06:17","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProcess of extracting documents\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Compiled by the author using PRISMA \u003ca href=\"http://www.prisma-statement.org/\"\u003ehttp://www.prisma-statement.org/\u003c/a\u003e(\u003cem\u003ePRISMA statement\u003c/em\u003e, 2025) (Moher et al., 2009; Zakaria et al., 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/77034e3cc2bde983aa9609d9.png"},{"id":102970943,"identity":"8f896f42-59c2-48a1-ad6b-2a9a56c708bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 06:06:17","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAnnual scientific publications\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSources: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/9ee2fa403ce93e8b0efbd443.png"},{"id":103049822,"identity":"1c71e9be-60f0-49a5-8dcd-387f204daaea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:46:37","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":97297,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMost Productive Journal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSources: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/bb13af0141dfd03302ecfa61.png"},{"id":103049388,"identity":"afcf0b12-4b92-4ab1-874c-e60ab6ac3ba4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:40:38","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76833,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMost Productive Authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSources: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/07546e5b43f0b7056b3ad282.png"},{"id":102970945,"identity":"6bda5756-e00a-4dd0-bcc8-3a1d66fea5ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 06:06:17","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage citations per year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSources: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/74b53b1bd2a8d11de44047bb.png"},{"id":103049594,"identity":"88c53cc2-afba-4ee8-805b-f1c68ae31ef9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:43:17","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73636,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eJournals Production over Year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSources: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/ec0ca57859e97d9e406c72b3.png"},{"id":102970947,"identity":"fed65691-748b-4561-b009-5e9ae651bb99","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 06:06:17","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54401,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMost Productive Affliation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/fd442720b22efb17a0c7c461.png"},{"id":103049429,"identity":"5ae25c0e-4ba8-496e-95ad-df78a1dd683d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:41:13","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41938,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMost Cited Countries\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/3bdf8439cd1063a5167e1183.png"},{"id":103049434,"identity":"283a777a-5a28-4640-aaeb-8105c20a3f98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:41:14","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":291339,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-occurrences analysis of Author’s Keywords\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s own work (used VOS Viewer)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/0d40401a476904dcbc794de0.png"},{"id":102970951,"identity":"ef22a22b-05fe-4022-a251-3c0d0f724c8a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 06:06:18","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1537372,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-word Analysis of Indexed Keywords\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s own work (used VOS Viewer)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/e4793dd02f920ac9113d3a70.png"},{"id":102970948,"identity":"e741bf55-754a-4d04-a111-49da78394050","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 06:06:17","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-citation Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s own work (used RStudio)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/2703395c37fff6553d082d4d.png"},{"id":103049865,"identity":"56e82e8c-1a6c-40e8-a7ad-e86f2ce72f59","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:46:56","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eco-citation analysis: Thematic cluster\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s own work (used Vos viewer)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/05656329a805ee232191d394.png"},{"id":103051142,"identity":"28882857-b5c3-4d4b-8d80-fa3db552cef6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-20 07:58:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3371818,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8707028/v1/c9d6274f-5bf3-4364-8c9a-450ea9a4087b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Mapping Community–Tourism Conflicts and Collaborative Governance in National Parks: A Bibliometric Analysis (2000–2025)","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNational parks are important ecological, cultural and recreational resources that contribute significantly to international initiatives for sustainable development and environmental preservation (Goodwin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). As per the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) a protected area is defined as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural value\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Dudley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). These are designed to preserve biodiversity while accommodating human use. Over recent decades, national parks have emerged not only as centers for conservation but also as focal points for tourism development. This growth in nature based tourism creates opportunities for ecological education and local economic development but it also generates tensions and trade-offs between preservation goals and the pressures of tourism-driven commercialization (Spenceley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTourism within national parks can yield considerable benefits. It generates essential revenue for conservation projects and supports the operational costs of protected area management. Additionally, tourism can provide critical livelihood opportunities for local communities living in or near park boundaries (Kiconco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These include employment in hospitality and guiding services, entrepreneurship in local handicrafts and food services and income through community-based tourism initiatives. In regions with limited economic alternatives, particularly rural and marginalized areas, such benefits can be transformative (Goodwin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Jamal \u0026amp; Stronza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Infrastructure developments associated with tourism such as roads, water supply and health services- often spill over to benefit the broader community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intersection of tourism and conservation is fraught with its challenges. Conflicts frequently arise from the competing interests of various stakeholders - most notably, conservation authorities, tourism developers and local communities (Larson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Ojijo \u0026amp; Steiger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Xu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Land use, resource access, economic inequality and cultural identity are frequently the root causes of these conflicts. A primary cause is the lack of clear communication and inclusive decision-making where park officials often fail to engage local stakeholders authentically, leading to choices that don\u0026rsquo;t reflect community objectives, values or interest (Adewumi, 2018; Hough, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) (Hough, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Zube, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). This can result in circumstances in which the financial gains from tourism are not fairly shared, leading to feelings of exploitation and unfair treatment among local stakeholders (Al Haija, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, conflict is not the only outcome. There is growing exploration of cooperative strategies that combine conservation, community development and sustainable tourism (Ramaano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Samal \u0026amp; Dash, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Models that have demonstrated promise in fostering win-win outcomes include benefit-sharing frameworks, co-management and community \u0026ndash; based natural resource management (CBNRM) (Jamal \u0026amp; Stronza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Scholarly interest in these topics has grown dramatically which indicates a greater understanding of the connection between social justice and environmental preservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this growing body of literature, a comprehensive synthesis of the fields intellectual structure is lacking. While prior reviews exist (e.g., on community participation or park governance) none have employed bibliometric methods to map the entire research landscape of community-tourism conflicts and collaborations specially within national parks. This gap is significant because bibliometric analysis can objectively identify dominant themes, emerging trends, influential works and geographical foci in a way that traditional narrative reviews cannot (Hossain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This review aims to fill this gap by systematically analyzing the literature from 2000 onwards- a period chosen because it marks the rise of participatory conservation paradigms post 1992 Earth summit and the wide spread adoption of sustainability frameworks in tourism. This timeframe captures the modern era of grappling with these complex issues. In view of this, the current study conducts a thorough bibliometric review of the literature written between 2000 and 2025 in order to methodically examine research patterns. It poses the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1: What are the publication trends, key journals and influential authors and countries in this field?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2: What are the major thematic clusters defining the intellectual structure of research on community-tourism conflicts and collaborations in national parks?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ3: What theoretical frame works under pin these thematic clusters?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ4: What gaps and future research directions emerge from this analysis?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis review attempts to support both scholarly discussion and real\u0026ndash;world decision-making in national park management by synthesizing the body of existing work. It is anticipated that the study\u0026rsquo;s conclusions will provide insightful information to local communities, policymakers, conservationists and tourism developers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research paper uses a systematic search of the Scopus database to gather articles on national park tourism and community conflicts or collaboration. The data collection process included the following steps:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Database selection and parameters\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Scopus database has been selected due to its extensive coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed journals across social and environmental science making it a standard source of bibliometric reviews (Baas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The publication period was restricted to the year 2000 to 2025. The year 2000 was selected as a logical starting point as it marks the beginning of a modern era in conservation and tourism scholarship, characterized by the solidification of sustainable development goals. It is the mainstreaming of community-based conservation models post-1992 Earth summit and a significant increase in academic output addressing community-park relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2 Keyword Selection and Initial Data Retrieval\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic and structured approach has been used to find relevant articles during the scanning phase of this bibliometric study. Because it covers a large number of peer-reviewed academic publications, the Scopus database has chosen. \u0026ldquo;National Park\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;Tourism\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;Community\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;Collaboration\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Conflicts\u0026rdquo; were among the specific keywords that were used in the search strategy. These keywords have been specifically selected to concentrate on studies examining the connections between tourism in national parks, nearby communities, collaborative efforts and developing disputes. Several filters were applied to ensure the documents academic quality and relevance. We considered only journal articles which were published in English. A total of 194 papers from the first search were examined for relevancy using keywords, abstracts and titles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ewe used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta\u0026ndash;Analyses) framework to ensure a transparent and reproduceable screening process (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e showcases the detailed flow of information through different phase of the review. Initially, 194 records were identified from the Scopus database after removing any duplicates using relevant keywords and search criteria. Out of these, 60 records were excluded based on language and document type which included book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials and non-peer-reviewed content. As a result, 134 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. All were deemed relevant and included in the final analysis, forming the dataset for this bibliometric review.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using two specialized software tools: VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) for network visualization (Eck \u0026amp; Waltman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Van Raan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). and RStudio (version 2024.04.0) with the bibliometrix package (Aria \u0026amp; Cuccurullo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) for statistical analysis and data handling. This mixed-method approach is considered robust for bibliometric science mapping to explore the existing literature. We applied various techniques including citation analysis, co-citation analysis, co-word analysis, co-authorship analysis and thematic analysis. We applied various techniques including:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDescriptive Performance Analysis\u003c/b\u003e: This includes examining publications over the selected time frame between 2000 and 2025 to identify the most productive authors, most productive countries, most cited publications and most productive organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eScience Mapping\u003c/b\u003e: This include co-word analysis (Keyword co-occurrence) to identify key research themes and co-citation analysis to map the intellectual foundations of the field by examining how documents are cited together. The analysis is structured as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasic features analysis (Publication trends, top productive authors, most productive countries, most cited publications and most productive organizations, most cited documents).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eScience mapping analysis: Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic cluster interpretation based on co-citation network\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Basic Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.1 Main information about data\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric analysis consists of literature published between 2000 and 2025. A total of 134 journal articles has been analyzed which were sourced from 99 different sources, with an average age of 8.81 years, and an average of 26.2 citations per document, indicating the depth of research in this field. A total of 424 authors contributed to the publications, 26 of which were single-authored. The average number of co-authors per document was 3.26, indicating collaborative efforts. Notably, 35.82% of the documents involve international co-authorship, suggesting a global research engagement. All selected documents are articles, ensuring consistency in document type for the analysis. Table\u0026nbsp;1 represents the data in tabular form for better understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable I: Main information about data\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMAIN INFORMATION ABOUT DATA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTimespan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2000:2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSources (Journals, Books, etc)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDocuments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual Growth Rate %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDocument Average Age\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage citations per doc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReferences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6973\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOCUMENT CONTENTS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeywords Plus (ID)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e604\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthor\u0026apos;s Keywords (DE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e534\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAUTHORS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e424\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthors of single-authored docs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAUTHORS COLLABORATION\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle-authored docs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-Authors per Doc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational co-authorships %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOCUMENT TYPES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArticle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSources: Author\u0026rsquo;s own work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.2 \u003cem\u003eAnnual publications over the years\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe line graph titled \u0026quot;Annual Scientific Production\u0026quot; illustrates the number of articles published annually from 2000 to 2024. The trend reveals a fluctuating but generally increasing pattern in scientific output over the years. Early in the years (2000\u0026ndash;2009) saw relatively low and inconsistent publication rates often fewer than five articles per year. A noticeable increase begins around 2012 that peaks in 2013 and then again in 2021 and 2023, with more than 10 articles in those years. Despite minor dips, the overall trend indicates growing academic interest in the topic, especially in the last decade, highlighting its rising research significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.3 Most productive journals\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the top academic journals that have published the highest number of documents related to the selected research topic. It shows that \u0026ldquo;Conservation and Society\u0026quot; and the \u0026quot;Journal of Sustainable Tourism\u0026quot; are leading the list with each contributing 5 documents. These sources indicate a strong alignment with themes of environmental conservation, community involvement, and sustainable practices within tourism and protected areas. Following closely are four journals \u0026ldquo;African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Journal of Ecotourism\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Journal of Environmental Management\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;Tropical Conservation Science\u0026quot; each publishing 4 documents. These journals emphasize interdisciplinary research that integrates tourism, ecological sustainability and community collaboration or conflict management that are core to the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, the chart highlights that the relevant literature is spread across journals focusing on tourism, sustainability, conservation and environmental management which emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature and growing academic interest in the relationship between communities, tourism and natural resource management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.4 Most productive authors\u003c/strong\u003e. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e titled \u0026quot;Most Relevant Authors\u0026quot; displays the leading contributors to the academic literature concerning national parks, tourism, community collaboration and conflict. The dataset includes 11 authors each having contributed 2 documents. Notable names include Adams CE, Biggs D, Braczkowski A, Fattebert J, Kaltenborn BP, Nyaupane GP and others. The uniformity in contribution indicates that there is no dominant author which suggests a broad and collaborative research community rather than a field driven by a few key figures. These authors likely focus on interdisciplinary themes including ecotourism, community-based conservation, participatory management and the socio-environmental implications of tourism development in protected areas. Their repeated contributions highlight their continued involvement and expertise in the field. This has helped shape the discussion on sustainable tourism and human-nature interactions. This distribution also points to the growing interest and diversification of scholarly perspectives in this area over the past two decades.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.5 Average Citations per Year\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e titled \u0026quot;Average Citations per Year\u0026quot; illustrates the average number of citations received by the documents published each year between 2000 and 2024. The trend is notably fluctuating, with peaks observed in 2002, 2008 and 2018 where average citations exceeded 5 citations per document. These peaks suggest that documents from these years had greater academic impact or more frequently referenced in subsequent research. Some years, such as 2006, 2007 and 2010, show near-zero citation averages, indicating either lower visibility or recent publication with insufficient time for citation accumulation. Post-2019, there is a gradual decline in average citations, with 2023 and 2024 showing the lowest citation averages, likely because recent publications have not yet had time to be widely cited. Overall, the graph reflects both the changing academic influence of documents over time and the typical citation lag for newly published works.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.6 Journals Production over Year\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e displays the cumulative occurrences of publications over time across six prominent academic sources related to ecotourism, conservation, and environmental management. The x-axis outlines the temporal span from 2000 to 2024 and the y-axis illustrates the cumulative number of occurrences (publications) for each journal.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Journal of Environmental Management\u0026rdquo; shows the earliest and most sustained publication trend with steady contributions starting in 2000 and plateauing after 2005. \u0026ldquo;The African Journal of Hospitality\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Tourism and Leisure\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Tropical Conservation Science\u0026rdquo; also exhibit continuous growth in publications, especially after 2015. This reflects growing academic interest in tourism and biodiversity from an African context. \u0026ldquo;The Journal of Ecotourism and Conservation and Society\u0026rdquo; gained momentum around 2016 and 2018 respectively, indicating their increasing relevance in ecotourism and community conservation discussions. \u0026ldquo;The Journal of Sustainable Tourism\u0026rdquo; shows a strong upward trend between 2016 and 2020, reaching a cumulative peak by 2020 and sustaining it. This visualization highlights a notable shift in research output post 2010 with newer sources gaining prominence. The diversity in journal sources also suggests a multidisciplinary approach to the research. It covers hospitality, ecology, sustainability and local community issues critical components of ecotourism and protected area research.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.7 Most Relevant Affiliation\u003c/strong\u003e: The chart showcases the most relevant academic affiliations contributing to research fields of ecotourism, conservation and sustainable tourism, measured by the number of published articles. Lincoln University emerges as the top contributor with 8 articles signifying its strong focus on environmental and tourism-related studies. This reflects Lincoln University\u0026apos;s dedication to research that bridges sustainability and practical tourism development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFollowing closely are Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and IPB University (Indonesia) each contributing 7 articles which highlight their active roles in promoting sustainability-focused scholarship within their regions. These institutions are likely engaged in interdisciplinary research across conservation biology, community-based tourism and environmental management. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, University of Johannesburg, University of Oxford and Yunnan University each published 6 articles which indicate strong research output from both European and African institutions. This suggests a collaborative and geographically diverse academic interest in sustainable development and nature-based tourism. Other institutions like Hainan University, Kyrgyz National University and Beijing Normal University contributed 5 to 4 articles which indicate emerging yet impactful roles in the field. The chart highlights a globally distributed network of research affiliations, showcasing the increasing academic attention to sustainable tourism and conservation across continents.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.8 Most cited documents\u003c/strong\u003e: Table 2 displays the most globally cited academic documents related to protected areas and tourism. It also provides a visual comparison of citation counts for these documents which showcases their influence in the field based on how often they are referenced in another research. The methods used in these studies are diverse. These studies cover a wide geographical area including India, Nepal, Greece, Norway, China etc., These reflect the global relevance of protected area tourism. The most cited document is (Jamal \u0026amp; and Stronza, 2009) published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, with a significant 384 citations, indicating its foundational impact in the domain. Following closely are (Archabald \u0026amp; Naughton-Treves, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001a\u003c/span\u003e) in \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation\u003c/em\u003e with 213 citations and (Karanth \u0026amp; Nepal, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012a\u003c/span\u003e) in \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e with 185 citations, both contributing prominently to conservation and sustainable practices. Other notable works include (Hemson et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009a\u003c/span\u003e) and (Trakolis, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001a\u003c/span\u003e) with over 130 citations each, highlighting their importance in biodiversity conservation and visitor management. Studies by (Stone \u0026amp; and Nyaupane, 2018)and (Bello et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) reflect newer but impactful contributions, especially in sustainable tourism development. The range of citation counts reflects the diversity of topics which includes collaboration theories, local community involvement, human-wildlife conflicts, revenue-sharing and innovative conservation strategies. Overall, the table provides a valuable overview of influential research papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable II: Most cited documents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSerial no.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTitle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCitations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMethods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Jamal \u0026amp; and Stronza, 2009)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: stakeholders, structuring and sustainability\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e364\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMixed Approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Archabald \u0026amp; Naughton-Treves, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001a\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e213\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Karanth \u0026amp; Nepal, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012a\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses from Protected Areas in India and Nepal\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e185\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Hemson et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009a\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human-carnivore conflicts in Botswana.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e144\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMixed Approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Trakolis, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001a\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e136\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Kaltenborn \u0026amp; and Williams, 2002)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The meaning of place: Attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMixed method\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Stone \u0026amp; and Nyaupane, 2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Protected areas, wildlife-based community tourism and community livelihoods dynamics: spiraling up and down of community capitals\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Bello et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Constraints of community participation in protected areas-based tourism planning: the case of Malawi\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e94\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Zhang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMixed Approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Mbaiwa, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Wildlife resource utilization at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMixed Approach\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource: Author\u0026rsquo;s own work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.9 Most cited countries\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the most cited countries in academic literature related to ecotourism, conservation, and environmental studies based on the number of citations. The USA leads by a significant margin with 785 citations, which indicates its dominant influence and scholarly output in this research domain. The United Kingdom follows with 328 citations, which reflects its strong academic presence and research funding in environmental and tourism studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina ranks third with 201 citations, showing its growing research contributions particularly in sustainable development and conservation. Canada with 159 citations and Germany with 122 citations also demonstrate consistent academic output and influence. Botswana appears in the sixth position with 99 citations, which emphasizes the country\u0026apos;s significance in real-world ecotourism models and conservation practices in southern Africa. Other countries such as Norway (90), Malawi (81), India (58) and Portugal (56) show moderate influence contributing to region-specific studies and sustainable tourism efforts. The presence of African nations like Botswana and Malawi underlines the relevance of ecotourism and protected area research in biodiversity-rich, conservation-driven environments. This chart reveals the global distribution of impactful research, with both developed and developing nations contributing to the academic discourse on sustainability and ecotourism.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Science Mapping Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2.1 Author\u0026rsquo;s keyword co-occurrence analysis\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e displays the co-occurrence of author keywords in the bibliometric dataset. The network was created from 534 author keywords, setting a minimum threshold of 4 occurrences per keyword which resulted in 22 keywords being mapped. The size of the node represents the frequency of the keyword and the lines between nodes represent the strength of co-occurrences. The figure highlights several thematic clusters represented by different colour groupings. Central and most prominent keywords include \u0026ldquo;tourism,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;national park\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;protected areas\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;biodiversity\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;ecotourism\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;local community\u0026rdquo; indicating their strong relevance and centrality in the research domain. These terms reflect the thematic core of the literature on tourism and community collaboration in protected natural environments. Other frequently used keywords like \u0026ldquo;sustainable tourism\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;human-wildlife conflict\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;community participation\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;tourism management\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;community conservation\u0026rdquo; suggest growing scholarly interest in sustainable development, community involvement and conflict resolution within conservation areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe appearance of region-specific keywords like \u0026ldquo;India\u0026rdquo; reflects localized studies, while terms such as \u0026ldquo;ecosystem services\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;management\u0026rdquo; highlight interdisciplinary approaches combining ecology and policy. This map helps identify major research trends and key thematic clusters in the literature on tourism, conservation, and community engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2.2 Indexed keyword co-occurrence analysis\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e visualizes indexed keywords from the bibliometric dataset, highlighting those with a minimum occurrence of four. Out of 604 total keywords, 45 met the threshold for inclusion. This analysis provides a complementary perspective to the author keywords as index keywords are algorithmically generated from the tiles of cited references often capturing broader thematic concepts. The darker blue areas represent keywords with higher frequency and stronger interconnections in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey terms such as \u0026ldquo;national park\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;protected area\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;local participation\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;ecotourism\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;tourism\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;conservation\u0026rdquo; appear most prominently, reflecting central themes around community engagement, biodiversity protection and nature-based tourism. Other notable terms include \u0026ldquo;tourism management\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;conflict management\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;stakeholder\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;participatory approach\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;wildlife management\u0026rdquo; which suggest a multidisciplinary interest in governance, participation, and sustainability. Geographical identifiers like \u0026ldquo;India\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Africa\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Sub-Saharan Africa\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Botswana\u0026rdquo; reveal the regional focus of many studies. Topics such as \u0026ldquo;climate change\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;environmental planning\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;cost-benefit analysis\u0026rdquo; point to the integration of ecological, economic, and policy perspectives. Overall, the heatmap demonstrates a rich and diverse research landscape focused on balancing tourism, conservation and community interests in protected natural environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2.3 Co-citation analysis\u003c/strong\u003e: Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e represents a co-citation network of referenced authors. Co-citation analysis examines how often two documents are cited together by later publications, revealing the intellectual foundations and thematic groups within field of ecotourism, conservation, and sustainable tourism. Each node (circle) represents an author, while the size of the node indicates the number of times that author has been cited in the analysed literature. Lines connecting the nodes reflect co-citation relationships\u0026mdash;meaning those authors have been cited together in one or more publications. The colours signify clusters of authors who are commonly cited together, indicating thematic or intellectual similarity in their research focus.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor instance, the red cluster includes authors like (Hemson et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009a\u003c/span\u003e) (Bello et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e),(Stone, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and (Ghoddousi et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) that indicate strong thematic alignment, possibly around wildlife tourism or community-based conservation. The purple cluster, centred on (Archabald \u0026amp; Naughton-Treves, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001a\u003c/span\u003e) and Karanth KK. (2012) may focus on park management and human-wildlife conflict. The blue cluster, including Goswami R. (2014) and (Simakani et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) Mutanga CN.( 2024), may reflect more recent or region-specific research in sustainable development. Similarly, green and orange clusters represent smaller thematic subfields or newer research directions. Overall, this visualization helps identify influential authors, research trends and academic collaboration patterns within the literature on ecotourism and conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBased on this co-citation analysis, three major thematic clusters were identified and are visualized in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e. The following section interprets the intellectual content of each cluster.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Thematic cluster\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3.1 Co-citation analysis (thematic clusters)\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e Co-citation analysis has been employed in this study to clarify the theoretical relationships between keywords in the field of national park tourism and community collaboration or conflicts. The co-citation analysis reveals three distinct yet interconnected thematic. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e represents the three clusters that encompass themes such as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eProtected area \u0026amp; tourism management\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Community participation \u0026amp; sustainability\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;conservation conflicts and development Dynamics\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCluster 1: Protected area \u0026amp; tourism management\u003c/strong\u003e: The first thematic cluster explores into the intricate relationship between tourism and the management of protected areas that emphasizes biodiversity conservation, sustainable tourism practices and wildlife protection. Keywords such as biodiversity, national park, nature-based tourism, sustainable tourism, wildlife conservation and community participation underline the primary focus on conserving biodiversity while promoting tourism. Protected areas that include national parks and biosphere reserves serve as key sites for eco-tourism which required thoughtful planning to balance environmental preservation with socio-economic benefits. Seminal works in this cluster such as (Jamal \u0026amp; and Stronza, 2009; Trakolis, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001b\u003c/span\u003e) focus on the operational challenges of managing visitor flows and ecological impacts. The inclusion of stakeholders and tourism management highlights the critical role of collaborative governance in achieving long-term sustainability for these natural spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCluster 2: Community participation \u0026amp; sustainability\u003c/strong\u003e: This cluster underscores the essential role of local communities in preservation and tourism efforts with an emphasis on sustainability and participatory governance. Keywords and cited works (Bello et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Karanth \u0026amp; Nepal, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012b\u003c/span\u003e) reflect the centrality of community engagement while focusing on understanding local perceptions and designing model for participation. This cluster explores how community participation enhances the sustainability of protected areas and their associated ecosystem services while fostering economic empowerment for local populations. By focusing on stakeholders\u0026rsquo; engagement and understanding their attitudes and perceptions the cluster highlights the significance of participatory approaches in ensuring the success of conservation initiatives and sustainable tourism.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCluster 3: conservation conflicts and development dynamics\u003c/strong\u003e: This cluster focuses on the socio-political and ecological challenges at the interface of conservation and development particularly the issues surrounding human-wildlife conflicts. Keywords like conflicts, political ecology, partnerships, development, local community, sustainable tourism and nature-based tourism illustrate the theme of governance and conflict resolution. Cited works like (Archabald \u0026amp; Naughton-Treves, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001b\u003c/span\u003e; Hemson et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009b\u003c/span\u003e) examines the realities of exclusion, benefit distribution and resistance. It examines the tradeoffs between development and conservation that consider the role of stakeholders and the importance of fostering partnerships to mitigate conflicts. This cluster also highlights the socio-political dimensions of conservation through political ecology that addresses how governance structures and policies affect local communities and biodiversity. By integrating conflict resolution strategies and development dynamics, this cluster contributes to understanding the complexities of achieving harmony between human activities and wildlife conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Theoretical perspectives","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis bibliometric review utilizes a multi-framework approach to examine the dynamics of disputes and partnerships between communities and tourists in national parks. The theoretical framework is based on stakeholder engagement, adaptive governance and the collaborative governance aspects of tourism in protected areas. These theories are interrelated and often used in combination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.1 Stakeholder theory (community participation and sustainability\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e Stakeholder theory (Byrd,2007) establishes a framework for analyzing the interactions, negotiations of interests and impacts of various actors - local communities, governments, visitor and NGOs on tourism development results. It highlights that discord among stakeholders frequently leads to conflicts over resource utilization and opposition to conservation initiatives. It is essential for understanding the Who in collaboration and conflict, making it a cross-cutting theory that informs all three clusters from managing multiple stakeholders in cluster 1 to negotiating participation in cluster 2 and navigating power struggles in cluster 3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.2 Commons Theory and the Socio-Ecological Systems Framework (Protected areas and Tourism Management)\u003c/b\u003e Ostrom\u0026rsquo;s commons theory, elaborated through the social Ecological Systems (SES) framework, explains how communities might autonomously organize and govern common-pool resources such as biodiversity and forest ecosystems (Berkes et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This viewpoint is essential for realizing collaboration in tourist governance. This theory is particularly relevant to cluster 2 as it provides the structural and design principles for successful community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and community-based tourism, offering a proven model for achieving the participation and sustainability goals central to that cluster.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Conflict\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTheory in Tourism (Conservation Conflicts and Development Dynamics)\u003c/b\u003e Conflict theory offers frameworks to analyses power imbalances, displacement and resistance in conservation areas. It provides the critical lens for cluster 3 explaining why conflicts arise from systematic discrimination and unequal distribution of costs and benefits, rather than merely from divergent objectives. Its insights are also crucial for cluster 2 as failed participation often stems from these underlying conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.4 Collaborative Governance and Adaptive Co- Management (Bridging all three clusters\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e This methodology emphasizes collaborative decision-making, continuous learning and the establishment of trust among stakeholders. (Plummer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Plummer \u0026amp; Fennell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that adaptive co-management in protected areas enhances sustainability results and mitigates conflicts arising from tourism. It represents the practical How- the set of processes and models that seek to overcome the challenges identified by stakeholder and conflict theory. It is the theoretical response to the problems outlined in cluster 3 and the operationalization of the ideals presented in cluster 1 and 2, aiming to achieve the sustainability and management goals they pursue.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric analysis provides an in-depth understanding of the scholarly landscape on ecotourism, conservation and sustainable tourism. Within 134 articles from 99 sources spanning 2000 to 2025, this field demonstrates steady growth, with an annual publication rate of 3.73%. Thematic diversity as reflected by 534 author keywords and 604 keywords plus, highlights the multidisciplinary nature of research. The research focuses on key areas such as biodiversity conservation, protected areas and community engagement. Collaboration among 424 authors and a 35.82% rate of international co-authorship underscore the global relevance and collective effort in addressing the complex challenges of sustainable tourism and environmental management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe steady growth in annual publications, particularly post 2010 reflects a rising global recognition of the critical need to balance conservation objective with socio economic equity. The prominence of journals like \u0026ldquo;The Journal of Sustainable Tourism\u0026rdquo; reveal the fields interdisciplinary nature, straddling environment management, sociology and tourism studies. Moreover, co-authorship and institutional collaborations illustrate a small but highly influential network driving advancement in this domain. The analysis also highlights the rising prominence of research contributions from regions like Africa and Asia. This pattern signifies that the empirical context for this research is often situated in biodiversity-rich developing nations where community-park conflicts are most acute, even if the theoretical frameworks are frequently developed in the global North.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe keyword and co-citation analyses converge to define the fields core preoccupations through three clusters. The progression from cluster 1 (management) to cluster 2 (participation) represent a normative shift in the field towards participatory models. However, the persistent strength of cluster 3 (conflict) acts as a critical counterpoint, demonstrating that the implementation of these models remains deeply challenging due to entrenched power dynamic and inequities. The proposed theoretical frameworks- stakeholder, conflict, collaboration and common theories are not mutually exclusive but are instead used in combination throughout the literature to explain the phenomena within these clusters. For example, the work of (Jamal \u0026amp; and Stronza, 2009) successfully integrates stakeholder and conflict theory to analyze collaboration, demonstrating this synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe challenges as our analysis shows, is moving from theoretical aspiration to practical implementation where inclusive collaboration often remains elusive. The high citation of studies on local perception (Karanth \u0026amp; Nepal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012b\u003c/span\u003e) indicates a field that is strong on diagnosing problems but is still developing and robustly evaluating effective solutions. The modest international co-authorship rate (35.82%) suggests there is still room for grater collaboration between researchers in the global north and global south to ensure contextually grounded and equitable research outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight the necessity of multidisciplinary methods and the incorporation of various stakeholder viewpoints in planning for ecotourism and conservation. Improved partnerships among local communities, policymakers and academic institutions can promote sustainable practices and increase the impact of research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe growing need to address environmental and social issues is reflected in the growing scholarly interest in ecotourism and conservation. The introduction of ideas such as community involvement, sustainable development and biodiversity conservation shows how the field has progressed from theoretical debate to practical research with practical applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric review has systematically mapped the extensive body of literature on community tourism conflicts and collaborations in the national parks. By delineating the key thematic clusters, influential works and underlying theoretical foundations. This study provides a robust foundation for understanding the field\u0026rsquo;s current state. The analysis confirms that the central challenges remain reconciling ecological preservation with social justice through effective, equitable and adaptive governance. Addressing these challenges require continued interdisciplinary effort that prioritize genuine community engagement, learns from diverse geographical contexts and adapts to an increasingly complex global environment. This research serves as a roadmap for scholars and practitioners committed to fostering a more sustainable and equitable future for the world\u0026rsquo;s national parks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe trend towards interdisciplinary approaches that combine ecology, sociology and economics is highlighted by the co-word analysis. Notably, new developments like the effects of climate change, ecosystem services and regional research in places like Africa and India are in line with international goals for sustainable development. Despite the distribution of research worldwide being encouraging, there are still gaps in under-represented areas. Because of its ecological and cultural diversity, the Global South presents a wealth of opportunities for research on ecotourism. The delay in scholarly engagement with emerging research is also indicated by the decline in citation rates for recent publications, which could be a result of delays in paradigm shift adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTheoretical implication\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from this bibliometric analysis carry significant and actionable implications for researchers, policymakers and practitioners engaged in the nexus of national parks, tourism and community development. For researchers, the study charts a clear course for future inquiry by highlighting critical geographical and thematic gaps. The strong focus on specific regions like Africa and India, while valuable, points to the need for more comparative studies in under-represented biodiversity hotspots, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, to build a truly global knowledge base. Furthermore, the identification of distinct yet interconnected thematic clusters underscores the necessity for deeply interdisciplinary methodologies that integrate ecological, sociological and economic lenses to fully capture the complexity of community-park dynamics. The emergence of keywords like \"ecosystem services\" and the looming challenge of \"climate change\" present fertile ground for research that explores the resilience of community-based tourism models in an era of environmental crisis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eManagerial Implications\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor policymakers and park managers, the analysis offers a compelling evidence base for shifting from top-down directives to inclusive, collaborative governance. The centrality of Community Participation and Sustainability (Cluster 2) in the literature is a powerful mandate to move beyond tokenistic consultation and institutionalize genuine co-management structures, equitable benefit-sharing agreements and transparent decision-making processes. Simultaneously, the persistent relevance of Conservation Conflicts and Development Dynamics (Cluster 3) serves as a critical warning, urging the development of conflict-sensitive management frameworks that include proactive stakeholder analysis and accessible grievance mechanisms. Policymakers are also positioned to foster the multi-stakeholder partnerships necessary to ensure tourism revenue directly supports both conservation targets and local livelihood goals, thereby aligning the interests of all parties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor practitioners on the ground, including tourism operators and NGOs, the study reinforces the operational value of ethical and equitable engagement. The principles derived from the literature, particularly from Commons Theory, advocate for a model where tourism products are co-designed with local communities to ensure cultural appropriateness, environmental sustainability and local ownership, which in turn mitigates conflict. To address the economic disparities that often fuel tensions, operators should implement policies for preferential local hiring and sourcing, transforming communities from passive beneficiaries into active economic partners. Finally, NGOs and developers can play a pivotal role by investing in capacity-building programs that equip community members with the skills in business, hospitality and conservation management needed to engage as confident and equal partners in the tourism enterprise. Collectively, these implications provide a roadmap for transforming research insights into practical actions that foster more sustainable, just and resilient futures for the world's national parks and their surrounding communities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Future Directions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights several areas for future research to deepen our understanding of ecotourism and its broader implications. One key area is addressing geographical gaps by focusing on regions that are under-represented. Especially the Global South where rich biodiversity and cultural heritage offer unique insights into the connections between conservation, community development and tourism. The Incorporation of indigenous knowledge systems into ecotourism research represents an appealing possibility for explorations. Exploring the way in which traditional ecological practices contribute to sustainability and empower local communities can provide valuable lessons. This is particularly true where indigenous communities play a central role in tourism initiatives. Long-term studies are also needed to evaluate the real environmental, social and economic outcomes of ecotourism projects. This will give stakeholders clearer evidence to improve policies and practices. Technology offers exciting opportunities to enhance ecotourism management. Tools like artificial intelligence, big data analytics and geographic information systems (GIS) can help monitor biodiversity, track tourist behavior and optimize resource use. In the context of climatic change future research should explore resilience and adaptation strategies for ecotourism destinations and examine how ecotourism can raise climate awareness and promote environmental justice. Overall future work should embrace interdisciplinary approaches, prioritize local voices and focus on building sustainable and equitable partnerships between communities and protected areas.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrashant Kashyap led the study by designing the research methodology, performing the data extraction and analysis using VOSviewer and Bibliometrix, and writing the first draft. Dr. Anil Kumar provided overall supervision, managed the project, and performed the final editing and critical review of the paper. Shivam Samyal assisted with data validation, created the visualizations and maps, and helped with the literature review. Manju Soren contributed to the formal analysis, formatted the manuscript, and helped write the discussion and conclusion sections. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is bibliometric review based on secondary data obtained from the Scopus database. It did not involve human participations, animals or any field experiments. Therefore, IRB approval and informed consent were not required.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdewumi IB. (2018, December 31). Community-Based Tourism in National Parks in Developed and Developing Countries: Comparative Study of Yakushima National Park, Japan and Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Community-Based-Tourism-in-National-Parks-in-and-of-Adewumi/7d7bfda354568e96700040cf630010216a44f7d6?utm_source=consensus\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Community-Based-Tourism-in-National-Parks-in-and-of-Adewumi/7d7bfda354568e96700040cf630010216a44f7d6?utm_source=consensus\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl Haija AA. Jordan: Tourism and conflict with local communities. Habitat Int. 2011;35(1):93\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.04.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.04.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArchabald K, Naughton-Treves L. Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environ Conserv. 2001a;28(2):135\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000145\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0376892901000145\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArchabald K, Naughton-Treves L. Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environ Conserv. 2001b;28(2):135\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000145\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0376892901000145\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetrics. 2017;11(4):959\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaas J, Schotten M, Plume A, C\u0026ocirc;t\u0026eacute; G, Karimi R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):377\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1162/qss_a_00019\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBello FG, Lovelock B, Carr N. Enhancing community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in developing countries: Lessons from Malawi. Tourism Hospitality Res. 2018;18(3):309\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416647763\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1467358416647763\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBello FG, Lovelock, Brent,and, Carr N. Constraints of community participation in protected area-based tourism planning: The case of Malawi. J Ecotourism. 2017;16(2):131\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2016.1251444\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14724049.2016.1251444\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerkes F, Colding J, Folke C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDudley N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Eck N, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2009;84(2):523\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhoddousi S, Pintassilgo P, Mendes J, Ghoddousi A, Sequeira B. Tourism and nature conservation: A case study in Golestan National Park, Iran. Tourism Manage Perspect. 2018;26:20\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.12.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tmp.2017.12.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodwin H. Local Community Involvement in Tourism around National Parks: Opportunities and Constraints. Curr Issues Tourism. 2002;5(3\u0026ndash;4):338\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13683500208667928\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13683500208667928\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemson G, Maclennan S, Mills G, Johnson P, Macdonald D. Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human\u0026ndash;carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol Conserv. 2009a;142(11):2718\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHemson G, Maclennan S, Mills G, Johnson P, Macdonald D. Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human\u0026ndash;carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol Conserv. 2009b;142(11):2718\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHossain NUI, Dayarathna VL, Nagahi M, Jaradat R. Systems Thinking: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Systems. 2020;8(3):23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/systems8030023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/systems8030023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHough JL. Obstacles to Effective Management of Conflicts Between National Parks and Surrounding Human Communities in Developing Countries. Environ Conserv. 1988;15(2):129\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900028939\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0376892900028939\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJamal T,and, Stronza A. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. J Sustainable Tourism. 2009;17(2):169\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495741\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09669580802495741\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJamal T, Stronza A. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. J Sustainable Tourism. 2009;17(2):169\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495741\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09669580802495741\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJena RK, Goswami R. Measuring the Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Global Bus Rev. 2014;15(2):381\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914523587\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0972150914523587\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaltenborn BP,and, Williams DR. The meaning of place: Attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Nor J Geogr. 2002;56(3):189\u0026ndash;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00291950260293011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00291950260293011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaranth KK, Nepal SK. Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses From Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environ Manage. 2012a;49(2):372\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaranth KK, Nepal SK. Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses From Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environ Manage. 2012b;49(2):372\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKiconco M, Alinda K, Mwebaza S, Ssemata R. (2025). Livelihood strategies for achieving sustainable livelihood outcomes among communities near national parks in Uganda: A study of tourism-related and non-tourism-related approaches. Tourism Critiques: Practice and Theory. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/TRC-09-2024-0052\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/TRC-09-2024-0052\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarson LR, Conway AL, Krafte KE, Hernandez SM, Carroll JP. Community-based conservation as a potential source of conflict around a protected area in Sierra Leone. Environ Conserv. 2016;43(3):242\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0376892916000096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMbaiwa JE. Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J Environ Manage. 2005;77(2):144\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open Medicine; 2009.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOjijo CR, Steiger R. Residents\u0026rsquo; preferences for tourism development in a protected area: A choice experiment. Tourism Rev. 2025;80(2):529\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/TR-10-2023-0713\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/TR-10-2023-0713\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hr\u0026oacute;bjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlummer R. The Adaptive Co-Management Process: An Initial Synthesis of Representative Models and Influential Variables. Ecol Soc. 2009;14(2):art24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03130-140224\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-03130-140224\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlummer R, Fennell DA. Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. J Sustainable Tourism. 2009;17(2):149\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802359301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09669580802359301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePRISMA statement. (n.d.). PRISMA Statement. Retrieved May 21. 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.prisma-statement.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.prisma-statement.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamaano AI. Toward tourism-oriented community-based natural resource management for sustainability and climate change mitigation leadership in rural municipalities. J Humanit Appl Social Sci. 2025;7(2):107\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-07-2024-0099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JHASS-07-2024-0099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSamal R, Dash M. Stakeholder engagement in advancing sustainable ecotourism: An exploratory case study of Chilika Wetland. Discover Sustain. 2024;5(1):50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00233-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s43621-024-00233-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimakani A, Mashapa C, Muboko N, Mutanga CN, Gandiwa E. Trends and local perceptions of human-crocodile conflicts in Kariba town, northern Zimbabwe. Hum Dimensions Wildl. 2024;29(4):432\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2023.2243970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10871209.2023.2243970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpenceley A, editor. Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development. Earthscan; 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStone MT. Community-based ecotourism: A collaborative partnerships perspective. J Ecotourism. 2015;14(2\u0026ndash;3):166\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2015.1023309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14724049.2015.1023309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStone MT,and, Nyaupane GP. Protected areas, wildlife-based community tourism and community livelihoods dynamics: Spiraling up and down of community capitals. J Sustainable Tourism. 2018;26(2):307\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1349774\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09669582.2017.1349774\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrakolis D. Local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. J Environ Manage. 2001a;61(3):227\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jema.2000.0410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrakolis D. Local people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. J Environ Manage. 2001b;61(3):227\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jema.2000.0410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Raan A. The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. TATuP - Z F\u0026uuml;r Technikfolgenabsch\u0026auml;tzung Theorie Und Praxis. 2003;12(1):20\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.12.1.20\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14512/tatup.12.1.20\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu J, L\u0026uuml; Y, Chen L, Liu Y. Contribution of tourism development to protected area management: Local stakeholder perspectives. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 2009;16(1):30\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13504500902757189\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13504500902757189\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZakaria R, Ahmi A, Ahmad AH, Othman Z, Azman KF, Aziz A, Ismail CB, C. A. N., Shafin N. Visualising and mapping a decade of literature on honey research: A bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2020. J Apic Res. 2021;60(3):359\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2021.1898789\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00218839.2021.1898789\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Z, Sherman R, Yang Z, Wu R, Wang W, Yin M, Yang G, Ou X. Integrating a participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area zoning in China. J Nat Conserv. 2013;21(4):225\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.12.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jnc.2012.12.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZube EH. Local and extra-local perceptions of national parks and protected areas. Landsc Urban Plann. 1986;13:11\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90003-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0169-2046(86)90003-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"National Park, tourism, conflicts, thematic clusters, community, collaboration","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8707028/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8707028/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines conflicts and collaborative practices between communities and tourism stakeholders in national parks using a bibliometric analysis of research published between 2000 and 2025. A dataset of 134 Scopus-indexed journal articles was analysed using VOSviewer and RStudio to identify thematic patterns, influential authors, dominant theoretical contributions and emerging research shifts. Three core thematic clusters were identified: protected area tourism management, community participation and sustainability and conservation conflicts and development dynamics. Conflict theory and collaboration theory were found to guide much all the existing scholarship, shaping current understanding of how national parks negotiate tensions between conservation goals and local livelihoods. This review provides a comprehensive mapping of the field\u0026rsquo;s intellectual structure and highlights gaps for future study. The findings offer practical insights for scholars, policymakers and practitioners working to advance community- based tourism with reduced conflict and improved cooperation in national parks.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Mapping Community–Tourism Conflicts and Collaborative Governance in National Parks: A Bibliometric Analysis (2000–2025)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-19 06:06:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8707028/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-04T16:43:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-25T12:36:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-22T02:31:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"10143052288737845685130726975069538839","date":"2026-03-12T09:54:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"256792337458253834138665714786209598514","date":"2026-03-11T10:44:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-09T06:01:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"27931086879779959918559191744332526192","date":"2026-03-09T05:52:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"148667010553688096265457516833755470344","date":"2026-03-07T18:20:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-04T18:02:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-12T09:42:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-12T06:44:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Sustainability","date":"2026-02-12T06:40:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1bbeed02-b66b-4fe6-9b54-5a2a91f60543","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-04T16:43:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-19T05:53:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-19 06:06:13","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8707028","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8707028","identity":"rs-8707028","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}