# data[].attributes.body
Wang Fang conclusion
This paper views tourism development and its associated energy and resource impacts from a systems perspective. direct and input–output can enter into adaptive management of tourism to address local and global ‘over[1]shoot’.

currently underutilized in tourism adaptive management strategy. Further work is needed to identify. .A systems approach can improve managers abilities to incorporating feedback from environmental impacts into decision-making.

First，Greater understanding is needed of the problem domains, not only in terms of tourism structure, but also in terms of temporal and spatial dynamics.

Second，a tourism manager can seek othersources or collaboration in transforming the problem domain.

Third, further investigation is needed to understand how improved indicators can assist in the management of the complex processes tourism impacts.

Lastly, there is a need for more conceptual work in the tourism which examines

linkages between hierarchical management levels.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is discussing adaptive management as experiment that probe the responses of system as human behaviour changes, the relation between ecological footprint and bio capacity and coming up with strategies (to increase or decrease), providing historical tourism and environmental data of Siena, Italy as comparison, the energy and material used with tourism and local activity leading to natural capital foundations

# data[].attributes.body
What I understood, this is a review paper aims to look at previous paper in several destination. They researcher want to provide model that look at the tourism related problem in New way. Instead of looking at problems and what  caused them, to looking at underlying dynamic of problem. This help to anticipate the problem before it happen.

# data[].attributes.body
Wang Fang conclusion
This paper views tourism development and its associated energy and resource impacts from a systems perspective. direct and input–output can enter into adaptive management of tourism to address local and global ‘over shoot’， currently underutilized in tourism adaptive management strategy. Further work is needed to identify. .A systems approach can improve managers abilities to incorporating feedback from envir[1]onmental impacts into decision-making.

First，Greater understanding is needed of the problem domains, not only in terms of tourism structure, but also in terms of temporal and spatial dynamics.

Second，a tourism manager can seek othersources or collaboration in transforming the problem domain.

Third, further investigation is needed to understand how improved indicators can assist in the management of the complex processes tourism impacts.

Lastly, there is a need for more conceptual work in the tourism which examines

linkages between hierarchical management levels.

# data[].attributes.body
What I understood, this is a review paper aims to look at previous paper  in several destination. They researcher want to provide model  that look at the tourism related problem  in New way. Instead of looking at problem and its causes , to looking at underlying dynamic of problem. This help to anticipate the problem before it happen.

# data[].attributes.headline
IssueRetrospective examination and restoration of tourism impacts on host communities and ecosystems are rarely successful. Moreover, given those degraded resource bases and civil infrastructure requirements, rejuvenation costs are generally quite high (Butler, 1980). Thus, even in conventional economic terms, there is significant and widespread interest in finding practical means of avoiding natural capital degradation which leads to a decline in visitation (BA, 1994; Garrigos Simon et al., 2003; Lindberg et al., 1997; Mowforth and Munt, 1998).Tourism registers indirect yet profound and persistent changes on the natural capital of its destinations (Collins, 1999). However, the full extent of these impacts has been notoriously difficult to measure with direct and quantifi- able indicators. Tourism impacts are often indistinguish- able from those produced by local residents, and are therefore difficult to monitor and control. Often, the most challenging of tourism’s impacts to assess are those which are the result of rapid economic growth which outpaces civil infrastructure and its ability to monitor changes to the environment. Even in the most wealthy and well-planned destinations, indirect impacts escape recognition because tourism’s impacts can (for example in the case of airline emissions, or imported products) be caused half a planet away, or take years to manifest impacts (Go ̈ ssling, 2002a; Patterson, 2005). While management concerns focus on the more visible, immediate, or offensive impacts of tourism, little to no attention has been focused on the slow but persistent erosion of natural capital which may be occurring if a given area is in ecological ‘overshoot’. As a result, this feedback cannot be incorporated into tourism management and doubts in tourism’s ability to deliver on promises of sustainable development have been expressed (Hunter, 1997; Schmidt di Friedberg, 1997; Collins, 1999).Cost and other difficulties prevent the observation and documentation of the complete range of tourism impacts, effluents, and changes, at all relevant scales and through time. Thus, a second technique to assess tourism impacts is through tracking tourism impacts by accounting energy and resource use and waste emission per capita throughout the tourist’s journey. This category of information is more difficult to incorporate into management considerations, because the source or sink of tourism impacts can be conceptually, spatially, or temporally far removed from the institutions and managers who would control them. One objective of this paper is to remove this conceptual distance by illustrating an example which incorporates this second form of impact assessment into an adaptive management structure. We use the ecological footprint and its corollary, biocapacity as an input to this process.The biocapacity of any defined area represents the maximum amount of goods and environmental services that could be produced, in a sustainable way, according to the land use of that area (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). As explained by Monfreda et al. (2004), when compared to the ecological footprint, biocapacity can be considered as ameasure of environmental carrying capacity. From a tourism management perspective this indication is of interest for a number of reasons. When an ecological footprint is calculated for an area’s resident population, and is then compared to the area’s biocapacity, it reveals the presence or absence of ecological ‘surplus’. In theoretical terms this surplus is the result of natural capital producing ecological goods and services faster than they are being consumed. If an optimal outcome means maximizing the use of this surplus, in theory it can be reallocated to either support other populations, used as a ‘buffer’ against over-consumption, or it can support increasing consumption trends. Once biocapacity has been exceeded, this implies that environmental pressures are either occurring beyond the area of study, or within the study area but are unlikely to manifest themselves until some date in the future.

# data[].attributes.subject
IssueRetrospective examination and restoration of tourism impacts on host communities and ecosystems are rarely successful. Moreover, given those degraded resource bases and civil infrastructure requirements, rejuvenation costs are generally quite high (Butler, 1980). Thus, even in conventional economic terms, there is significant and widespread interest in finding practical means of avoiding natural capital degradation which leads to a decline in visitation (BA, 1994; Garrigos Simon et al., 2003; Lindberg et al., 1997; Mowforth and Munt, 1998).Tourism registers indirect yet profound and persistent changes on the natural capital of its destinations (Collins, 1999). However, the full extent of these impacts has been notoriously difficult to measure with direct and quantifi- able indicators. Tourism impacts are often indistinguish- able from those produced by local residents, and are therefore difficult to monitor and control. Often, the most challenging of tourism’s impacts to assess are those which are the result of rapid economic growth which outpaces civil infrastructure and its ability to monitor changes to the environment. Even in the most wealthy and well-planned destinations, indirect impacts escape recognition because tourism’s impacts can (for example in the case of airline emissions, or imported products) be caused half a planet away, or take years to manifest impacts (Go ̈ ssling, 2002a; Patterson, 2005). While management concerns focus on the more visible, immediate, or offensive impacts of tourism, little to no attention has been focused on the slow but persistent erosion of natural capital which may be occurring if a given area is in ecological ‘overshoot’. As a result, this feedback cannot be incorporated into tourism management and doubts in tourism’s ability to deliver on promises of sustainable development have been expressed (Hunter, 1997; Schmidt di Friedberg, 1997; Collins, 1999).Cost and other difficulties prevent the observation and documentation of the complete range of tourism impacts, effluents, and changes, at all relevant scales and through time. Thus, a second technique to assess tourism impacts is through tracking tourism impacts by accounting energy and resource use and waste emission per capita throughout the tourist’s journey. This category of information is more difficult to incorporate into management considerations, because the source or sink of tourism impacts can be conceptually, spatially, or temporally far removed from the institutions and managers who would control them. One objective of this paper is to remove this conceptual distance by illustrating an example which incorporates this second form of impact assessment into an adaptive management structure. We use the ecological footprint and its corollary, biocapacity as an input to this process.The biocapacity of any defined area represents the maximum amount of goods and environmental services that could be produced, in a sustainable way, according to the land use of that area (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). As explained by Monfreda et al. (2004), when compared to the ecological footprint, biocapacity can be considered as ameasure of environmental carrying capacity. From a tourism management perspective this indication is of interest for a number of reasons. When an ecological footprint is calculated for an area’s resident population, and is then compared to the area’s biocapacity, it reveals the presence or absence of ecological ‘surplus’. In theoretical terms this surplus is the result of natural capital producing ecological goods and services faster than they are being consumed. If an optimal outcome means maximizing the use of this surplus, in theory it can be reallocated to either support other populations, used as a ‘buffer’ against over-consumption, or it can support increasing consumption trends. Once biocapacity has been exceeded, this implies that environmental pressures are either occurring beyond the area of study, or within the study area but are unlikely to manifest themselves until some date in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
LIU Yuqi
This increases the operative potential for the indicator in terms of management considerations, and also increases its tractability in policy terms. Yet to fully implement a management plan which utilizes the EF as feedback in an iterative management function, improvements to civil statistical sources are necessary. Among these needs is the lack of specific information on the degradation of natural capital due to tourism in the province. Improvements to statistical sources involves gathering better information on slow variables, putting more weight on future returns, narrowing the distribution of uncertainties, maintaining social flexibility for adaptive response, and maintaining the resilience of the local economy and ecosystem

# data[].attributes.body
The main objective is to discuss about bio capacity and using the data ecological footprint to highlight the relation between these two aspects and the importance of “overcrowding” before it happens and deciding whether to reduce or to increase visitations in the area. Also to come up with the implications of “new rules” by the stakeholders. (Shahiela)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adaptive environmental management of tourism