Scratching beneath the surface: a systems thinking approach for uncovering hidden dynamics impacting tourism and poaching

Abstract

Approaches that capture the complex interplay between tourism and wildlife crime, such as systems thinking, would enable a holistic understanding of tourism systems. The global surge in poaching during COVID-19 lockdowns underscores the need for such holistic understanding to foster tourism resilience post-pandemic. We adopt a systems approach to analyse the hidden dynamics affecting tourism and its relationship to poaching in the Caribbean’s most popular destination: the Dominican Republic. We conducted interviews with key stakeholders to (1) produce a causal loop diagram illustrating underlying factors causing the failure of a community-based ecotourism project to curb illegal fishing in a marine protected area, (2) identify systems archetypes and key strategic leverage points, and (3) propose fit-for-purpose interventions. The findings reveal 4 systems archetypes and 20 feedback loops, with collaboration emerging as a strategic leverage point. We propose a fifth novel archetype, “Intention vs Action”, and suggest interventions centred on mental models and social capital to combat system decline. The methodology offers powerful visual and narrative tools for holistic planning in protected areas to maximise the success of tourism interventions. The study has valuable policy implications for tourism planning and wildlife crime, enabling tourism managers to understand systems holistically before introducing interventions.

Keywords:

• Systems theory
• complexity science
• visitor economy
• wicked problems
• animal welfare
• community-based tourism

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how disruptions in dynamic systems can lead to global challenges. Notably, it emphasised the interconnected relationship between tourism and poaching, defined as “the illegal removal of wild species from a place where such practices are…forbidden” (IPBES, 2022, p. 934). With wildlife crime increasing during lockdowns, tourism’s impacts on conversation became more apparent (Hambira et al., 2022). The increased poaching across numerous countries during COVID-19 and the historical connection of poaching to corruption, organised crime, and global biodiversity loss (IPBES, 2022) underscores the need for comprehensive research into the tourism–poaching relationship.

Tourism has been used since the 1990s to protect the environment and benefit wildlife and local communities, with numerous studies evaluating its role in curbing poaching (Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Morais et al., 2018; Stronza et al., 2019). Yet, despite its complexity, researchers continue to address poaching as a one-dimensional phenomenon (Lavadinović et al., 2021). Thus, proposed solutions risk failing in the face of barriers lying deep beneath the surface of easily observable events (Kohl & McCool, 2016). COVID-19 highlighted that hidden dynamics are at play, as the pandemic’s effects on tourism emerged as a major obstacle to global conservation (D. E. Smith, Smith, et al., 2023).

Recommendations to improve the resilience of destinations reliant on tourism for conservation post-COVID-19 are now being proposed (King et al., 2021; Spenceley et al., 2021). Yet, like pre-pandemic research, these solutions seem to continue disregarding the complexity of tourism systems. Poaching is an inherently “wicked problem” (Rittel & Webber, 1973,  p. 160) that involves dealing with uncertainty, unpredictability, interconnectedness, and context-dependence between many different factors. A holistic analysis of tourism systems can greatly benefit decision-making by reducing the likelihood of misdiagnosed problems and unintended consequences brought on by interventions that overlook complexity (Rieder et al., 2021).

Systems thinking facilitates a holistic understanding of complex systems by helping us “see both the forest and the trees” (Klement, 2020, p. 70). In doing so, it shifts us away from the reductionist and linear analysis methods often used in tourism research (Crabolu, Font, & Eker, 2023). Systems theory and its practical application of systems thinking are increasingly encouraged for holistic tourism planning, particularly in protected areas vulnerable to poaching (Kohl & McCool, 2016). Yet, to our knowledge, no studies employ systems thinking to evaluate tourism and poaching.

We present a systems modelling approach to understand poaching dynamics in protected areas reliant on tourism. We base our analysis on the case study of El Carey Dive Centre, a community-based ecotourism (CBET) project in La Caleta National Underwater Park (referred to as La Caleta from here onwards) in the Dominican Republic, which is considered the crown jewel of marine conservation in the Caribbean (Reef Check Worldwide, 2017). We create a causal loop diagram (CLD), a tool modelling system complexity, to analyse why El Carey failed to curb poaching in the marine protected area (MPA). Although El Carey was established before COVID-19 and data were collected in 2019, our findings demonstrate the usefulness of embracing complexity-informed research methods that facilitate holistic analysis and planning of protected areas (Kohl & McCool, 2016). Such holistic understanding can strengthen approaches aimed at building tourism resilience post-pandemic.

Literature review

The tourism–poaching nexus

The link between tourism and poaching is well established in conservation, especially where nature-based tourism (NBT) has been used to reduce poaching. Yet, the view that tourism is a panacea for conservation has been heavily contested. While NBT can sometimes help reduce poaching (see Saikim et al., 2016), the reality is far more complex, prompting a closer examination of the nexus between tourism, conservation, and poaching (Stronza et al., 2019). The increase in wildlife crime brought on by COVID-19 during tourism’s absence highlights the link between tourism and poaching, strengthening the need for a more profound analysis of their relationship.

Scholars are now proposing strategies to enhance the resilience of tourism systems in poaching-affected areas. Recommendations include developing new tourism models (Cherkaoui et al., 2020), diversifying conservation funding sources and local livelihoods (Hambira et al., 2022), establishing contingency funds (Khayale et al., 2020), promoting domestic tourism (Hambira et al., 2022), and fostering mental health, skill development, workplace programs, and community-based approaches (Anagnostou et al., 2021). While these suggestions are valuable, we may be missing a clear understanding of how they might interact or under what conditions they work (Wardle et al., 2018). If anything, COVID-19 has emphasised the interconnectedness of human and natural systems and the multidimensional interdependencies of sustainability issues, poverty, and wildlife crime (M. K. S. Smith, Smit, et al., 2021).

Tourism and poaching occur in vastly complex systems. Capturing the complexity of these systems requires non-linear, holistic approaches, especially when dealing with wicked problems like wildlife crime (McCool et al., 2015). Wicked problems are intractable problems embedded in complex systems that are difficult to define and lack clear solutions (Rittel & Webber, 1973). They tend to occur when stakeholders with varying levels of power have differing values, problem statements, objectives, and tactics. This often happens in human–wildlife conflicts, which are embedded in dynamic and uncertain social-ecological systems comprising multiple feedback loops, non-linear dynamics, and high political, scientific, and administrative uncertainty (Mason et al., 2018).

Wicked problems like wildlife crime do not happen in isolation. Yet, conservation biologists often use reductionist methods to identify causal relationships in systems assumed to have fixed boundaries, a limited number of closely linked relationships, and explicit perspectives converging around similar values (Knight, Cook, et al., 2019). However, these characteristics seldom typify conservation scenarios. Instead, systems must be tackled as a whole, with all their complexity. This is the realm of systems thinking, a suitable approach for holistic management of protected areas that helps improve conservation practice and builds our capacity for grappling with wicked problems (DeFries & Nagendra, 2017; Knight, Cook, et al., 2019; Mason et al., 2018).

A systems approach

Systems thinking originates from systems theory and represents an alternative to traditional linear approaches that study phenomena in isolation and assume they explain the behaviour of the whole (Montuori, 2011). Despite the popularity of these approaches, they tend to advance our knowledge but not our understanding; that is, they improve our knowledge of the system’s parts but not our understanding of it as a whole (Ackoff, 1974). Because linear approaches often focus on “cause and effect” – where an intervention has a predictable outcome – they are inadequate for studying complex systems with non-linear dynamics and feedback (Crabolu, Font, & Miller, 2023). Addressing the complexity inherent in all fields of knowledge implies a re-orientation in scientific thinking from viewing systems as assemblages of parts to seeing them as holistic entities (von Bertalanffy, 1968). Systems thinking enables this shift, promoting a new way of thinking and looking at the world, where individual phenomena are interconnected, and complexity becomes the subject of interest (Klir, 1972).

Several fundamental principles characterise systems thinking. Those most relevant to this study include (1) system structure and behaviour, (2) mental models, (3) feedback, (4) systems archetypes, and (5) leverage. Systems thinking views the world in systems, representing an interconnected set of elements coherently organised for a particular purpose. A system contains elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose (Meadows, 2008). The interactions of these elements reveal system structure and behaviour. A system’s structure refers to how the parts of a system are arranged or how they function (Moon et al., 2019). In turn, their interactions determine system behaviour, which reveals itself as a series of events over time (Meadows, 2008).

Second, mental models or paradigms refer to our assumptions and deepest beliefs about how the world works (Meadows, 1999). When addressing complexity, we should ask ourselves how to think about a system, as it will dictate how we and others view it (West Churchman, 1968). In doing so, we may discover that all mental models are terribly restricted and difficult to change (Kuhn, 1970). Yet, because those paradigms are the sources of systems – their rules, culture, power structure and goals – they represent the most profound places to intervene to change a system’s structure and, consequently, its behaviour (Meadows, 1999).

Third, feedback involves the cause-and-effect relationship between a system’s inputs and outputs, depicted as feedback loops exemplifying complex system dynamics (Crabolu, Font, & Miller, 2023). These feedback loops conserve or amplify system behaviour. As such, they can be balancing, which maintains system stability, or reinforcing, which either enhances positive outcomes (“virtuous circles”) or exacerbates negative ones (“vicious circles”) (Meadows, 2008 p. 30). Balancing feedback loops enable self-correction in a system. For example, using common pool resources at replenishment rates maintains long-term stability. Reinforcing feedback loops have the opposite effect. In poaching, for instance, species attractive to visitors may become rarer due to illegal hunting, reducing tourism numbers and revenue, and impacting wildlife conservation (D. E. Smith, Smith, et al., 2023). If no balancing action is introduced, the system may eventually collapse.

Fourth, systems archetypes provide a high-level understanding of dynamic system processes by revealing distinctive patterns and structures within the system (Senge, 1993). Because each archetype represents a particular system dynamic, they produce characteristic patterns of behaviour, which improves our understanding of the system and helps diagnose problems and identify high-leverage interventions. Meadows (2008, p. 6) argues that systems archetypes “are responsible for some of the most intransigent and potentially dangerous problems”. Yet, they can also be transformed to produce more desirable behaviours by recognising them in advance, reformulating goals, strengthening, weakening, altering existing feedback loops or adding new ones (Meadows, 2008).

Finally, leverage is how we change a system’s structure to achieve desired outcomes and minimise unwanted ones. This is done through leverage points, akin to acupuncture points, where a small change produces large shifts in system behaviour. In that sense, leverage points are “points of power” (Meadows, 2008, p. 145). Leverage points are shallow or deep, indicating their influence on the system. Using the iceberg analogy (Kohl & McCool, 2016), shallow leverage points address surface-level factors. Deep leverage points focus on hidden layers of the iceberg. Since we often do not think or act holistically, we tend to intervene at points closer to the surface instead of points deeper within the system, which contributes to more significant changes in tourism sustainability and resilience (McCool, 2022).

Systems thinking uses several modelling techniques to capture complexity. One of the most prominent ones are CLDs, which explain system structure and behaviour based on the causal relationships between a system’s variables (Moon et al., 2019), revealing feedback dynamics via balancing or reinforcing feedback loops. One of the main limitations of CLDs is that they can oversimplify the reality of interconnections since tourism systems are more complex than the model assumes (Crabolu, Font, & Eker, 2023). Additionally, because they describe systems qualitatively, CLDs are limited in simulating long-term system dynamics dependent on quantitative data (Mai & Smith, 2018).

Despite limitations, CLDs are a useful decision-making tool, helping us grasp complexity in ways we might not be able to do otherwise, as well as pinpointing leverage points to enhance the effectiveness of interventions. This approach reduces the risk of getting entirely wrong answers (Crabolu, Font, & Eker, 2023). Constructing a CLD also helps us think differently, acknowledging that systems are complex and that simplistic solutions often exacerbate issues or transfer problems elsewhere (McCool, 2022). CLDs’ usefulness is gaining recognition in tourism research, with studies demonstrating their effectiveness in tourism policy analysis, climate risk reduction, and sustainability transitions (Loehr, 2020; Suno Wu et al., 2021; Tourais & Videira, 2021).

Moving from knowing towards understanding

Traditional tourism research often focuses on phenomena exhibiting order, equilibrium, and linearity, creating blind spots that prevent some aspects of tourism from being adequately understood (Russell & Faulkner, 1999). Consequently, conventional interpretations of sustainable tourism development can limit understanding of complex phenomena caused by the interdependent relationships of a system’s components (McDonald, 2009). Because “tourism destinations behave as dynamic evolving complex systems” (Baggio, 2008, p. 1), traditional methods of enquiry cannot return sensible explanations for a wide range of phenomena. Approaches incorporating systems thinking in tourism analysis are needed (Moscardo, 2021).

Tourism and wildlife crime involve complex social, economic, and environmental phenomena profoundly influencing system behaviour (Baggio, 2008). While systems thinking is endorsed in conservation science (Knight, Cook, et al., 2019), its application in analysing the intersection of tourism, conservation, and wildlife crime is limited. This study aims to address this gap. It offers a systems approach for holistic analysis before introducing interventions to reduce poaching; vital for tourism recovery after COVID-19. Although recommendations are being made to build tourism resilience post-pandemic, we argue that implementing interventions without such holistic analysis may exacerbate wicked problems (Kohl & McCool, 2016).

Research methods

Study site

Case study description

El Carey Dive Centre is located within La Caleta in the Dominican Republic (Figure 1), representing the first underwater marine park in the country (Reef Check DR, 2010). The park features shipwrecks, sculptures depicting Taíno culture, and 10–15 dive sites, accommodating snorkelling, SCUBA diving, sustainable fishing, and no-fishing zones. Reef Check Dominican Republic (RCDR) worked with the local community to establish El Carey and the Fishing and Tourism Services Co-Op (Cooperativa de Producción y Trabajo de Pescadores y Prestadores de Servicios Turísticos, a.k.a. COOPRESCA) in La Caleta. These organisations aimed to transition fishers to sustainable fishing and tourism services (R. Torres, personal communication, October 17, 2019).

Figure 1. Location of La Caleta in the Dominican Republic. Created by Vanessa Taveras-Dalmau using Mapquest and Photoshop.

An area was set aside exclusively for SCUBA diving (highlighted in pink in Figure 2), and fishers agreed not to fish within it. Community members were hired as staff for El Carey, with RCDR guiding the dive centre’s operations for six years. When project funds were exhausted, and the community took complete control of El Carey, its performance severely declined, and with it, its capacity to curb poaching, as few fishers maintained an income (R. Torres, personal communication, October 17, 2019). Although coral reef health surveys showed a higher species abundance of keystone species like parrotfish in 2019, the decadal trend revealed a decline from 4 to 0.5 individuals per square metre (Irazabal García, 2018; R. S. Steneck & Torres, 2019). A healthy reef should have 6.6 individuals per square metre (R. Steneck & Torres, 2016). Our study examines the underlying mechanisms that led to El Carey’s failure to curb poaching in La Caleta.

Figure 2. La Caleta zoning map created by Lap Percepción Remota INTEC 2008. Translated from Spanish to English by Vanessa Taveras-Dalmau.

Case study justification

The Dominican Republic is the Caribbean’s leading tourism destination (GlobalData, 2022). La Caleta represents a complex system featuring both tourism and poaching. La Caleta and El Carey, recognised internationally for marine conservation in the Caribbean (Reef Check Worldwide, 2017), represent a successful model of collaboration between NGOs, government, and local communities, balancing conservation, research, education, and sustainable resource use. The co-management approach in La Caleta and El Carey aligns with national policy and SDG 14: Life Below Water (United Nations, 2015). Had El Carey succeeded, the same model would have been replicated across the country and region (ICRI, 2014). Its failure offers crucial lessons for future projects, particularly for tourism recovery in developing countries post-COVID-19.

Data collection methods

Data collection involved primary and secondary sources. Secondary data included grey literature, such as books, news articles, and reports about La Caleta’s history and management, provided by RCDR and government agencies. Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted in October 2019 using purposive and snowball sampling (Adler & Clark, 2011). The interviews averaged 55 min and were conducted in Spanish. The sample comprised 28 participants: NGO representatives (n = 3), private enterprises members (n = 5), government officials (n = 3), recreational park users (n = 4), local community members (n = 4), and fishers (n = 9), divided into fishers who ceased fishing illegally and spearfishers who maintain the practice.

To ensure our questions informed our systems approach, we focused on exploring the causal relationships between system elements, asking participants about factors interacting with poaching, observed patterns and trends in system behaviour, if and how economic security influences illegal fishing, how poaching impacts ecosystem health, and overall factors that interact to influence the establishment and management of both El Carey and La Caleta, including the level of involvement and support of key stakeholders.

Researcher positionality

Vanessa Taveras-Dalmau, our first author, is a cultural insider researcher with the same background, culture, and language as locals, helping her build trust quickly and research more sensitive topics (Liu & Burnett, 2022). Her involvement in community and conservation activities in La Caleta since 2009 has fostered longstanding professional relationships with key stakeholders, including poachers. This helped build trust and facilitated open discussions during interviews, conducted solely by Vanessa. She informed participants of the study’s ethical considerations and maintained neutrality towards illegal fishing, prioritising participant safety and anonymity. To reduce bias, leading questions were avoided, reflexivity was practised, and regular consultations were undertaken with Alexandra Coghlan, the second author, unrelated to the case study.

Analysis methods

We first coded the grey literature to gain a preliminary understanding of the tourism system. Vanessa Taveras-Dalmau, a native Spanish speaker, transcribed and translated the interviews into English. We used NVivo to conduct a thematic analysis using open, axial, and selective coding. The process helped identify broad themes (see Taveras-Dalmau & Coghlan, 2022), which were refined to construct meaning (Williams & Moser, 2019). This helped establish the variables for the CLD. The systems modelling followed Maani and Cavana’s (2007) framework (Table 1), a straightforward approach to understanding complexity. We focus on Phases 1 (Problem Structuring) and 2 (Causal Loop Modelling). The behaviour over time graph was omitted, as creating them requires engaging stakeholders in discussions (Calancie et al., 2018), and maintaining the anonymity of poachers was paramount. Phases 3, 4, and 5, respectively, Dynamic Modelling, Scenario Planning and Modelling and Implementational Learning, were not included as they depend on stock and flow diagrams and, as such, were beyond the study’s scope.

Table 1. Steps taken for the systems modelling, based on Maani and Cavana (2007).

Phase 1: Problem structuring	Step 1: Identify problems or issues of concern to management. Step 2: Collect preliminary information and data.
Phase 2: Causal Loop Modelling	Step 1: Identify main variables. Step 2: Develop causal loop diagrams. Step 3: Analyse loop behaviour over time. Step 4: Identify system archetypes. Step 5: Identify key leverage points. Step 6: Develop intervention strategies.

Thematic analysis of secondary and primary data identified key issues (Table 2) and system variables using Stroh’s (2006) variable selection method. Matrix coding query allowed us to explore relationships between variables. We constructed the CLD using Kumu.io. We identified causal links, shown by arrows (→) and (+) and (–) signs. A (+) sign indicates a positive correlation (e.g. both variables increase together), while a (–) sign signifies an inverse relationship (e.g. one variable increases as the other decreases) (Loehr, 2020). These relationships revealed feedback loops illustrating systemic phenomena (Maani & Cavana, 2007). Feedback loops were classified as reinforcing (Rx) or balancing (Bx) depending on their behaviour. The storyline for each feedback loop revealed overall system behaviour and strategic leverage points. Comparing loop behaviour against known systems archetypes (Braun, 2002; Senge, 1993) allowed us to identify systems archetypes. In turn, the archetypes informed proposed interventions, the final step in the systems modelling framework.

Table 2. Issues of concern influencing tourism and poaching in El Carey and La Caleta, as identified by stakeholder groups.

Issues of concern	Environmental degradation					Conflictual community relations				Poor destination management					Ineffective dive centre functioning					Paper park			Low institutional support		Economic and food insecurity
	Overfishing	Ecosystem decline	Destructive fishing practices	Poor environmental education	Influence of fishing culture and lifestyle	Poor collaboration and individualistic behaviour	Stakeholder group exclusion	Income, influence and power inequalities	Conflicts of interests	Poor quality facilities, infrastructure, and services	Unattractive destination	No destination marketing	Unsafe environment	Low visitation rate	Unsafe and damaged equipment	Unskilled labour	Lack of entrepreneurial spirit and skills	No diversification in services offered	Low-income generation	Lack of enforcement	Poor governance	Corruption	Lack of investments	Poor government involvement and support	Poverty	Poor economic security	Poor food security
Stakeholders
Private enterprise	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔		✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Recreational users	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
COOPRESCA members^a	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔			✔			✔	✔		✔	✔			✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
NGO representatives	✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Spearfishers and immediate family	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔		✔	✔		✔			✔					✔	✔	✔	✔
Ministry of Environment					✔			✔					✔	✔					✔		✔		✔	✔	✔
Marine Park staff	✔			✔					✔				✔				✔								✔	✔
Fishers external to La Caleta		✔																								✔	✔

^aInitially, COOPRESCA members included all fishers from La Caleta. Eventually, some were excluded as members, and they reverted to fishing illegally through spearfishing. Hence, the distinction is made between COOPRESCA members and spearfishers as two distinct stakeholder groups.

Findings

Phase 1: problem structuring

Identifying issues of concern

The first phase in Maani and Cavana’s (2007) systems modelling is to structure the problem by identifying issues of concern through preliminary information and data. This phase helps ascertain the situation at hand and define the scope and boundaries of the study. The primary and secondary data helped us identify policy issues of concern to management, requiring consideration of multiple stakeholders and perspectives (Maani & Cavana, 2007). The stakeholder groups identified several issues of concern influencing poaching (Table 2). They are grouped into seven major categories: environmental degradation, conflictual community relations, poor destination management, ineffective dive centre functioning, paper park (Davis, 2001), low institutional support, and economic and food insecurity, with related issues nested within.

Phase 2: causal loop modelling

Variable identification

Step 1 in Phase 2 is to identify the system’s variables (Maani & Cavana, 2007). We identified 29 variables, grouped into cultural, social, economic, and ecological domains (Table 3). Cultural factors like community values, conservation attitudes, and traditional customs (Dyball & Newell, 2015) influence involvement in conservation and poaching in La Caleta. Social issues like weak governance and enforcement, community conflict, and eroded social capital impact La Caleta’s system structure and behaviour. Economic issues also hinder the effective management in La Caleta and El Carey. Finally, various ecological issues also impact La Caleta.

Table 3. Variables constituting the system of La Caleta.

Domain	Description	Variables
Cultural	Refers to worldviews, values, customs, social norms, knowledge, attitudes to conservation.	Poaching Environmental care Destructive fishing practices
Social	Refers to social networks, structure of institutions, political, social and education systems.	Peer pressure Fear of retaliation Quality of governance Insubordination Enforcement Willingness to participate Collaboration Silos Stakeholder conflict Community consultation and engagement
Economic	Refers to economic security, livelihoods, institutional partnerships, capacity-building, and destination management.	Food and economic security Poverty Community capacity-building Capacity to implement business model Quality of tourism services Investment and funding Quality of park infrastructure and facilities Attractiveness of destination Visitor demand Visitor numbers Tourism revenue Destination marketing Institutional support
Ecological	Refers to conservation management actions.	Park accessibility Conservation Ecosystem health

Develop causal loop diagram

Step 2 in Phase 2 is to develop the CLD (Maani & Cavana, 2007), shown in Figure 3, which provides an overview of the structure and behaviour of the system in La Caleta. Since describing a systems model can be challenging within the word constraints of a journal article, we created the CLD as an interactive diagram taking the reader through its individual sections and describing all variables, connections, and feedback loops. Here, we present a storyline summary. We urge the reader to access the interactive diagram through the link and QR code in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Complete CLD for La Caleta. R1–R20 represent reinforcing feedback loops. B1–B2 represent balancing feedback loops. An interactive version of the CLD can be accessed here: https://bit.ly/LaCaletaMP.

Analyse loop behaviour over time

Step 3 in Phase 2 is to analyse loop behaviour over time (Maani & Cavana, 2007). Feedback loops in the CLD are numbered 1–20. The central variable is poaching, intricately linked to park accessibility, which enables poaching due to the park’s shallow depths and proximity to shore. P24 says poachers “catch fish more easily there”. Central to poaching is food and economic security, primary motivators for illegal fishing. P26 says if they are forced to stop fishing, “we will have problems at home. We have nothing else to do. There are no jobs”. Reduced food and economic security increases poaching, improving livelihoods if fishing yields remain consistent (B1). Poverty exacerbates this cycle, diminishing food and economic security and driving destructive fishing practices, thus increasing poaching (B2).

Enforcement and insubordination also play crucial roles. Poor quality of governance and fear of retaliation reduce enforcement effectiveness. According to P10, “no authority enforces regulations”, and P25 claims spearfishers sometimes fish “as a form of rebellion”. P26 and P7 say park rangers prefer avoiding conflict with poachers because “their salary does not justify it”, and poachers “may retaliate”. These issues increase poaching, impacting conservation and causing a decline in ecosystem health. As ecosystem health declines, fishers intensify their fishing efforts, leading to further poaching (R1).

With the rise in poaching, care for the environment diminishes as people prioritise their economic security (R2). This sometimes leads to destructive fishing practices, exacerbating poaching (R3). For example, some fishers “engage in compressor fishing and use seine nets” (P26). Care for the environment also influences stakeholders’ willingness to participate. Since COOPRESCA members directly benefitted from El Carey, they emphasise environmental conservation and participate more. This positively impacts community capacity-building, enhancing collaboration (R4) and willingness to participate (R5), thus promoting project acceptance. Per P4, “if I was not passionate about the project, I would not be here daily”.

Increased community consultation and engagement improves community capacity-building, enhancing care for the environment (R6). Better community consultation and engagement also reduces poaching as some stakeholders changed their behaviours, increasing care for the environment and collaboration (R7). Indeed, P25 says some fishers stopped fishing illegally “because of the environmental awareness raising done and the education and training provided”. However, collaboration in La Caleta has faltered, negatively impacting El Carey’s success. According to P10, “there has not been any collaboration” between community members. P11, a spearfisher, argues, “they need to collaborate with us”.

Poor collaboration exacerbated stakeholder conflict, creating silos that excluded spearfishers’ participation. P14 says COOPRESCA members “just guard the information and do not consult us”. P6 agrees, stating that despite “certifying spearfishers as divers so they can join COOPRESCA, co-op members refuse to let them”. This has a detrimental effect on collaboration and food and economic security, as spearfishers cannot earn an income through El Carey (R20). These dynamics create a vicious cycle, preventing cooperation between groups (R8, R9) and eroding trust, hindering successful planning (Suno Wu et al., 2021).

Reduced collaboration also negatively impacts the quality of tourism services, which could be improved if spearfishers could contribute their in-depth knowledge of the park, as “they know it like the back of their hands” (P6) and can guide divers to healthier reefs. This dynamic creates vicious cycles affecting investment and funding and the attractiveness of the destination, adversely impacting enforcement, visitor demand, visitor numbers, tourism revenue, and community capacity-building, ultimately contributing to increased poaching (R10–R12).

Investment and funding, vital for effective management, is also minimal, driven by low institutional support. As P23 states, “no one from the Ministry of Environment visits. They have made no investments to maintain the park”. This reduces enforcement and increases poaching, driving systemic decline (R13–R16), thereby impacting conservation and ecosystem health and reducing the attractiveness of the destination and tourism revenue. P23 argues, “there is just no incentive for me to go [to La Caleta] because the reef is in poor health”. Reduced tourism revenue exacerbates poor investment and funding (R14), worsening enforcement (R15) and impacting collaboration, community consultation and engagement, and community capacity-building. Consequently, the staff’s capacity to implement the business model is reduced, affecting the quality of tourism services, reducing investment and funding (R16), and diminishing the quality of park infrastructure and facilities and destination marketing (R17–R19).

Identify systems archetypes

Systems archetypes are identified in Step 4 of Phase 2 (Maani & Cavana, 2007). Since they represent generic systemic structures, their characteristic patterns can be identified through loop behaviour (Kim & Anderson, 2011). Four systems archetypes exist in La Caleta: Tragedy of the Commons, Escalation, Success to the Successful, and Growth and Underinvestment (Braun, 2002; Senge, 1993). We propose a novel fifth, Intention vs Action.

The Tragedy of the Commons occurs when individuals use a common resource for their own benefit without concern for the collective impact of everyone’s actions. Eventually, the sum of activities overloads the “commons”, and all parties experience diminished benefits (Kim & Anderson, 2011). This archetype manifests as overfishing in La Caleta, with R1, R3, and R20 showing poaching negatively impacting conservation and ecosystem health, compounded by increased destructive fishing practices and reduced care for the environment, willingness to participate, and collaboration. B1 and B2 show short-term economic gains from increased poaching. However, as harvests diminished, fishers intensified their efforts, ultimately leading to the commons collapsing. As P10 states, “It has been 70 years of taking. There are no fish left”.

The Escalation archetype, where perceived threats lead to increasingly adversarial actions (Kim & Anderson, 2011), is evident in the breakdown of collaboration between the spearfishers and COOPRESCA members. R8–R12 show this dynamic at work. As collaboration declined, silos and stakeholder conflict intensified (R8, R9), culminating in the expulsion of spearfishers from COOPRESCA. They retaliated by breaching the initial agreement, resulting in legal actions and more poaching behaviour as retaliation. R10–R12 illustrate how escalation harms the entire system, diminishing tourism value for visitors and the community.

The Success to the Successful archetype, where the successful party gains more resources at the expense of the unsuccessful (Kim & Anderson, 2011), is clear in La Caleta: COOPRESCA members (the “successful”) benefit at the expense of spearfishers (the “unsuccessful”). R4–R6 demonstrate this archetype at play. Since COOPRESCA members manage El Carey, park managers tend to engage with them more often. This creates a virtuous cycle for COOPRESCA members but a vicious one for spearfishers, who have been marginalised from the project. Despite park manager’s efforts to involve spearfishers, COOPRESCA members obstructed their participation, further reinforcing R8 and R9.

The Growth and Underinvestment archetype, where growth is hindered by underinvestment due to poor performance (Kim & Anderson, 2011), is evident in El Carey when its initial success faced limits due to poor performance. R13–R19, dependent on investment and institutional support, illustrate this archetype. As performance declined, so did visitor demand, visitor numbers, and tourism revenue. Despite the potential for investments to improve capacity, the poor performance led to reluctance for additional investments, as divers stopped visiting and donors “were hesitant to financially support community-based projects, as they perceive them as seldom successful” (P6).

Our proposed Intention vs Action archetype, prevalent in conservation, research, and policy, highlights a gap between plans translating into outcomes due to a lack of shared vision and stakeholder collaboration (Biggs et al., 2011; Gunn, 1978; Knight, Cowling, et al., 2008). R7, R13, and R16 show this dynamic, where community consultation and engagement failed to reduce poaching, community capacity-building did not improve capacity to implement business model, and investment and funding did not influence enforcement or improve destination marketing nor the quality of park infrastructure and facilities. Hence, this archetype manifests in poor policy planning, ineffective enforcement, inadequate protection status, and community challenges in implementing El Carey’s operational requirements.

Identify key leverage points

Step 5 in Phase 2 involves identifying key leverage points (Maani & Cavana, 2007), guided by the systems archetypes and feedback loops. Initially, park managers presumed food and economic security was a key leverage point in La Caleta, but as Meadows (2008) argues, leverage points are often non-intuitive. A deeper analysis of the CLD and the feedback loops constituting each archetype reveals the significance of collaboration. This variable is common across all archetypes and impacts all variables in loops R4–R12 and R20. It also indirectly affects most system variables through its connections between loops, suggesting that improving collaboration could have widespread positive effects.

Develop intervention strategies

The final step in Phase 2 involves developing interventions that modify the system’s structure for more desirable results. In La Caleta, this requires introducing balancing feedback loops to reverse the decline in collaboration. Moreover, each archetype requires specific management actions (Braun, 2002; Kim & Anderson, 2011; Senge, 1993). By re-evaluating the storyline of each feedback loop, exploring suggested actions, and asking relevant questions, we crafted fit-for-purpose interventions. They include (1) uncovering dominant mental models to better understand stakeholder perceptions and interactions with La Caleta (Biggs et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2019); (2) building social capital for community cohesion and achieving sustainability and conservation goals, particularly important in tourism and protected areas (Rojas et al., 2023); and (3) addressing the Intention vs Action implementation gap.

Discussion and conclusion

Tourism is vital for conservation and local economies in developing countries (Wardle et al., 2018). COVID-19’s impact on protected areas highlighted this reliance, demonstrating an interconnected relationship between tourism, poaching and conservation. We argue that the pandemic presents an opportunity to question the systems we have created. Perhaps, more importantly, it questions the systems we need to design for a future of a different kind (Haley et al., 2021). Holistic analysis that captures the complexity of cultural, social, and economic systems can help us design new systems and grapple with the wicked problems characterising conflictual scenarios like tourism and poaching. Systems thinking can help in that regard.

This study used a CLD to depict interactions and feedback mechanisms hindering tourism’s role in conservation, particularly in reducing poaching in protected areas. From the case study of El Carey in La Caleta, we learn that most reinforcing feedback loops represent vicious cycles contributing to ongoing system decline (Table 4 in Supplementary Material). Introducing interventions aimed at either balancing or reversing these feedback loops is recommended. For example, the only balancing feedback loops B1 and B2 suggest that improving food and economic security could stabilise the system. El Carey was established with this purpose, yet we also learned that it failed to do so because of significantly poor collaboration, causing stakeholder conflict and diminished community social capital. Introducing balancing loops in different areas of the system is crucial for system stability.

In this sense, CLDs can be useful in helping us understand the underlying dynamics of a system before introducing simplistic solutions. Understanding these hidden dynamics is the bedrock of holistic planning recommended by Kohl and McCool (2016), especially for fragile and complex systems such as protected areas. This is particularly important to build tourism resilience in a post-COVID-19 context. Although our study was conducted before the pandemic, assumptions about its applicability and value for tourism recovery can be made.

Namely, the value of holistic planning was prevalent before the pandemic; if anything, it has become even more critical today. Indeed, recent studies call for more complexity-informed tourism research (Crabolu, Font, & Eker, 2023; Crabolu, Font, & Miller, 2023). In that sense, the prominent value of our work lies in its methodological contribution, which offers a systems approach enabling tourism managers and policymakers to understand systems holistically before introducing interventions that may fail without such initial analysis. This is particularly important for wicked problems, where complexity is the norm (DeFries & Nagendra, 2017; Mason et al., 2018). Such complexity may have been exacerbated post-COVID-19, pronouncing vicious cycles. Indeed, this seems to be the case in La Caleta when tourism numbers declined during lockdowns, as a spearfisher stated in conversations in mid-2020 that “the park has been like a ‘ghost town’…no one is visiting”.

Finally, our proposed interventions are relevant to tourism recovery. First, Kohl and McCool (2016) emphasise the need for protected area managers to understand the beliefs, experiences, attitudes, and intentions influencing their decisions. They also call for new structures to be put in place to foster new ways of thinking. Identifying and altering problematic mental models is key to this paradigm shift. Second, social capital is vital in building community resilience for managing common pool resources within community-based tourism and for building the capacity to adapt to future shocks (Musavengane, 2019). Finally, studies continue to advocate for addressing the implementation gap. Adams et al. (2021) argue that appropriate solutions must be based on clearly identified constraints. Complexity-informed research like this study can move us beyond working with surface-level constraints and towards identifying the root causes of problems.

Theoretical and managerial contributions

This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of the tourism-poaching nexus by using systems thinking to examine their relationship holistically before introducing interventions. Researchers investigating the tourism–poaching relationship pre-COVID-19 focused on the role of tourism in conservation (Wardle et al., 2018). In contrast, post-COVID-19 studies proposing recommendations for tourism resilience neglect complexity-informed approaches for holistic planning. Without a systems approach, the impact of tourism and hospitality research on sustainability remains limited (Moscardo, 2021). Concerning managerial contributions, this study encourages managers to rethink conventional planning methods to meet the challenges posed by increasing complexity, uncertainties, new risks, and rapidly changing conditions. Achieving a more holistic planning process should be characterised by systemic thinking from the beginning (McCool, 2022).

The following sections discuss our theoretical and managerial contributions in depth.

Mental models

Collaboration challenges in natural resource management usually stem from a lack of clear and transparent communications, difficulties integrating diverse knowledge, and a lack of shared ownership over conservation plans (Biggs et al., 2011). Two dominant mental models in La Caleta influence the system’s dual but conflicting purposes. While park managers, ecologists, and government institutions view conservation as the system’s goal, fishers see it as a means to economic security. Some fishers understand the value and potential of conservation in sustaining their livelihoods (e.g. COOPRESCA members). In contrast, the spearfishers’ exclusion compels them to fish illegally for subsistence. This creates a significant discrepancy in perceptions about the role of conservation and the MPA’s impact on community prosperity (Rosadi et al., 2022).

Eliciting mental models provides essential insights into stakeholders’ understanding of the system and their roles within it, helping correct misconceptions, improve knowledge-sharing, and resolve conflicts (Halbrendt et al., 2014; Moon & Adams, 2016). Despite mental models’ potential to significantly improve conservation planning and natural resource management (Moon et al., 2019), they seldom feature in past research investigating the tourism–poaching nexus. This study proposes uncovering mental models as the first systemic intervention, which will, in turn, offer valuable insights for identifying systems archetypes, improving social capital, and addressing the Intention vs Action archetype. Implied benefits can enhance collaboration and conservation efforts across La Caleta. We recommend employing Moon et al.’s (2019) mental models framework for this intervention.

Systems archetypes

Systems archetypes, though useful in highlighting system behaviour, are underutilised in tourism research (Zanker & Štekerová, 2020). By suggesting areas of high and low leverage (Senge, 1993), systems archetypes help pinpoint where interventions could be most impactful. Prior studies used the Tragedy of the Commons, Shifting the Burden, Fixes that Fail, Limits to Growth, and Drifting Goals archetypes to identify leverage points (Nguyen & Bosch, 2013; T. D. Phan, Nguyen, et al., 2016; T. Phan, Sahin, et al., 2019). Our study extends such research by analysing the Tragedy of the Commons, Escalation, Success to the Successful, and Growth and Underinvestment archetypes in a poaching and tourism context. Our methodology also demonstrates how systems archetypes interact and reinforce one another, amplifying vicious cycles.

Building on Braun’s (2002) work, we propose the Intention vs Action archetype to capture the planning–implementation gap. Although we considered whether La Caleta is a special case of Fixes that Fail, our proposed archetype is better suited due to the characteristics of the Fixes that Fail archetype. Namely, it typically involves implementing quick solutions that may seem effective in the short term but have unforeseen lasting consequences. Managers are thus encouraged to focus on the long-term and disregard short-term fixes (Senge, 1993). Establishing El Carey in La Caleta was a longstanding, collaboratively planned approach managed over 6 years. However, it necessitated holistic planning to navigate the system’s complex, uncertain, and contentious challenges (Kohl & McCool, 2016).

Tourism managers should prioritise identifying systems archetypes to better understand system dynamics and link solutions to established feedback patterns. This improves decision-making and helps deliver effective outcomes instead of unexpected consequences, vital in destinations with limited resources. Recognising areas with the highest leverage when multiple systems archetypes are present is also critical. Since leverage points are often counterintuitive (Meadows, 2008), managers and policymakers risk focusing on symptoms rather than root causes of problems. For instance, in La Caleta, continuing to manage the “commons” or increasing funding to fix the Growth and Underinvestment archetype might seem logical, but past efforts show that such solutions don’t alter long-term system behaviour. As Meadows (2008, p. 57) points out, “high leverage, wrong direction”.

The systems archetypes in La Caleta reveal that the root causes of problems go beyond investment or ecological management and into social dimensions. Specifically, El Carey’s failure to address poaching is linked to inadequate leadership, skill deficits, poor social cohesion, and a lack of trust and collaboration among community members. This breakdown in collaboration creates conflicts and exclusion of stakeholder groups, eroding trust between community members and hampering collective income generation in El Carey. Ultimately, this lack of collaboration impacts all feedback loops in the system (refer to interactive CLD), signalling a substantial erosion of social capital, which affects the community’s ability to work together. Therefore, interventions should focus on strengthening social capital and addressing the implementation gap of the Intention vs Action archetype.

Building social capital

This study offers new insights into how systems archetypes can be addressed by strengthening social capital, a crucial component of community-led tourism and a sustainability indicator of community-based tourism (Zhang et al., 2021). Increasing social capital is a key management initiative in the fight against poaching (see Geiger et al., 2022). Social capital enhances the likelihood of cooperative actions for all stakeholders, improving outcomes, reducing collective costs, and strengthening government–community relationships (Membiela-Pollán et al., 2019; Sessin-Dilascio et al., 2015). These benefits are essential for building tourism resilience post-COVID-19, as communities with eroded social capital are more vulnerable to disruptions (King et al., 2021).

Eroded social capital in La Caleta hinders collaboration, limiting tourism’s community benefits (Rocca & Zielinski, 2022). Improving social capital can help change system behaviour by engaging community members in meaningful dialogue (Zhang et al., 2021). This can improve trust, strengthen social connections and identity, and foster collective goal achievement. Social capital can be enhanced in areas of lower leverage that still influence the system. For example, virtuous cycles R6 and R7 show improved collaboration between COOPRESCA fishers positively affects other system areas. However, spearfishers are excluded from these feedback loops. To address this, community consultation and engagement can be more inclusive, allowing willing poachers to participate in conservation.

Indeed, all spearfishers strongly desire ocean-related jobs contributing to conservation efforts while meeting their economic needs. Engaging poachers in research or enforcement might prove effective (Cooney et al., 2017; Prescott et al., 2016). These approaches are most successful where people feel a strong sense of stewardship over natural resources; where they are protecting “their” wildlife (Wilkie et al., 2016). Given the unique characteristics of the case study, we recommend that park managers implement Rojas et al.’s (2023) approaches to strengthen social capital in La Caleta.

Addressing the implementation gap resulting from Intention vs Action

Addressing the implementation gap resulting from the Intention vs Action archetype is vital for improved management. This implementation gap has been discussed in-depth (Adams et al., 2021), yet the tourism literature seemingly overlooks it, particularly in the context of tourism and poaching. We advance systems theory by conceptualising the implementation gap as a new archetype for analysing complex tourism systems. Given the unique ways the Intention vs Action archetype manifests in La Caleta, we recommend park managers create a policy support programme similar to Hudson et al.’s (2019).

This programme should focus on thorough policy preparation, improved policy design, and establishing a central “delivery unit” to track progress, implementation support mechanisms, and post-implementation reviews (Hudson et al., 2019). We also suggest a long-term capacity-building programme to enhance community capabilities in El Carey’s operations. This programme should encompass vocational training to improve knowledge, skills, and attitudes and foster peer learning (Dasan et al., 2022; Hudson et al., 2019; Pham Hong et al., 2021). Establishing "implementation support centres" (Pew ChariTable Trust, 2017) to work alongside the government to enhance effective implementation is advisable. These centres can serve as Communities of Practice, facilitating knowledge-sharing and learning activities related to entrepreneurship (Erbaş & Ongun, 2020).

Limitations and future research

Our study offers a detailed method for holistically analysing tourism systems to firstly identify obstacles hindering tourism’s capacity to mitigate poaching and, secondly, propose fit-for-purpose interventions. However, there are limitations. First, CLDs describe systems qualitatively and are thus limited in simulating system dynamics over time (Mai & Smith, 2018). Future research should leverage our methodology for quantitative simulations using stock and flow diagrams. Second, due to time constraints, we created the CLD without community input and used existing literature to propose interventions. Future research should use participatory and co-design methodologies to involve the community in uncovering mental models, identifying systems archetypes, and co-creating CLDs and interventions, which should be tested in practice. Finally, future studies should explore the Intention vs Action archetype within tourism, particularly in failing CBET projects reliant on tourism for conservation or community livelihoods.

Ethics approval

An ethics approval application was lodged with Griffith University detailing why the research is being conducted, what participants will be asked to do, the basis by which participants were selected, the expected benefits of the research, risks to participants, and the ethical conduct of the research, including informed consent, feedback and confidentiality of the data collected. Participants were given a participant information sheet explaining the research and a consent form, which they signed. Griffith University granted ethical approval for the study in October 2019 (GU Ref No: 2019/818).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Ruben Torres for his support in conducting this research. We also thank all participants for their time and valuable contributions to this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Quality of park infrastructure and facilities.