Assessing Ecotourism Opportunities in Macaronesian Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): An Adapted MEET Indicator-Based Methodology

Abstract

Tourism significantly contributes to the economic growth of countries, especially in insular areas such as Small Islands Developing States (SIDSs) or the outmost regions of Europe. If managed properly, ecotourism offers a sustainable alternative by promoting nature conservation while benefiting local communities. The aim of this study was to develop a methodology to assess the existing conditions in marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Macaronesian archipelagos for the development of ecotourism activities. To achieve this, the methodology of the Mediterranean Experience of Ecotourism (MEET) was adapted to the unique environmental, social, and economic context of the region. A set of indicators was developed and refined through expert evaluation and the results revealed a strong level of satisfaction with the indicators created. This approach contributes to the sustainable management of MPAs by providing a practical tool to evaluate their potential for ecotourism development. The refined indicators can assist policymakers, MPA managers, and stakeholders in designing sustainable ecotourism products that align with conservation goals, ensuring long-term ecological and economic benefits for the Macaronesian region.

1. Introduction

There is a consensus that tourism has significant economic benefits, especially in insular regions such as the Small Islands Developing States (SIDSs) or the outmost European region of Macaronesia [1,2,3,4,5]. Tourism can stimulate the creation of jobs, enhance infrastructure development, and generate revenue [6,7]. It also has the potential to positively impact the use of nature-based solutions in the form of sustainable tourism [8,9]. Sustainable tourism considers its economic, social, and environmental impacts, and seeks to take into account the needs of visitors and local communities [10]. It involves the optimal use of environmental resources, focusing on the protection of nature and biodiversity, with respect to the socio-cultural diversity of local communities, and ensuring the economic viability of tourism activities (e.g., stable jobs, careers, and social services) [11,12]. As sustainable tourism encompasses a broader range of considerations, ecotourism can be used to emphasize nature-based experiences and conservation efforts. Ecotourism can be defined as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education” [13,14,15], and is often used to enhance and promote protected areas (PAs). Although sometimes there are some cases of ecotourism where the expected community involvement and conservation efforts failed, mostly due to management issues [16,17,18], ecotourism activities are recognized as an important economic contributor to coastal economies [5,19,20,21].

The Macaronesia region is a biogeographic area in the NE Atlantic that includes the archipelagos of Azores and Madeira from Portugal, the Canary Islands from Spain, and the country of Cabo Verde [22]. The Portuguese archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira include nine and four main volcanic islands, respectively, along with several smaller islets [23]. The Canary Islands, an autonomous Spanish territory, consist of eight volcanic islands and are home to approximately two million residents, making it the most densely inhabited European overseas region [22]. Further to the south, Cabo Verde lies approximately 570 km off the West African coast in the central Atlantic and is composed of ten volcanic islands.

The tourism industry plays a major role in the economy of Macaronesia, which is heavily centered in the services sector and presents both opportunities and challenges [24,25]. In 2023, all Macaronesian archipelagos exceeded the previous record for tourist arrivals, demonstrating the significance and expansion of the tourism industry in the area. In 2023, there were 30 million tourists arriving in Portugal, which is the largest amount ever recorded [26]. Compared to 2022, there were 3.8 million overnight stays and 1.2 million visitors in the Azores in 2023, representing increases of 15.1% and 14.8%, respectively [27]. With over 10.9 million overnight stays reported last year—a 13.6% rise over the previous year—Madeira tourism likewise set a record [28]. The direct and indirect contributions of tourism to Madeira’s GDP were approximately 29%. In 2023, the Canary Islands had a record of 16.2 million visitors. Approximately 35% of the Canary Islands’ GDP comes from tourism, both directly and indirectly. In Cabo Verde, tourism in 2023 also increased, with 900 thousand tourist arrivals—surpassing the numbers recorded in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. The tourism sector accounts for approximately 25% of Cabo Verde’s GDP. Although tourism boosts economic development, it also presents several challenges [29], such as environmental degradation, the risk of overtourism, increased strain on natural resources, and disruptions to local communities, like the rising costs of necessities such as food and shelter, as well as increased pressure on specific areas, rendering them less attainable to residents [30,31,32]. Due to their limited land area and finite natural resources, the islands face greater challenges in managing the growth of tourism. Tourism is crucial for economic development in these islands, yet it may also lead to a sudden barrier if it becomes unsustainable for the island’s ecosystem and residents [3,33]. These pressures can inadvertently contribute to the negative impacts of tourism, especially on islands, as they affect the ability of the local community to be self-sufficient [32,34]. Promoting sustainable tourism practices can mitigate many of these problems and enhance the overall experience for both local populations and sustainability initiatives.

Throughout the Macaronesia region, one of the main tourist attractions is nature and its bio- and geodiversity, as well as the so-called “sea, sun, and sand” tourism, that characterizes the Canary Islands, Madeira, and Cabo Verde. The dynamic and fluid nature of the Ocean, combined with the interconnectedness of the Macaronesian islands, make this region a vital stronghold for marine biodiversity [23,35]. In the Azores, natural areas and their biodiversity (especially marine biodiversity) and geodiversity are the primary tourist draws [36,37]. Encouraged by the European Union’s 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, which requires member states to protect at least 30% of land and sea, the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands have been working to expand their areas under protection [38,39,40]. In 2024, Azores approved the creation of the largest marine protected area in the North Atlantic, through the implementation of the regional network of marine protected areas of the Azores (RAMPA), that aims to protect and promote the conservation of the marine ecosystems, habitats, and the sustainable use of marine resources [41]. Madeira approved in 2021 an expansion of the marine protected area around the Selvagens Islands, extending to almost 2700 square kilometres, representing 0.6% of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Madeira archipelago [42,43]. Spain approved the extension of their Natura 2000 network, including marine protected areas in the Canary Islands [44]. Cabo Verde has some marine protected areas established and several ongoing projects to create an effective network of marine protected areas [45]. Given the efforts in Macaronesia to establish marine protected areas, the development of ecotourism in this region can support conservation goals and generate revenue [46]. Considering the increased willingness of tourists to support conservation efforts [47], ecotourism is an opportunity to generate revenue to support conservation efforts while giving visitors the opportunity to actively participate in biodiversity conservation. In this way, the benefits of tourism (e.g., employment and income for local regions) are balanced with the development of low-impact activities that focus on the tourist’s learning journey, as well as the quality of the experience and conservation efforts.

A practical example of the enhancement of nature through ecotourism was the establishment of the MEET organization (founded by IUCN-Med), which acts as an advisor to Mediterranean protected areas in the field of ecotourism [48]. MEET is a network of Mediterranean protected areas and some key organizations collaborating to preserve the region’s natural and cultural mosaic. Together, they promote a new ecotourism model in the market by developing high-quality ecotourism products and innovative tools to effectively manage their impact. MEET acts as a Destination Management Organization (DMO), helping protected areas in developing strategies for design, management, marketing, and sales to create more sustainable ecotourism products. The MEET model for ecotourism development [49] helps local operators to create and design ecotourism packages in close cooperation with protected areas, and thus contributes to their conservation. The ecotourism products of MEET are based on the creation of a local cluster that includes at least one protected area, one tour operator, and several local providers of tourism services (e.g., accommodation, recreation, transportation, and catering). The MEET standard helps to create a set of criteria to ensure that tourism benefits both conservation efforts and local communities, which is indispensable when tourism takes place in ecologically sensitive and important areas, such as protected areas [50].

As restored and adequately protected marine ecosystems provide social, economic, and health benefits to coastal communities and are particularly important for coastal countries such as Macaronesia, this study focuses on providing a methodology to assess the conditions for ecotourism in marine protected areas in Macaronesia [51]. To this end, the MEET methodology and the MEET standard were adapted to the Macaronesian archipelagos due to the unique environmental, social, and economic conditions of the region. Despite the increasing pressure of tourism and the ecological significance of the islands, no standardized framework currently exists to evaluate the readiness of MPAs in this region for ecotourism initiatives. The goal of this study was to establish a set of indicators for quickly evaluating the governance and the conditions supporting MPAs across the region’s archipelagos. This set of indicators can be used to assess whether a specific MPA has the potential to receive/develop an ecotourism product, ensuring that conservation measures are not overlooked, and natural capital is both protected and valued.

2. Methods

The MEET network developed a tool, identified as “Enabling conditions assessment of the destination: governance and conservation” [50], that outlines a set of minimum criteria that destinations must meet to ensure that an ecotourism product can be developed in a protected area. The MEET criteria encompass essential conditions related to governance and conservation, highlighting the importance of protected areas where ecotourism activities take place. The original methodology of the MEET network included 16 indicators that were developed based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green List standard for Protected Area Management [52] and the IUCN Natural Resources Governance Framework [53].

Based on this MEET methodology regarding the enabling conditions for ecotourism, governance and conservation, their indicators were adapted to the Macaronesia region (Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands, and Cabo Verde—Figure 1) and their marine protected areas, resulting in a table with 18 indicators (Supplementary Materials—Table S1).

These indicators were divided into two key areas: (1) enabling conditions for ecotourism (8 indicators); (2) enabling conditions of the marine protected area (MPA)—conservation (10 indicators). Part 1 refers to the enabling conditions for ecotourism, with the aim to enable an assessment of the general governance of the region, and Part 2 concerns the enabling conditions of the MPA—conservation, with the purpose of assessing the condition of each MPA to fulfill its main goal, which is the conservation of species and habitats.

The indicators were listed on a table, with an “Indicator” column and adjacent to this column, four response options were provided for each indicator, represented by the columns: “Ideal performance”, “Compliance”, “No data or non-compliant situation”, and “Don’t Know”. These columns provide predefined levels of compliance for each indicator (Supplementary Materials—Table S1).

To ensure that this methodology was reliable, the Delphi method was adapted to collect feedback from experts. The Delphi method involves seeking anonymous input from a panel of experts through a structured questionnaire [54]. In this study, an adaptation of the Delphi method was used to obtain expert opinions and assessments of the importance of the individual indicators. While the Delphi method typically recommends a panel of around 30 experts, this study sample size was slightly smaller. This adaptation was necessary due to the insular context, which inherently limits the availability of experts within the specific field of study. Despite the smaller sample size, careful consideration was given to ensuring the panel’s representativeness and diversity, aligning with the study’s purpose.

Several experts considered important for the objectives of this study were contacted, representing different areas of scientific expertise (tourism, marine conservation, research, among others), from environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO), local authorities, academia, potential investors and local tour operators, while also ensuring representativeness of the 4 archipelagos involved in the study. The questionnaire was sent to each expert via email, and in that questionnaire, the experts had to assess and grade the indicators, using a numerical scale (Likert scale) from 1 to 5 (1—very dissatisfied; 2—moderately dissatisfied; 3—nor satisfied neither dissatisfied; 4—moderately satisfied; 5—very satisfied). An extra column was left for comments from the experts, to further elaborate on their evaluations or to make recommendations to improve or modify the indicators.

The data collected from the experts were analyzed using descriptive statistics, such as the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV). The results are presented as M ± SD. The coefficient of variation was calculated using Equation (1), and the results are presented in percentage (%) as follows:

$$CV=\frac{SD}{M}\ast 100$$

(1)

The mean score was calculated to interpret the average performance of each indicator and compare the relative performance between them. The standard deviation was also calculated to help analyse the consistency of the experts’ assessment of the indicators. The coefficient of variation was determined to indicate the dispersion of the experts’ opinions for each indicator.

3. Results

A total of sixteen experts responded to the request, and among them was at least one representative from each of the Macaronesian archipelagos included in the study (Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands, and Cabo Verde). The experts’ assessments were analyzed taking into account the score they gave to each indicator (

Table 1. Results of the experts’ assessments of each indicator.

Indicator	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5	E6	E7	E8	E9	E10	E11	E12	E13	E14	E15	E16	M	SD	CV (%)
A	4	5	5	5	5	4	4	5	3	4	4	5	5	3	5	5	4.44	0.73	16.4
B	5	5	5	5	5	4	5	4	5	5	4	4	5	2	4	4	4.44	0.81	18.3
C	5	5	5	5	5	4	5	4	3	4	5	5	5	4	5	5	4.63	0.62	13.4
D	4	5	5	5	5	2	4	4	5	5	5	4	5	4	5	5	4.50	0.82	18.1
E	5	5	5	4	5	1	5	3	4	4	5	3	5	4	5	5	4.25	1.13	26.5
F	5	5	4	4	5	2	5	3	5	3	5	4	5	2	5	4	4.13	1.09	26.4
G	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	5	3	5	5	5	5	5	5	4.69	0.60	12.8
H	5	5	5	5	5	1	4	4	5	3	5	5	5	5	4	5	4.44	1.09	24.6
AA	5	5	5	2	5	5	5	3	4	4	4	5	5	5	5	5	4.50	0.89	19.9
BB	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	3	5	5	5	5	5	5	4.75	0.58	12.2
CC	5	5	5	5	5	4	5	3	5	4	5	4	5	4	5	1	4.38	1.09	24.9
DD	5	5	5	5	5	2	4	4	4	4	5	5	5	5	5	5	4.56	0.81	17.8
EE	5	5	5	5	5	2	5	4	5	4	5	4	5	5	5	5	4.63	0.81	17.4
FF	4	5	5	5	5	2	5	4	5	2	5	5	5	5	5	5	4.50	1.03	23.0
GG	5	5	5	5	5	2	3	5	3	4	5	4	5	3	5	5	4.31	1.01	23.5
HH	4	5	5	5	5	2	4	5	3	2	5	5	5	5	5	5	4.38	1.09	24.9
II	4	5	5	5	5	2	3	5	3	3	5	4	5	4	5	5	4.25	1.00	23.5
JJ	5	5	5	5	5	2	3	5	4	3	5	5	5	5	5	5	4.50	0.97	21.5
Maximum																	4.75	1.13	26.5
Minimum																	4.13	0.58	12.2
Caption: Lines A—Existence of an ecotourism strategy/plan (or law/regulation) in the region. B—Level of implementation of the actions present in the ecotourism strategy/plan (or law/regulation). C—Existence of guidelines/best practices for the region regarding tourism activities occurring in protected areas. D—Extent to which public authorities and decision-makers are aware and support the integration of ecotourism aspects into regional policies. E—Existence of ecotourism products in marine protected areas or near them. F—Existence of one or several Inbound Tour Operators (ITOs) that can develop and operate an ecotourism offer in the region. G—Existence of interested key stakeholders. H—Degree of participation of stakeholders in the development of ecotourism offers in marine protected areas or around them. AA—The MPA is legally established as a protected area according to national legislation. BB—The MPA has a legally established management body. CC—Maritime spatial planning (MSP) exists and includes the MPA. DD—The MPA has a management plan, used to guide management-related priorities and activities. EE—MPAs have a monitoring plan in place. FF—The MPA has activities and/or visitor regulations in place (group size, mode of transport, waste disposal, noise pollution, etc.) designed to minimize negative impacts on biodiversity/natural resources. The information is accessible to users and visitors. GG—Maritime activities and visitors’ level of compliance with existing law/guidelines. HH—Maritime activities taking place in the MPA need a license. II—Maritime activities can have users/stakeholders’ autoregulation processes, ensuring maritime regulation crafting and implementation. JJ—The MPA monitors visitor flows and impacts (seasonality, peaks, numbers, motivation, survey, hot spots, impacts on ecological status of vulnerable/threatened species). Maximum—the highest value Minimum—the lowest value Columns E1–E16—Experts’ grades to the indicators M—Mean SD—Standard Deviation CV—Coefficient of variation (%) Background color in columns M, SD and CV- to highlight the lowest or highest value in that column

).

In general, the experts’ assessments of the indicators were very positive, with high ratings for most indicators, differences of opinion of generally less than 30%, and low values for the standard deviation.

Indicator BB “The MPA has a legally established management body” is the one with the greatest consensus among the experts’ assessments, with a mean and standard deviation of 4.75 ± 0.58 (highest mean and lowest standard deviation), and 12.2% of variation (the lowest value).

Indicator G “Existence of interested key stakeholders”, with 4.69 ± 0.60 (M ± SD) and 12.8% value of the CV, is also a solid result with a good degree of consistency among the experts’ assessments. Indicators C “Existence of guidelines/Best practices for the region regarding tourism activities occurring in protected areas” and A “Existence of an ecotourism strategy/plan (or law/regulation) in the region” also have a good consensus of opinions and low variation among the assessments, 4.63 ± 0.62 and 13.4%, for indicator C, and 4.44 ± 0.73 and 16.4%, for indicator A, respectively.

Indicator E “Existence of ecotourism products in Marine Protected Areas or near them” is the one with the highest coefficient of variation (26.5%) and standard deviation (1.13), meaning that experts’ opinions were more divided regarding this indicator, followed by indicator F “Existence of one or several Inbound Tour Operators (ITO) that can develop and operate an ecotourism offer in the region”, that has values of 4.13 ± 1.09 and 26.4%, respectively, very close to the ones obtained for indicator E. These results show that the opinions of the expert group differ more strongly on these two indicators. Indicators H “Degree of participation of stakeholders in the development of ecotourism offers in marine protected areas or around them” and CC “Maritime spatial planning (MSP) exists and includes the MPA” also have a high standard deviation (1.09) and coefficient of variation (24.09%), emphasizing the variability of expert opinions with regard to these two indicators.

4. Discussion

Indicators are often used to evaluate the performance of management measures for protected areas [55,56]. The MEET network has developed a set of indicators to support protected areas in the Mediterranean in developing strategies that help them to build more sustainable ecotourism products [49,57,58]. The Macaronesian region also has great potential for the development of ecotourism products in protected areas due to its archipelagic composition combined with the numerous tourism awards that some of the Macaronesian archipelagos have received [59]. To date, however, there has been no defined strategy to encourage local businesses or entrepreneurs to develop ecotourism products, in maritime areas, based on the principles of sustainability. Thus, adapting the MEET methodology to this region can help fill this gap.

The indicators adapted to the Macaronesian reality, which were presented to the various stakeholders of the four archipelagos for evaluation, were approved by the expert group. Although none of the results is very low, some indicators have a lower performance than others according to the values obtained, which means that these specific indicators can be improved.

Indicators BB, G, C, and A have the strongest values among the experts, meaning that there is a strong consensus on the importance of the existence of a legal and operational regulatory body in MPAs (indicator BB), to enable clear oversight and management of ecotourism activities within marine protected areas. The existence of such management body affects the effectiveness of the governance of the MPA and is essential to strengthen conservation outputs [11,49,60,61,62]. The panel of experts was also consensual that the engagement of committed key stakeholders (indicator G) in ecotourism is beneficial. Stakeholders’ involvement is wildly recognized as a best practice in managing protected areas and the development of ecotourism [63,64,65,66,67]. Building consensus among different actors decreases the probability of conflicts, reducing the power gap and supporting a more sustainable practice [62,68]. Ecotourism can involve many stakeholders with different objectives, and their participation enhances the legitimacy in the governance process [62,69]. It is important that they all work together to align strategies and objectives and ensure that activities have a positive impact on nature conservation [64,65,70,71]. However, based on expert recommendations, this indicator (indicator G—Existence of interested key stakeholders) was refined to clearly identify key stakeholders, thereby reducing ambiguity in responses and assessing not only their presence, but also their level of involvement, which is another aspect that can greatly influence the conservation outcome of the ecotourism products [57,66,72,73].

The existence of guidelines and/or best practices regarding tourism in MPAs and a legal regulation for ecotourism are indicators with shared relevance for the experts, and are in line with the general recommendations to boost the development of ecotourism products in protected areas [49,74,75]. The existence of regulations is important to minimize the impact on the ecosystem and ensure the sustainability of ecotourism activities. For example, whale watching in the Azores is well regulated, with guidelines that clearly define approach distances, the number of boats allowed, the angle of approach, the length of interaction, and other measures to ensure the welfare of the animals and the sustainability of the industry [46].

The presence of ecotourism products in the MPAs or nearby (indicator E) showed the widest spread of ratings, meaning that the experts had a wider range of opinions. Some experts considered the existence of ecotourism products as an important factor that could serve as the starting point for a shift towards a more sustainable form of tourism [46,70,76,77]. Others, however, mentioned that the mere existence of an ecotourism product does not necessarily imply that it meets the desirable sustainability outcomes [78,79,80,81].

Indicator F, which measures the “Existence of one or several Inbound Tour Operators (ITO) that can develop and operate an ecotourism offer in the region”, also emerged as one of the lowest-rated indicators in the evaluation. This brings attention to both the relevance of the indicator itself and potential areas for improvement. An interesting outcome of this assessment is that Macaronesia, according to this expert panel, has the potential to increase the presence of ITOs (defined here as locally-based companies that receive travellers from another country who travel to the country in which they operate) in their territory. However, some experts emphasized that beyond simply noting the existence of ITOs, it is important to assess their commitment to responsible practices [58]. Sustainable tourism requires that operators adhere to low-impact tourism principles, which align with conservation goals and support the long-term well-being of the environment [49,57]. Therefore, this indicator was improved to be more effective, and to evaluate the quality and sustainability of the operators’ practices, rather than just their presence in the protected areas.

The correlation between maritime spatial planning (MSP) and MPAs (indicator CC) reflected a certain variability of opinions. Some experts recognize that while an MSP is important, an MPA can exist and operate without an MSP. The integration of MPAs into MSP is valuable for coherent and coordinated management, especially when it comes to balancing multiple uses in marine areas, avoiding conflicts of use and making the best use of resources, and minimizing their environmental impact [82,83,84].

It is also worth noting that in indicator EE (MPAs have a monitoring plan in place), the experts agree that a monitoring plan is essential to assess the status of marine ecosystems and the effectiveness of conservation measures, but effective monitoring requires resources (human and/or financial) to be implemented and adhered to [85,86]. A number of studies refer to the importance of management and monitoring of MPAs in Macaronesia, as well as the resource difficulties in the region [87,88,89,90].

The methodology was refined based on the expert panel’s input and recommendations, including clarifying certain concepts and improving the clarity of the response options in the “compliance” and “ideal performance” columns for some of the indicators (see the Table S1—Supplementary Materials). In line with the recommendations received, weighing up the criteria will also be included to reflect the perceived importance of specific elements, which is derived from the responses of the managers. These weightings will not influence the assessments conducted by the experts, whose evaluations pertain exclusively to the quality of the indicators. The methodology has successfully fulfilled its purpose of refining the indicators and making them more objective and targeted. This refinement ensures that the indicators are now more suitable to be presented to MPA managers, facilitating their practical application through direct interviews with Macaronesian MPA managers to identify their framework for further development of ecotourism products and to obtain an up-to-date overview of possible future ecotourism initiatives in the region. These indicators can become a useful tool to be used in MPAs that wish to develop ecotourism in a more meaningful and sustainable way.

5. Conclusions

The methodology developed in this study was positively received by the panel of experts, demonstrating its potential applicability to the specific context of Macaronesian MPAs. Although the majority of indicators showed strong performance, the results also highlighted areas for improvement and refinement. These refinements were critical to enhance the precision and applicability of the framework, ensuring it provides solid guidance for ecotourism development while aligning with conservation purposes.

While these indicators have been refined and validated by experts, their practical application is yet to be tested. Further studies should focus on implementing these indicators in MPAs, gathering feedback from managers, and weighing criteria to reflect the relative importance of each item and assessing their effectiveness in supporting the development of ecotourism in the region.

This research provides a valuable tool for assessing enabling conditions for ecotourism in the Macaronesian MPAs. Moving forward, collaboration among policymakers, MPA managers, stakeholders, and communities will be essential to ensure that these indicators lead to the development of meaningful and sustainable ecotourism products in the region.