National parks are public conservation assets, created to protect biodiversity and provide affordable access to nature for all.
But, new research published in npjBiodiversity highlights a growing global issue: according to the authors, political decisions are increasingly favouring private tourism development inside national parks, undermining conservation, equity and public benefit.
“Nowhere is this more apparent than in Australia – particularly Queensland and Tasmania – placing the nation amongst the worst international examples of tourism-driven encroachment into protected areas,” lead author Professor Emeritus Ralf Buckley said.
Previous studies co-authored by Professor Buckley, from Griffith University’s School of Environment and Science, have found national parks played a vital role in public wellbeing, supporting mental health through recreation, family connection and access to nature.
“Park tracks, trails, and much of the camping infrastructure were funded by taxpayers, on the understanding that these landscapes would remain accessible to the public,” he said.
“Increasingly, however, governments are handing over publicly funded assets to private tourism operators, turning once-affordable experiences into premium products beyond the reach of ordinary families.”
High-profile examples included Tasmania’s Three Capes Track, costing $4,095 per person for a three-night twin-share walk; in the Whitsundays, the Ngaro Track was offered through a ‘preferred operator’ arrangement at $2,195 per person for two nights.
In each case, tracks and access corridors were publicly funded, with private lodges or exclusive camps established inside public parks – often supported by public subsidies.
While independent visitors could access some tracks, they were frequently excluded from prime campsites or facilities, effectively creating a two-tier park system.
These arrangements have sparked strong opposition from other tour operators and park advocates, who argued special deals distorted fair access and competition while diluting the public purpose of national parks.
“Granting exclusive rights to private operators excludes both public access but also small local tourism operators,” said co-author Professor Sonya Underdahl, from Edogawa University.
Outside of Australia, the research team also found large tourism interests increasingly influenced global conservation governance, including efforts to co-opt the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) tourism subgroup to promote private tourism development within protected areas.
Recent policy papers, proposed motions, and planned sessions at the 2025 World Conservation Congress raised concerns about conservation mandates being diluted in favour of industrial tourism.
“The ecological risks are well documented. Fixed-site tourism developments fragment habitats, damage vegetation, disturb wildlife, and introduce weeds, pathogens, and feral species,” Professor Buckley said.
“Even small developments can become bridgeheads for ongoing expansion, creating lasting public costs for private profit.
“Tourism has no inherent right to national parks; its role should be limited to carefully controlled support for public recreation, or in rare circumstances, to support conservation through adjacent communities. National parks must remain autonomous conservation assets, protected from political and commercial capture, and accessible to the public who fund and value them.”
Professor Emeritus Ralf Buckley
The paper ‘Political ecology of private tourism development in public protected areas in the lead-up to the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025’ has been published in npjBiodiversity.
Featured
Ralf Buckley
Author
