Intersectional Emancipation for Biocultural Conservation: An Exploratory Neolocalism Framework

Abstract

Ketchikan, Alaska, is a coastal gateway community that has experienced rapid changes, unearthing visceral realizations of biocultural vulnerabilities and bioregional interdependencies. Bordering the Tongass National Forest, the community embodies and endures complicated historicized impacts from neoliberalism, reproduced today by mass cruise tourism. During the COVID-19 global lockdown, remote field work was conducted employing qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The rich data illuminated embodied resident perceptions of community changes and bioregional sensoryscapes. Social-ecological reproduction theory is extended by conceptualizing complex interrelationships involving intersectional emancipation, neolocalism, and biocultural conservation. Emerging from the findings, the authors present an exploratory neolocalism framework including the following seven-indicators: resilient governance, diverse economies, biocultural conservation, intersectional engagement, biocultural identity, emancipatory zoning, and decomposition. This framework is intended to support regenerative tourism planning that resists oppression from corporate domination through neolocal resilience. This research articulates issues of community agency, social-ecological reproduction, and intersectional emancipation for biocultural conservation.

Keywords

intersectional emancipation biocultural conservation neolocalism social-ecological reproduction critical tourism

Introduction

In 2020, COVID-19 presented unique research opportunities to investigate industry impacts, ideations of alternative economic models, and crisis management. Ketchikan is located on Revillagigedo Island in Southeastern Alaska encompassing coastal gateway, islandscape, and sub-Artic tourism-impacted geographies. The greater Ketchikan Gateway Borough is home to remote villages and towns and is located within a bioregion containing five of the most productive watersheds and one of the highest levels of biodiversity in the Southeast Island provinces (The Nature Conservancy, 2018). Ketchikan is a gateway to marine protected areas and the 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest (USDA, 2021), deemed the world’s largest temperate rainforest.

Ketchikan is home to First Nations and Alaska Natives including Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian peoples, as well as Filipino Americans, and settler-residents of various heritages. These communities grapple with Indigenous-settler relations, post-colonialism, and tourism-dependency, warranting cultural geography, political ecology, and social-ecological reproduction research. Social-ecological reproduction theory involves “the (unpaid) contributions of nonhuman natures to the sustainability of life” and highlights the “connection between environmental crises and crises of social reproduction” (Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021, p. 9). This work expands elements of social reproduction theory that includes gender and class by incorporating social-ecological and bioregional perspectives (Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021). In Ketchikan, social reproduction is evidently influenced by neoliberal decision-making and planning that prioritizes mass cruise tourism over social-ecological reproduction.

Ketchikan serves approximately six ships with 10,000 visitors daily from May through to September (Alaska Office of Governor, 2021). The volume of tourists, coupled with increasing vessel size, generates extreme crowding, infrastructure stress, and other multifaceted impacts. In 2019, Ketchikan accommodated 1.9 million visitors, magnifying overtourism challenges and stretching town infrastructure (Lloret et al., 2021). The community faces a juxtaposition of geographical conundrums involving its remote and concurrent dependence on globalized supply chains which results in heightened vulnerabilities to systemic shocks (see Figure 1). Cruise ship tourism presents complexities of risks and environmental health impacts to the greater bioregion including solid waste, the transfer of species/pathogens, biocide coatings, air and noise pollution, carbon emissions, ship dismantling, and accidents (Lloret et al., 2021).

For example, Wanda Culp, of the Huna Tlingit people, argues that exclusionary displacement and gentrification has occurred due to the cruise tourism industry decimating Hoonah’s (located northwest of Ketchikan on Chichagof Island) social-ecological systems, privacy, and the agency to live outside of the tourist gaze. Culp states: “we need protection [and to] be aware of the fact that cruise lines are the invasive species into our presence that’s hurting us more than other industry ever has” (Engelson et al., 2023).

Transdisciplinary research engages deeper understandings of tourism as a phenomenon that can both conserve and erode biocultural diversity. We present both theoretical and applied perspectives at the intersections of tourism, planning, and sustainable development in the context of a coastal community hosting a mass cruise economy. Underlying themes addressed include impacts of tourism, power dynamics, agency, intersectional emancipation, and biocultural conservation. A seven-indicator framework emerging from the findings is provided as a regenerative tourism planning tool to help resist oppression by offering strategies for local resilience as a response to mass cruise tourism. This novel exploratory framework proposes alternative approaches to new economic paradigms that prioritize biocultural conservation, intersectional emancipation, and social-ecological reproduction.

Key contentions center on contradictions arising from the entanglement of neoliberal capitalism within tourism and the ensuing need for intersectional emancipation from corporate domination. The framework provides planning scaffolding to counter biocultural homogenization, understood as the erosion of biological and cultural diversity (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024). From an applied lens, the framework indicators can be used to guide community decision makers faced with balancing tourism and conservation. This framework has the potential for adaptation, transference, and application to coastal, island, or sub-arctic communities similarly entangled with mass cruise tourism.

This research extends extant literature regarding biocultural conservation, intersectional emancipation, and the usurping of social-ecological reproduction within Ketchikan’s encompassing bioregion. The primary focus of this paper is not the mass cruise tourism industry specifically, but rather the oppression from corporatization and the possibility for resistance and emancipation through neolocalism. However, for reviews of cruise tourism literature see: De Grosbois (2016); Dowling and Weeden (2017); Gonzáles-Santiago et al. (2024); Hoarau-Heemstra et al. (2023); Papathanassis (2020); and Wondirad (2019). In addition, Vega-Muñoz et al. (2020) provide a robust scientometric analysis of literature about cruise tourism. The genre of industries inflicting corporate dominance and homogenization varies depending on socio-ecological contexts. The exploratory framework presented could be applied in contexts facing other manifestations of corporate dominance usurping social-ecological reproduction in other bioregions.

The theoretical and applied contributions of this research may be understood as part of heterodox economic thinking that centers bioregional rights of nature to support biocultural agency (Kline et al., 2022). Moreover, this contribution to social-ecological reproduction theory illuminates how capitalism profits from free social and natural capital. Currently, the mass cruise tourism sector perpetuates the replication of the “legacies of colonial labor regimes” (Lowe, 2020; Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021, p. 11) and profits from overexploited social-ecological processes that are depleted beyond abilities to regenerate. The emancipatory framework that emerged from this study’s findings extends social reproduction theory by highlighting oppression from mass cruise tourism to support social-ecological reproduction.

Materials and Methods

Theoretical Framing

Three key concepts underpin the theoretical lens through which the analysis of neoliberalism, expressed in many complex forms but predominantly as mass cruise tourism, disrupts social-ecological reproduction in Ketchikan. The triumvirate of this analysis includes (1) intersectional emancipation, (2) neolocalism, and (3) biocultural diversity, through which social-ecological impacts from corporate oppression can be analyzed critically.

At the outset of this research, the guiding literature review was grounded upon biocultural identity within social-ecological systems thinking for conservation (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024; Oakes et al., 2016). The final literature review presented within this manuscript evolved to address the emergence of critical, salient themes within data collection and analysis. Noting that this research occurred during the unparalleled context of the COVID-19 lockdown, an abductive approach was chosen allowing for in-depth analysis through a “creative inferential process aimed at producing new hypotheses and theories based on surprising research evidence” (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p. 167). Abductive approaches bridge deductive and inductive research strategies that “enables the researcher’s engagement in a back-and-forth movement between theory and data in a bid to develop new or modify existing theory” (Awuzie & McDermott, 2017, p. 357). Therefore, the following literature review reflects an abductive process wherein social-ecological systems theory and biocultural knowledge intersected with the iterative process of data collection and analysis. An abductive process guided the authors to revisit seminal literature to allow more nuanced discussions of emergent themes including the company town complex, and expressions of neoliberalism relating to social-ecological reproduction theory. The following literature and encompassing theories guide critical understandings and the potential application of the exploratory framework that emerged from the empirical data.

Intersectional Emancipation

Critical tourism scholarship has identified the role the tourism industry can play in modern slavery (Cheer, 2018) and oppression (Mura & Wijesinghe, 2021) warranting the need for “tourism-related livelihood sovereignty” (Naylor & Hunt, 2021, p. 7). Hunt et al. (2023) argues for the integration of sovereignty theory into tourism justice scholarship. Intersectional emancipation may be understood as how groups with various identities can transcend oppression. To contend with power and oppression are primary tenets of critical theory. Cheer (2018, p. 730), for example, establishes that, “bondage and exploitation is characteristic of the production and consumption of tourism.” Oppression through the neoliberal tourism system has many intangible and material manifestations, hastening calls for critical assessments of intersectional emancipation.

The connection between intersectional emancipation and social-ecological reproduction theory lies in how capitalism usurps autonomy and biocultural diversity. This interrelation is evident through the seizing of intergenerational bioregional sovereignty, or the power of decision making over natural and cultural resources, undermined by corporate domination and misogyny (Cavaliere & Ingram, 2023). R. Hall (2023, p. 321) notes the interconnection between feminist theory and the pervasiveness of gender violence as related to “the making of capitalist relations of production paid and unpaid feminized labor [and] feminist political economy” where inequities and differences are formed by oppressive neoliberal, imperial, and capitalistic forces.

Ketchikan has suffered generations of corporate encroachment, currently manifesting as mass cruise tourism. The resultant social reproduction (Katz, 2001) manifests as inherited disempowerment at an individual level, bestowed from intergenerational marginalization that entraps a community via corporate oppression. Vagabond capitalism (Katz, 2001) is an apt heuristic that connects social reproduction and power structures that result from capitalist regimes. Katz asserts that feelings of being unsettled, dissolute, and irresponsible emerge from the heart of capitalism’s vagrancy and that “this disengagement hurls certain people into forms of vagabondage,” enforcing disempowering social norms and practices (p.709). This is evident in mass cruise tourism through homogenization of destination identity, gendered climate assaults (Cavaliere & Ingram, 2023), and oppression of Indigenous nations, subject to settler-colonial power disparities (Grimwood et al., 2019).

The theoretical underpinnings of critical tourism studies unearth oppression and support emancipation and degrowth. For example, Bianchi’s (2018) critical inquiry into the material inequalities and exploitative working conditions underlined by subversive power structures as evidenced within neoliberal capitalism. This relates to Cheer (2019, para. 9) summarizing unsustainable strategies of the cruise sector as “registering companies in offshore tax havens … employing crew from less-developed and low-labour-cost countries under dubious working conditions and containing passenger spending aboard.” Therefore, research on social-ecological reproduction for intersectional emancipation from the oppressive forces of mass cruise tourism is pressing for biocultural conservation.

Neolocalism

The term neolocal was first utilized by Shortridge (1996) and applied since to define a focus on local consumption and production (Flack, 1997; Ikäheimo, 2021). Neolocalism encapsulates the study of sense of place (Cresswell, 2014), including regional identity, place attachment, place uniqueness, and biocultural identity (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024). The overarching connection linking neolocalism and tourism is extended conceptually to include biocultural diversity and place uniqueness (Ingram et al., 2020).

Neolocalism is often situated within constructions of modernity as a reaction to globalization and is an approach for combatting biocultural homogenization. However, this may generate the potential for unintended local intrusiveness from tourists (Mody & Koslowsky, 2019). Neolocalism serves as a tool for biocultural conservation when consciously embedded in tourism policy and planning by challenging oppressive social reproduction, and empowering local autonomy (Ingram et al., 2020).

Biocultural Diversity

Biocultural diversity is understood as the dynamic and place-based mix among cultural and biological diversity (Bridgewater & Rotherham, 2019). This diversity is the keystone of place distinctiveness and the lifeblood of tourism (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024). Biocultural assets involve complex interactions that underline unique place-based languages, heritages, local, and Indigenous knowledges. Biocultural conservation intertwines protecting the rights of nature (Kline et al., 2022) with resisting biocultural homogenization (Rozzi, 2018).

The interdependencies between biological and cultural diversity, particularly in nature-based tourism and ecotourism destinations, demands greater intersectional decision-making as a response to multinational corporate dominance. A geographical lens is that of a bioregion; incorporating the complexities of place-based identities that go beyond geopolitical demarcations to include interconnected attributes of physical landscape, watersheds, and human and more-than-human cultures (The Department of Bioregion, n.d.). Plumwood (2008) asserts that critical bioregionalism considers the ethical realities of production and consumption. This melds with the conceptualization of neolocalism within tourism as an approach to the conservation of biocultural diversity.

Methods

The rationale guiding this research embeds the theoretical framework within critical qualitative methods. This in-depth qualitative study organized rich, empirical data crossing deductive and inductive means (Awuzie & McDermott, 2017) following an abductive approach as a “guiding principle of empirically based theory construction” (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p.167). The research design, data collection, analysis, and coding lead to emergent themes resulting in an exploratory framework comprised of seven indicators.

Social-ecological reproduction theory conceptualizes complex interrelationships amongst the three pillars of this paper including intersectional emancipation, neolocalism, and biocultural conservation. This approach centers residents’ experiences during COVID-19 lockdown through methods of critical inquiry underpinned by social-ecological systems theory and biocultural conservation (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024; Oakes et al., 2016). In addition to providing a period of time-space re-expansion to consider the quality of tourism planning, the structural powers of corporate control over small enterprises were illuminated during the arrested mobility from lockdown.

In 2019, a government entity from Ketchikan contacted the researchers for information regarding sustainable tourism planning due to challenges related to overtourism from mass cruise tourism. This led to collaborations engaging students in project-based learning. During this time, COVID-19 rapidly altered the challenges faced by the community as they went from overtourism to lockdown. The burgeoning relationships and contact with Ketchikan stakeholders resulted in the initial list of participants. This research employed an exploratory approach to empirically investigate the experiences of residents during COVID-19 lockdown in a tourism-dependent economy.

A series of open-ended semi-structured questions were designed to investigate social-ecological experiences during COVID-19. The protocol was also influenced by Oakes et al.’s (2016) approach to amassing knowledge of forest users in Southeast Alaska. Internal Review Board ethics approval was attained and the process of collecting secondary information regarding local community developments to further inform the impending interview schedule began. Interviews were conducted remotely due to official COVID-19 travel restrictions. The interview questions were structured to address resident perspectives of multiscalar impacts ranging from the individual, community, and global perspectives. The questions were structured to address four primary impacts: environmental (Masterson et al., 2017; Oakes et al., 2016), sociocultural (Niemiec et al., 2021; Scannell & Gifford, 2010) climate change (Cavaliere & Ingram, 2023; Gaard, 2017) and economic (Heslinga et al., 2017; Plumwood, 2008). Questions within these areas included perceived changes during COVID-19 lockdown involving coastal relationships, biodiversity impacts, connections between livelihoods and the coast, cultural meanings of the bioregion, and personal perceptions and meanings of climate change related to the coastal region (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024). Interviews evolved contextually and organically based on participants, current events, and the progression of the research. Accordingly, sensoryscape questions involving the body/consciousness/senses (Cavaliere, 2017) intertwined with sense of place (Cresswell, 2014; Scannell & Gifford, 2010) to better understand nuanced changes in human and non-human communities.

Each semi-structured interview captured rich, complex data through the collection of place-based and embodied accounts. The interviews provided thick narratives from participants ranging between 20 and 75 years old with equal gender representation and residency length ranging between 2 and 68 years. Resident livelihoods included tourism, research, education, government, art, community services, and communication. Once interviewing commenced, the researchers employed snowball and targeted sampling to garner representation from additional participants, reflecting the demographic census of Ketchikan (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB], 2022). The socio-demographic criteria regarding participant selection included two variables: 1) year-round adults 2) who had resided in Ketchikan for longer than 1 year prior to the study. A total of 20 residents including 10 women and 10 men participated in interviews.

The research team was conscious of COVID-19 constraints including availability and comfort of participants. We engaged and recruited across diverse demographics throughout the 5-month fieldwork period. When asked how participants identified culturally, 18 reported as white and 2 as Alaskan Natives from different sovereign nations. Due to the small-town nature of Ketchikan, the specific Alaskan Native Nations have been withheld to ensure participant confidentiality. The resulting sample correlated with Ketchikan census statistics (USCB, 2022). Difficulties were encountered in engaging Alaska Native or American Indian participants, who according to the latest census data, represent 18% of Ketchikan’s population. Notably, the research team did not receive responses from residents of Asian American (13.3% of population); Hispanic or Latino (6.1% of population), Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific islanders (0.3% of population), or Black or African Americans (1.1% of population). Though this qualitative sample yielded rich and robust data, the findings are not meant to be representative of Ketchikan nor all Southeastern Alaska coastal communities.

The research team was highly cognizant of the importance of Alaska Native and Ketchikan Indian communities as threads within the cultural fabric of Ketchikan. However, lockdown influenced various socio-cultural limitations beyond the scope of this project impeding engagement with tribal representatives and elders. These factors largely included changes to labor schedules and trust-building processes. Importantly, the Indigenous participants did not speak on behalf of their respective nations, and this research does not represent the perspectives of any Indigenous, Native Alaskan, or American Indian nations.

Thick data were organized and analyzed utilizing MAXQDA, a qualitative analysis software. This allowed for viewing transcripts simultaneously while listening to audio recordings to thematically code and build a codebook. Average interviews lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes, producing over 35 hours of recorded in-depth interview data. Once transcribed, abductive coding utilizing emic and etic terminology (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) to generate emergent themes which were refined through regular research meetings. This process distilled and grouped themes leading to the development of the research findings (Braun & Clarke, 2020) reflected in the resulting seven-indicator framework.

Findings and Discussion

Neolocalism Framework

The seven-indicator framework (see Figure 2) underpins the organization of findings presented below. It exemplifies how futures can be co-constructed, going beyond capitalist reproduction, and prioritizing social-ecological reproduction for bioregional emancipation. The framework can be cross applied and modified for use by scholars, planners, and communities advocating emancipation from corporate hegemony.

Resilient governance

The first framework indicator explores identifiable elements within resilient governance to facilitate neolocalism in planning and destination management. This indicator supports social-political resilience of destinations, including adaptive capacity and institutional innovation in response to governance failures (C. M. Hall, 2018). Adaptive capacity is built through adaptive management that includes structured, iterative, and robust decision-making plans, facilitated via multi-level governance systems that can withstand uncertainty (Folke et al., 2021). Structures that form the basis of resilient governance include characteristics such as decentralization, autonomy, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, flexibility, participation, and inclusion (Erickson, 2015).

Within tourism economies, the opportunity for tourism to fund education and public programs is considered valuable for destination adaptation and recovery. Relief programs funded by tourism provided aid and livelihood support for year-round residents throughout COVID-19. Nelson (31) shared that “financial support programs really helped people in terms of aid that was given to businesses and rent relief … through the tough times.”

Resilient governance for emancipation should include intersectional representation encompassing diversity regarding cultural heritage, ethics, age, gender, and more-than-human species (Kline et al., 2022). Resilient governance is scale appropriate and includes intergovernmental representatives that enhance autonomy in decision making. In this context, it is imperative to invite interagency, tribal governments, intergovernmental and public-private partnerships that draw on and integrate diverse perspectives. Lou (24) states:

It basically comes down to helping out with writing policy both within the tribe but also with the state and federal governments to help with natural resource management … one thing that we’re developing right now is a traditional food harvesting program. The big thing that is in our way is funding to get a vessel …

These accounts engender the critical nature of intersectional government representatives, free from corporate sponsorship and control, as opposed to those profiting from the division of citizens and indoctrination as consumers of different vested interests. Bonnie (55) reflects that “Ketchikan’s a small community that’s had a running feud between those who are for tourism and those who are against it.” Resilient governments support neolocal entrepreneurial engagement. Government innovation and intervention should be tailored to focus on micro, small and medium enterprise development, autonomous from global conglomerate mass tourism interests and investments. Bonnie shares:

I think tourism in Ketchikan should open more places for people to stay who aren’t coming in on a cruise ship … we tried to get a permit to build some cabins for independent travelers and the government shut us down again. I think Ketchikan has put far too much money and resources into cruise ships.

Harry (45) shares specific concerns regarding his desire for local resistance against corporate influence and control over governance, decision-making, and economic power. He reflects on destination planning serving as poor models:

The biggest fear I see with the cruise industry is that they continually are harping on the community, the elected officials, and the municipal governments to invest in different infrastructure projects. We look at other communities that are cruise centric destinations [who] invest all this money, time, and energy into the cruise industry. And then they move on and the community’s left with this huge bond and nothing to show for it. Having a municipal government tax its people to share in something that is privatized for a specific industry doesn’t bode well.

Contentious practices prevalent within cruise tourism governance are tax strategies that illustrate the longstanding influence of multinational cruise corporations encroaching upon local political structures. A quintessential community issue that surfaced within the empirical data included the appropriation of head taxes, or flat rate taxes directly charged to the cruise passenger. In 2006, the passing of a head tax resulted in the collection of $46 million in state revenue to address cruise infrastructure needs (Bohrer, 2010). This resulted in a series of lawsuits from the industry against the public. In 2018, the Cruise Line International Association of Alaska sued Juneau for their interpretation of inappropriate allocation of head taxes that included subsidizing crossing guards. A federal judge ruled that the head tax revenue “can only be spent on things that directly support the vessel” (Stone, 2021, para. 3).

Consequently, Ketchikan sought to broach a new head tax model (Stone, 2021). Town council meetings reflected resident desires for tax strategies that allow citizens to make autonomous decisions regarding how tax monies are utilized. Public funds used for corporate vessel benefit denies a multiplier effect for the community and exacerbates economic leakage (Lloret et al., 2021). The various financial implications created by these decisions exemplify how “geographies of debt are turning their attention to the distinct spatial (re)configurations and cross-scalar power relations implicated in the financialization of social reproduction” (Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021, p. 8). Conversely, the various approaches to resilient governance outlined here are signposts for strategies to engage decision-making processes that benefit the largest spectrum of the community in places seeking to develop neolocalism and resist the commodification of daily life.

Diverse economies

The re-conceptualization of post-capitalist approaches to integrating alternative value systems that aid economic empowerment are vital for conservation. This indicator focuses on strategies for the diversification of bioregional economics, including small and medium enterprise development, diverse funding networks (Erickson, 2015), and entrepreneurial diversification. Resident experiences related to tourism during COVID-19 produced deep reflection on long-standing local divisions regarding tourism and Ketchikan’s future. Multiple residents discussed divisions within the community on the topic of tourism as evidenced by Bonnie (55): “it’s been those in tourism against those who haven’t seen the values of tourism… COVID kind of slapped everyone in the face and said we are dependent on tourism.”

A bioregional economy may be understood as an alternative to the exploitative outcomes of neoclassical and Keynesian approaches that prioritize growth (Cato, 2014). It recenters ethics, accountability and a value system that prioritizes localized provisions for communities before profit. Neolocalized approaches to diverse and alternative economies can combat economic leakage, increase tourism economy multipliers, and strengthen local supply chains while emancipating regions from globalized and corporatized dependencies. Amoamo et al. (2018) reminds us of the goals involving “building of capacity and enterprise while balancing both cultural and economic values” (p. 6). This indicator can be envisioned as a novel application of the Gibson-Graham (2006) framework of diverse economies to foster emancipation.

Crucial elements of a post-capitalistic bioregional economy include self-sufficiency within natural limits, production for use rather than accumulation, and centering the “local” (James & Cato, 2017). Concepts of diverse economies envisioning “the co-existence of capitalist, alternative capitalist and non-capitalist practices” can support regenerative tourism practices (Cave & Dredge, 2020, p. 503) through bioregional principles. COVID-19 gave time for Leanne (62) to reflect on the importance of economic wellbeing:

I would like to see us diversifying our economy into things like oyster and kelp mariculture, and not dependent on cruise ships which are just actually pumping more fossil fuel exhaust into the atmosphere … diversifying our economy to things that are actually good for the environment—not detrimental.

This indicator entails diversifying revenue streams and livelihoods through new tourism markets and supporting local infrastructure. Discussions focused on desires to limit reliance upon cruise-based income to more diversified sources that benefit locals, the environment, and tourists. Bonnie (55) highlights that “Ketchikan should not be 100% on cruise ship dependency, like we’ve been…and I think sustainability for tourism would be more marketing lodges and vacation rentals.” Approaches to accomplish these goals included the importance of independent travelers who were perceived during COVID-19 to stay longer, spend more, and care for the town’s history and values. Part of this strategy of “tourist friendly” activities included ecotourism to counter cruise overtourism by focusing on nonmotorized tours.

In envisioning a more diverse, neolocal, and bioregional-based economy, the pursuit of aquaculture and mariculture was a popular point of discussion. Leanne (62) shares:

Oyster and kelp farming go well together because it can take three years for a marketable [oyster]size and [kelp farming] can help bridge that gap, so a lot of economic development funds could be poured into mariculture, and the products could be locally consumed by local people and tourists.

However, the topic of aquaculture elicited conflict with some residents who felt that without regulation, this new form of harvesting could damage delicate ecosystems and create inequity regarding access to coastal resources. Concerns were also raised regarding lack of regulation for the harvesting of wild marine foods. Bonnie (55) notes that aquaculture attracts entrepreneurial expedience, “it just makes me nervous. I haven’t seen it regulated as much as I think it should be.” Through neolocal food production (Fusté-Forné, 2019), Ketchikan may cultivate a deeper sense of place and empower local autonomy.

Biocultural conservation

This indicator situates biocultural diversity as the essence of tourism and sustainable destination management. The vibrancy of the cultural and ecological webs of place are essential for sound livelihoods, economies, and multispecies wellbeing - essential for social-ecological reproduction. Nelson (31) shares, “because of our place within our natural surroundings, I feel calm and centered, feeling that human civilization here has not entirely dominated nature.” To protect Ketchikan’s ability to self-sustain, biocultural diversity needs to be conserved. Leanne (62) reflects on the integrity of biocultural diversity as a provider of wild food stocks as an important part of autonomy. She says, “My experience is built on the experiences of the people I was listening to as a child, and we should be doing a better job of conserving healthy populations of herring and salmon.” This diversity is the bedrock for emancipation as it provides sustenance, knowledge, identity, and social-ecological integrity and reproduction.

Biocultural conservation through neolocalism is a path toward intersectional emancipation and autonomy for both human and more-than-human communities. During COVID-19 restrictions, residents and wildlife groups monitored marine animals that were returning and staying longer within the cruise ship docks. One animal became a local icon who was named by the community - Phoenix the whale. Coraline (20) shares, “the lack of horns and loud noise might have contributed to seeing Phoenix coming on a regular basis.” This specific individual humpback whale became a comfort to residents who felt a kindred connection during the heights of uncertainty.

The relationship between cruise ships and greenhouse-gas emissions is essential to recognize as related to climate change and has become entwined with COVID-19 (Styhre et al., 2017). Social-ecological reproduction is impeded by mass cruise tourism and climate change as evidenced by the resounding community impacts. For example, Leanne (62) shares troubling climate related reflections:

…landslides in this area and the rest of Alaska are melting permafrost creating more erosion. The heat waves killed salmon [who] cooked to death/suffocated in the water before they could spawn last summer. It gets depressing, this list of things that are happening in Alaska because of climate change.

Biocultural conservation failures intertwine environmental atrocities with impacts to mental wellbeing and happiness as the effects from climate change compound. Growing climate anxiety requires global to local action for biocultural conservation interventions. This urges deeper investigations into biocultural conservation fines, fees, taxes, and regulatory actions related to mass cruise tourism.

Intersectional engagement

The biocultural preservation of place and identity lies in tandem with the integrity of local government through trust, transparency, and inclusive intersectional community voices. Neolocalism can facilitate intersectional engagement with social-ecological dynamics of a place through lived experiences. Furthermore, intersectional engagement considers the complex and contextual social-ecological realities within place that “compound and interact with systems of power to shape how people adapt to these changes at the individual, household, and district scales” (Erwin et al., 2021, p. 1). Nelson (31) explains:

A lot of our Alaska Native students have poor experiences through elementary and middle school, and they end up going to the alternative high school … where 40 some percent of the students are Native and at Ketchikan high school it’s more around 20%.

Diverse embodiments of knowledges are paramount within biocultural understandings and “relations of domination and resistance” (Collins, 1990, p. 553). This situated approach to intersectional inclusion and leadership engages many including elected leaders and human/more-than-humans of the bioregion (Kline et al., 2022). Resident representation crossing and compounding age, livelihood, race, ethnicity, ability, spirituality, gender, and sexuality help disrupt underlying matrices of domination (Collins, 1990) rampant within global conglomerates. In Ketchikan, there has been a significant lack of diversity in government leadership, with the first (and only) female mayor serving from 1991 to 1996. A broad range of intersectional leadership representation is required for the development of neolocalism that facilities autonomy and emancipation from extractive sectors.

Resilient governments must account for sexual, gendered, and Indigenous leadership and engagement. Nelson (31) shares “through the local tribal government Ketchikan Indian community … the Tribal Scholars Program was grant funded…[a]community learning model for Native students that is very culturally enriched with field trips and activities.” From a planning perspective, place-based education spanning a broad range of life stages that incorporates intersectional perspectives is essential for nurturing neolocalism and defending emancipation from corporate homogenization. Strengthening localized place-based education for the retention of youth and elder knowledge is a form of biocultural conservation, necessary to combat knowledge loss.

Therefore, intersectional engagement is incorporated within a neolocalism framework for disruption of neocolonization through critical discourse and engagement between a diverse spectrum of resident representation and destination governance. Harry (45) reveals:

We don’t look at it [Tongass National Forest] as a national park—it’s our backyard. You’re not necessarily going to tell Ketchikan people that you can’t go into the forest because the federal government can’t pass a bill.

From an emancipation standpoint, notions of intersectional environmentalism illuminate the compounded ways in which injustices occur in oppressed communities. Critical to highlight in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions is the link between the lack of intersectional engagement and gendered representation as related to climate decision making at community and destination levels. Leanne (62) notes her experience with climate change outreach “By becoming somebody that people can trust… they’re more likely to listen to me—climate change is real, and we need to be doing something about it right now.”

COVID-19 lockdown provided a time of reflection to question and explore residents’ cultural heritage. Emma (21) expressed the need for intersectional engagement and representation within local businesses and higher education. Though visiting family was difficult during COVID-19, Emma reflected upon her heritage and how this was guiding her future decisions:

I would like to see more Native artists … one of the main reasons I’m becoming a teacher is because I’m an Alaskan Native and I can do the art—I can spread more awareness and teach Native students … only like 5% of teachers are Natives … I want to learn Tsimshian and Haida, so the language does not die.

Intersectional engagement is a core tenet for emancipation in historical company towns. From empirical statements, various approaches of the community to facilitate intersectional engagement outside of formal government structures were evident. Therefore, tourism planning must consider various constructions of place and distinctive community approaches to intersectional engagement.

Biocultural identity

Biocultural identity is articulated as representations of the convergences of biological and cultural diversities with place distinctiveness. Biocultural identity reflects intersectional power structures via critical ecofeminist epistemologies illuminating social-cultural, environmental, economic, and climate implications within time and space (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024). Kline et al. (2022) note that ecofeminism questions positions of power, gender, identity, and agency.

Fortifying biocultural identity serves to unshackle historically marginalized subjugated knowledges and reappropriate localized power.

The protection of biocultural identity necessitates emancipation from the encroachment of biocultural homogenization. The omnipresent pressure of globalization through tourism development can drive the erasure of differences and distinctions amongst places. This suppression through homogenization and cultural commodification has ensued with staggering losses of biodiversity. Overtourism and climate change have increasingly compromised biocultural diversity, which is responsible for invigorating local ways of life and fascinating travelers.

Biocultural identities within neolocalism can be constructed from place-based “cognitions and affective sentiments…[in] understanding sub-contexts of sense of place” (Cavaliere & Albano, 2018, p. 104). Ketchikan’s coastal social-ecological systems encapsulate “setting(s) for communities’ rites, rituals, customs, and traditions associated with their spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental health” (Damnjanović, 2021, p .93). The sensoryscape distinguishing tangible and intangible aspects of place is experienced through residents and visitors alike, conveying the essence of locale (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024; Damnjanović, 2021). Fusté-Forné (2019) illustrates that “cultural ecosystem service(s) like wild foods” (p.578), create local sense of place through planned tourism placemaking - essential to identity. Rita (62) explains how, “Back in March 2020 … it was the wilds that made [Ketchikan]a safe place…I would have this sense of some cycles are just continuing, regardless of what’s happening in the world.”

Many residents hold a core identity of being independent, free, and living on the edge of wilderness—a construct of peace, beauty, and safety. However, COVID-19 highlighted a clear conflict of dependence upon tourism and the continental “lower 48” states. Without a weekly barge shipment, many crucial supplies never made it to Ketchikan. Despite this conflict, residents shared strong sentiments of safety due to the surrounding forests, wildlife, and water for provisions of sustenance. Rita shares that, “it’s like being in a salty incubator, just to have the water all around. And by incubator, I mean, it’s just like a safe place to create—to be.” Meryl (43) shares the way nature shapes her outlook: “when the tree branches and the Huckleberry bushes are framing your view… by the shelter that you’re seeking behind the plant life, looking out to the beach and the water beyond.”

Exploring cultural elements shaped by the bioregion and local history showed strong themes of disruption and connection, including a sense of loss as festivals and community events were canceled during COVID-19. However, the coast provided spacious and therapeutic ways of gathering in spaces that had previously felt inaccessible due to overtourism. Community place attachment reflecting the biocultural identity of Ketchikan is shared by Coraline (20) who experienced growing up in the coastal culture: “other people go to the mall, we go outside … as Ketchikan kids we’ll go on hikes, have a bonfire …I like waves, the sunsets, I like trees and everything.”

Place identity is inherent to neolocalism and education as building knowledge and employable skills requires learning in place (Cato, 2014). Although residents commonly leave to pursue higher education, Ketchikan is rich in biocultural education as evidenced by their public-school survival trip program. “This survival trip isn’t just a rite of passage, but it’s also necessary education to be part of the community” (Amy, 51). The utilization of place-based knowledge to live within the challenging environments of Ketchikan enriched multiple resident interviews. However, in representation of the many identities making up the biocultural quilt of Ketchikan, there was a notable lack of Alaska Natives holding positions as tour guides for visitor-facing interpretation. Such accounts demonstrate that place-based education for local ways of life and visitors’ sense of Ketchikan is imperative to building strengths in neolocalism, biocultural conservation, and emancipation.

Emancipatory zoning

Zoning and planning can be understood as an attempt at organizing the physical world representing structures of power where conventional zoning serves colonial replication. This indicator represents several layers of emancipatory thinking through new approaches to zoning that can facilitate humans having time-space autonomy outside of corporate control. By interpreting zoning from resident perspectives, emancipation and support for craft industries can be enacted. Owen (45) suggests “judging destinations and different areas on how many people can be allowed in that area might be beneficial.” In emancipatory zoning, social capital and wellbeing are fundamental factors as opposed to material accumulation that is central to unsustainable production and consumption.

Emancipatory zoning incorporates place identity as a “locus of class identity and intergenerational reproduction of the local community by foregrounding” community heritage as part of zoning decision making (Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021, p. 10). A more nuanced place-based perspective of zoning should embrace recognition of humans as part of, rather than dominating, nature. These approaches to zoning support self-sustainable place-based sufficiency for residents, and emancipation from corporate reliance.

Savini (2021) explains that an approach to transitions for degrowth include “regional imaginary of polycentric autonomism, a paradigm of finity in development, and care for habitability as principle of spatial organization” (p. 1076). This is contrasted by the conventional principles of Jones et al. (2022, p. 33) “using the core-and-buffer-zone principle—a neo-normative spatial planning framework.” Euclidean geometry is understood as the root of zoning practices (Savini, 2021), which attempts linear control of “the wild.” Therefore, to radically reapproach spatial practice that is emancipatory, we must integrate bioregional and biomimetic approaches to planning and zoning to reintegrate the human/nature divide and emancipate the psyche from imperial oppression. Nelson (31) reflects on the need for zoning actions toward limitations and degrowth:

… there should be some sort of cap or limit on the total number of visitors coming to Ketchikan by cruise ship in a given year. Other communities in the region have effectively limited the number of visitors when they decided whether or not to build new infrastructure, like new cruise docks.

In accordance with the pro-growth tourism plan of 2019, downtown Ketchikan docked the largest cruise vessel in the town’s history requiring the construction of a new port outside city limits (Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc, 2020). In addition, climate change increasingly creates disproportionate intersectional impacts (Cavaliere & Ingram, 2023) upon coastal and artic communities (Naylor et al., 2021). Despite the effects of climate change stressing Southeastern Alaska’s social-ecological systems, Ketchikan’s newly constructed port, funded in private partnership with Norwegian Cruise Lines, targets record-size mass luxury cruise lines. This dock represents conflicted perspectives of the socio-economic future for residents (Stone, 2019) as embedded in planning decisions.

This indicator is intended to destabilize capitalist approaches to zoning, and to facilitate more cooperative processes of neolocalism. Through intentional and radical reconceptualization of zoning processes, enacting, and protecting collective public resident spaces free from corporate influence is possible. By integrating bioregionalism into zoning decision making processes, space can be demarcated for new and diverse economies and areas that support neolocalism. Savini (2021, p. 1083) suggests, “Land zoning provides the conditions under which scarcity and productivity are spatialized.” Thus, the integration of other indicators of intersectional engagement and resilient governance could result in actions that emancipate the community from corporate control and arrest the invasion of personal spaces and practices envisioned through emancipatory zoning.

If intentionally reframed, emancipatory zoning could support the redistribution of power through land rights and work towards actions that engage in traditional “Land Back” initiatives to original land stewards and First Nations. This post-capitalistic approach to zoning can facilitate creativity, engagement, and connection so that locals can exist and interact outside of the Keynesian growth paradigm. Harry (45) shares “the individualistic, self-reliance of people from here, and probably most of Alaska, we don’t necessarily take kindly to people telling us how or when we can do things.” Creative spaces and neolocalism are interrelated and can serve as emancipated spaces that are not defined by capitalism. These spaces may address the deconstruction of historical oppression in which people can exist without the pressure of consuming or producing.

Decomposition

Tourism scholarship, reacting to COVID-19 as a compounded crisis (Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021), may shape adaptations to recover and pursue regenerative tourism through heterodox economics. A neolocalism approach to tourism and destination planning intersects degrowth and decolonial paradigms to support social-ecological reproduction. This reorients approaches to social-ecological, biocultural, and economic wellbeing of bioregional residents. Through this lens, we see that “the COVID-19 pandemic has unearthed radical potential for challenging neocolonial power dynamics of time and space within tourism systems to realign bioregional realities through biomimicry of Earth’s capacities” (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2022, para.2). We view this potential within neolocalism, degrowth, and decolonization as decomposition, the metaphysical and ecological process of rest, decay, and transfiguring of bioregional resources. Decomposition provides emancipation from the typical capitalist linear drive for growth, constant production, and unsustainable consumption. The reappropriation of power, in deep reciprocity with nature’s limits and cycles, deviates from fiscal quarters and capitalist trends as determinants of progress. Within destination lifecycles and planning, decomposition cyclically provides intentional (as opposed to reactionary) time-space re-expansion to rest and reflect.

Circadian rhythms and biomimetic principles of place reframe human patterns in respect of natural limits, including time away from disturbance for decomposition. From the micro to the macro, all life requires rest and reprieve from production and consumption. Jerry (65) shares, “I got more in tuned … being forced to stay in one place—paying much more attention to the rhythm of the seasons, and how literally in the summer, it comes alive. You begin to notice the subtleties.” How can decomposition be further conceptualized within tourism planning? Ketchikan’s individual, community, and bioregional perspectives help to identify multi-scalar approaches to decomposition. At the individual level, COVID-19 expanded perceptions and experiences of time, directly challenging intentional capitalistic time-space compression. As the pace of life decentered cruise ship schedules, and realigned with nature’s timelines, residents observed more around the island and reflected on philosophies of life and death. Meryl (43) shares, “We, as humans are not going to be here forever. Maybe this is what’s going to take us out in the whole Paleolithic record. I spent a lot of time personally thinking about that kind of connectedness.”

We question how these reflections can reveal speculations about the future of tourism within a coastal gateway community. In Ketchikan, the role and resources provided by local, state, and federal government showed the capacity for funding and aid to provide support during crisis. This foregrounds the potential for diverse forms of tourism to restock public financial reserves. Jerry (65) reflects:

… even though we took a big economic hit, there were still independent travelers that came but it was nice to be able to go along the waterfront. It’s psychically healing to just get into the woods, and to spend time wandering.

While asking about residents’ visions of tourism futures, government programs were commonly discussed in relation to ways of improving daily governance structures through taxes and education. Taxing strategies, such as seasonal taxes, are familiar (albeit controversial) methods for decomposition in tourism lifecycles. Seasonal taxing strategies are common tactics found across different scales of economies building upon destination life cycles unique to which seasons bring visitor spending (Stone, 2022). The lowering of sales tax in off-seasons is intended to support annual residents’ cost of living and provides opportunity for them to draw from tax proceeds to enable focus on slowing down, rest, and reflection. Nelson (31) suggests “visitors as well as temporary residents working here during the summer would pay the higher sales tax and the people who live here year-round would pay lower in wintertime.”

Subsequently, Ketchikan’s city council have amended the tax system with the adoption of a seasonal tax. This strategy was proposed by residents such as Nelson in past years and was noted by town staff as being successfully adopted by Kenai, Alaska (Stone, 2022). What could rest, degrowth, and decolonization through decomposition look like in different tourism economies? We propose that autonomous and emancipated communities have the freedom to avert themselves from the tourist and corporate gaze and the associated performative expectations. However, decomposition cannot occur without intersectional engagement of residents, support for entrepreneurship, and resilient governance. Hence, decomposition is a quintessential element of emancipation through neolocalism.

Implications and Conclusions

The interconnectedness of mass cruise tourism, biocultural extinction, and climate change are leading to oppressive social reproduction and increased intersectional inequality. Neolocalism and bioregionalism are allied expressions of closed loop approaches in diverse economies that help progress heterodox post-capitalist strategies for enacting biocultural conservation. This research contributes to and extends ideations of intersectional emancipation through social-ecological reproduction theory, currently obstructed by capitalism’s corporate coercion as exemplified in the mass cruise tourism sector.

We situate neolocalism in tourism through empirical excerpts that highlight connections between biocultural conservation, tourism geographies, and intersectional emancipation. The neolocalism framework supports biocultural conservation interventions within related bioregions such as islands, arctic, and sub-arctic regions, and coastal communities. Ketchikan is a community that has contended with historical traumas of industrial exploitation and corporate oppression that have impacted in situ biocultural relationships. Today, the evolving nature of neoliberal capitalism tends to reproduce the same extractive patterns evident in industrialized mass cruise tourism. Residents seek autonomy, agency, and intersectional emancipation from reproducing the company town psycho-social trauma complex. We argue that neolocalism can be a conduit for reimagining new paradigms to combat corporate domination and prioritize social-ecological reproduction for more emancipated social reproduction.

Valuing biocultural identity as a component of neolocalism for place distinctiveness is essential to resisting biocultural homogenization (Cavaliere & Branstrator, 2024). This work centers residents’ lived experiences, embodied accounts, and emotions as empirical signifiers of biocultural identity and conservation. This is evident in intersectional and situated stakeholder perspectives of resilience that form a collective vision for futures of emancipation. A critical intersectional ecofeminist lens (see Kline et al., 2022) is applied to intentionally address power structures and knowledge production through social reproduction at a bodily scale (Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021). The community shared fears and hopes that could serve to empower decision-making and heterodoxic economic innovation to combat infrastructural entrapment and capital coercion.

The resulting neolocalism framework includes seven indicators: resilient governance, diverse economies, biocultural conservation, intersectional engagement, biocultural identity, emancipatory zoning, and decomposition. This framework strives to radically reorient inherent concepts in tourism planning and confront conventional notions of unlimited growth in a finite system as illogical and at the root of capitalism’s violences. These indicators could be integrated into tourism planning tool kits for communities seeking autonomy and emancipation to help resist corporate domination and biocultural homogenization. As its key contribution to new knowledge, the framework provides ideations around “sustainable and progressive conditions of intergenerational social-ecological reproduction” (Foley, 2019, p. 544) through the methodological engagement and analysis of “the actual everyday practices of socio-ecological reproduction that are rooted in place” (Moulton, 2021, p. 2). Moreover, the framework evokes ideas regarding resistance to corporate encroachment that perpetuates oppressive social reproduction and continues to destabilize local autonomy and wellbeing.

The theoretical contribution of this research was realized through extending social-ecological reproduction theory and expanding conceptualizations of the complex interrelationships between intersectional emancipation, neolocalism, and biocultural conservation. Furthermore, the place-based methodological engagement applied advances social-ecological reproduction theory and proffers an applied tool for planning interventions and community decision making. The aggregation of ways of thinking includes biocultural conservation interventions and the advancement of theoretical engagement related to social-ecological reproduction.

This research amplifies the voices and stories of residents’ lived experiences during the COVID-19 crisis to reimagine heterodoxic and regenerative possibilities. Paradigmatic shifts in thinking are gradual and risk-laden in the extension of critical ideological engagement, particularly during unprecedented social-ecological changes. The research team harnessed the unique context of COVID-19, a schism in normalized business-as-usual, to engage with community member experiences. Lockdown was a time during which the empirical data collection took place and was marked with extreme vulnerabilities and volatilities from local to global contexts. The authors believe that it was crucial to contend with rapid down-shifting and notions of degrowth in order to understand possibilities for societal shifts in thinking to reorient tourism. This snapshot in time provided the opportunity to explore more radical notions of heterodoxic shifts in consumption and production.

Limitations and Future Research

COVID-19 compounded challenges for communities globally as stages of health protocols and quarantine progressed. International and national travel restrictions including within and across state lines were employed. The research team adapted to compounding restrictions, leading to remote interviews. Notwithstanding, the framework is intended to be adapted in situ to the time, place and context of the community being studied.

The small-town nature of Ketchikan exacerbated potential risks of residents speaking openly about contentious issues, such as the presence, power, and impacts of mass cruise tourism companies. As outsiders, the researchers were cognizant of their positionality as non-residents of the community. Notably, residents mentioned that the interview process provided an opportunity to speak about their experiences in a different way than they would have otherwise with community members. For multiple participants this was both a limitation and a relief as they felt an outsider status provided opportunities to speak anonymously without fear of alienation or retribution in a small-town environment.

For future research, a hybrid approach to research design allowing for interviews both in-person and remotely may offer the ability to accommodate residents with health conditions or limited abilities to travel by using ICT infrastructure. Including face-to-face presence and connection through in-person interviews may provide different avenues of building trust with participants. Based on the context, needs, and communities, we encourage multiple avenues for connecting with participants and resident communities to overcome constraints to participation.

This approach is applicable to other coastal gateway communities that intertwine livelihoods and wellbeing with reliance on globalization and economic realities of extractive tourism. One of the key contributions to knowledge that can be cross applied to future research includes understanding of perceptions of change, connection to place, and intra-community dependencies within tourism economies facing crises. In conclusion, the boom-and-bust pitfalls of corporate extraction, as replicated in mass cruise tourism, propagate dependency, diminishes agency, hinders social-ecological reproduction, and depletes biocultural diversity. The neolocalism framework proposed herein is intended to support communities facing corporate domination toward more emancipated futures.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the residents of Ketchikan for sharing their stories and experiences to make this research possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Christina T. Cavaliere

Julia R. Branstrator

Author Biographies

Christina T. Cavaliere, PhD is a conservation social scientist serving as an Assistant Professor at Colorado State University, Director of the Cavaliere Tourism and Conservation Lab and is an invited Senior Research Associate at the University of Johannesburg.

Julia R. Branstrator, PhD is a research affiliate within and graduate from Dr. Cavaliere's Tourism and Conservation Lab researching intermountain western gateway communities.

Joseph M. Cheer, PhD is a social scientist and Professor of Sustainable Tourism and Heritage at Western Sydney University serving the Asian Development Bank and the World Economic Forum.

References

Alaska Office of Governor. (2021, April 8). Report to White House: Alaska economy devastated by CDC decision on cruise ships [Press release]. https://gov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2021/04/08/report-to-white-house-alaska-economy-devastated-by-cdc-decision-on-cruise-ships/

Amoamo

Ruckstuhl

Ruwhiu

(2018). Balancing Indigenous values through diverse economies: A case study of Māori ecotourism. Tourism Planning and Development, 15(5), 1–18.

Awuzie

McDermott

(2017). An abductive approach to qualitative built environment research: A viable system methodological exposé. Qualitative Research Journal, 17(4), 356–372.

Bianchi

(2018). The political economy of tourism development: A critical review. Annals of Tourism Research, 70, 88–102.

Bohrer

(2010, April 13). Alaska cruise ship head tax cut approved. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36465517

Braun

Clarke

(2020). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47.

Bridgewater

Rotherham

I. D.

(2019). A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation. People and Nature, 1(3), 291–304.

Cato

M. S.

(2014). What the willow teaches: Sustainability learning as craft. Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 4–27.

Cavaliere

C. T.

(2017). Foodscapes as alternate ways of knowing: Advancing sustainability and climate consciousness through tactile space. In Slocum

Kline

(Eds.), Linking urban and rural tourism: Strategies for sustainability (pp. 49–67). CABI International. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786390141.0049

10.

Cavaliere

C. T.

Albano

(2018). New Jersey craft distilleries: Sense of place and sustainability. In: Slocum

S. L.

Kline

Cavaliere

C. T.

(Eds.), Craft beverages and tourism: Environmental, societal, and marketing implications (Vol. 2, pp. 101–117). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57189-8

11.

Cavaliere

C. T.

Branstrator

J. R.

(2022, July 19). Decolonizing destination planning: Integrating decomposition as time-space re-expansion for biocultural regeneration [Conference session]. IGU International Geographers Centennial Congress Paris. Regenerative development and tourism geographies: A timely turn? Paris, France.

12.

Cavaliere

C. T.

Branstrator

J. R.

(2024). A critical biocultural identity framework. Society & Natural Resources, 37, 213–233.

13.

Cavaliere

C. T.

Ingram

L. J.

(2023). Climate change and anger: Misogyny and the dominant growth paradigm in tourism. Annals of Leisure Research, 26(3), 354–371.

14.

Cave

Dredge

(2020). Regenerative tourism needs diverse economic practices. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 503–513.

15.

Cheer

J. M.

(2018). Geographies of marginalization: Encountering modern slavery in tourism. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 728–732.

16.

Cheer

J. M.

(2019). Cruises: The future of cruise tourism. Ocean Panel. https://oceanpanel.org/perspective/joseph-cheer-cruises-the-future-of-cruise-tourism/

17.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 138(1990), 221–238.

18.

Cresswell

(2014). Place: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Damnjanović

(2021). Overtourism and the local community well-being. In Mandić

Petrić

(Eds.), Mediterranean protected areas in the era of overtourism (pp. 93–115). Springer.

20.

De Grosbois

. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting in the cruise tourism industry: A performance evaluation using a new institutional theory-based model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(2), 245–269.

21.

The Department of Bioregion. (n.d). Defining bioregions. Retrieved February 23, 2022, from https://deptofbioregion.org/bioregions/defining-bioregions/

22.

Dowling

Weeden

(Eds.). (2017). Cruise ship tourism. Cabi.

23.

Engelson

Meyer

Henry

(2023, March 1). Cruise ship invasion. Hakai magazine: Coastal science and societies. https://hakaimagazine.com/features/cruise-ship-invasion/

24.

Erickson

(2015). Efficient and resilient governance of social–ecological systems. Ambio, 44(5), 343–352.

25.

Erwin

Popovici

O’Brien

E. P. S.

Zanotti

Zeballos

E. Z.

Zeballos

Bauchet

Ramirez Calderón

Larrea

G. R. A.

(2021). Intersectionality shapes adaptation to social-ecological change. World Development, 138, 105282.

26.

Flack

(1997). American microbreweries and neolocalism: ‘Ale-ing’ for a sense of place. Journal of Cultural Geography, 16(2), 37–53.

27.

Foley

(2019). Social-ecological reproduction and the substance of life in commodity frontiers: Newfoundland fisheries in world market shifts. Capital & Class, 43(4), 543–560.

28.

Folke

Carpenter

Elmqvist

Gunderson

Walker

(2021). Resilience: Now more than ever. Ambio, 50(10), 1774–1777.

29.

Fusté-Forné

(2019). Seasonality in food tourism: Wild foods in peripheral areas. Tourism Geographies, 24(4–5), 578–598.

30.

Gaard

(2017). Posthumanism, ecofeminism, and inter-species relations. In MacGregor

(Ed.), Routledge handbook of gender and environment (pp.115–29). Routledge.

31.

Gibson-Graham

J.K.

(2006). Postcapitalist politics. University of Minnesota Press.

32.

Gonzáles-Santiago

M. S.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

Langaro

Ali

(2024). Adoption of smart technologies in the cruise tourism services: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 15(2), 285–308.

33.

Grimwood

B. S.

Muldoon

M. L.

Stevens

Z. M.

(2019). Settler colonialism, Indigenous cultures, and the promotional landscape of tourism in Ontario, Canada's ‘near North’. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(3), 233–248.

34.

Hall

C. M.

(2018). Resilience theory and tourism. In resilient destinations and tourism. Routledge.

35.

Hall

(2023). A social reproduction theory of gender violence. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 48(2), 321–345.

36.

Heslinga

J. H.

Groote

Vanclay

(2017). Using a social-ecological systems perspective to understand tourism and landscape interactions in coastal areas. Journal of Tourism Futures, 3(1), 23–38.

37.

Hoarau-Heemstra

Wigger

Olsen

James

(2023). Cruise tourism destinations: Practices, consequences, and the road to sustainability. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 30, 100820.

38.

Hunt

C. A.

Barragán-Paladines

M. J.

Izurieta

J. C.

Ordóñez L

. (2023). Tourism, compounding crises, and struggles for sovereignty. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31, 2381–2398.

39.

Ikäheimo

J. P.

(2021). Arctic narratives: Brewing a brand with neolocalism. Journal of Brand Management, 28(4), 374–387.

40.

Ingram

Slocum

Cavaliere

C. T.

(Eds.). (2020). Neolocalism: Understanding a global movement. Goodfellow Publishers Limited.

41.

James

R. F.

Cato

M. S.

(2017). A green post-capitalist alternative to a system of accumulation: A bioregional economy. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 28(4), 24–42.

42.

Jones

T. E.

Bui

H. T.

Ando

(2022). Zoning for world heritage sites: Dual dilemmas in development and demographics. Tourism Geographies, 24(1), 33–55.

43.

Katz

(2001). Vagabond capitalism and the necessity of social reproduction. Antipode, 33(4), 709–728.

44.

Kline

C. S.

Hoarau-Heemstra

Cavaliere

C. T.

(2022). Wildlife equity theory for multispecies tourism justice. Journal of Travel Research, 62(6), 004728752211292.

45.

Lloret

Carreño

Carić

San

Fleming

L. E.

(2021). Environmental and human health impacts of cruise tourism: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 173, 112979.

46.

Lowe

(2020). Afterword: Revolutionary feminisms in a time of monsters. In Bhandar

Ziadah

(Eds.), Revolutionary feminisms. Conversations on collective action and radical thought (pp. 560–583). Verso.

47.

Masterson

V. A.

Stedman

R. C.

Enqvist

Tengo, Giusti

Wahl

Svedin

. (2017). The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: A review and research agenda. Ecology and Society 22(1), 49–64.

48.

Mody

Koslowsky

(2019). Panacea or peril? The implications of Neolocalism as a more intrusive form of tourism. Boston Hospitality Review, 7(1), 1–11.

49.

Moulton

A. A.

(2021). Black monument matters: Place-based commemoration and abolitionist memory work. Sociology Compass, 15(12), e12944.

50.

Mura

Wijesinghe

S. N.

(2021). Critical theories in tourism: A systematic literature review. Tourism Geographies, 25, 1–21.

51.

The Nature Conservancy. (2018). Conservation gateway: A conservation assessment and resource synthesis for the coastal forests and mountains ecoregion in the Tongass National Forest and Southeast Alaska. Retrieved May 8, 2021, from https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/alaska/seak/era/cfm/Pages/default.aspx

52.

Naylor

R. S.

Hunt

C. A.

(2021). Tourism and livelihood sovereignty: A theoretical introduction and research agenda for arctic contexts. Societies, 11(3), 105.

53.

Naylor

R. S.

Hunt

C. A.

Zimmerer

K. S.

Taff

B. D.

(2021). Emic views of community resilience and coastal tourism development. Societies, 11(3), 94.

54.

Niemiec

R. M.

Gruby

Quartuch

Cavaliere

C. T.

Teel

T. L.

Crooks

Salerno

Solomon

J. N.

Jones

K. W.

Gavin

Lavoie

Stronza

Meth

Enrici

Lanter

Browne

Proctor

Manfredo

(2021). Integrating social science into conservation planning. Biological Conservation, 262, 109298.

55.

Oakes

L. E.

Ardoin

N. M.

Lambin

E. F.

(2016). “I know, therefore I adapt?” Complexities of individual adaptation to climate-induced forest dieback in Alaska. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 40–66.

56.

Papathanassis

(2020). The growth and development of the cruise sector: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 130–135.

57.

Plumwood

(2008). Shadow places and the politics of dwelling. Australian Humanities Review, 44, 139–150.

58.

Rodríguez-Rocha

(2021). Social reproduction theory: State of the field and new directions in geography. Geography Compass, 15(8), e12586.

59.

Rozzi

(2018). Biocultural homogenization: A wicked problem in the anthropocene. In Rozzi

May

R. H.

Chapin

F. S.

III Massardo

Gavin

M. C.

Klaver

I. J.

Pauchard

Nuñez

M. A.

Simberloff

(Eds.), Biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation (pp. 21–48). Springer International Publishing.

60.

Savini

(2021). Towards an urban degrowth: Habitability, finity and polycentric autonomism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(5), 1076–1095.

61.

Scannell

Gifford

. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.

62.

Shortridge

J. R.

(1996). Keeping tabs on Kansas: Reflections on regionally based field study. Journal of Cultural Geography, 16(1), 5–16.

63.

Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. (2020). Request for an incidental harassment authorization: Power systems & supplies of Alaska Ward Cove Cruise ship dock project. National Marine Fisheries Service. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/ward_cove_iha_app2020_opr1.pdf

64.

Stone

(2019, November 1). How developers plan to turn a symbol of Ketchikan’s timber past to a hub for tourism. Alaska Public Media. https://alaskapublic.org/2019/11/01/how-developers-plan-to-turn-a-symbol-of-ketchikans-timber-past-to-a-hub-for-tourism/

65.

Stone

(2021, February 8). Cruise industry, tourism business figures push back against Ketchikan head tax proposal. Ketchikan Rainbird Community Radio (KRBD). https://www.krbd.org/2021/02/08/cruise-industry-tourism-business-figures-push-back-against-ketchikan-head-tax-proposal/

66.

Stone

(2022, August 19). Ketchikan City Council approves seasonal sales tax to capitalize on summer tourism. Ketchikan Rainbird Community Radio (KRBD). https://www.krbd.org/2022/08/19/ketchikan-city-council-approves-seasonal-sales-tax-to-capitalize-on-summer-tourism/

67.

Styhre

Winnes

Black

Lee

Le-Griffin

(2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from ships in ports–Case studies in four continents. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 54, 212–224.

68.

Timmermans

Tavory

(2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.

69.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Ketchikan City, Alaska. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ketchikancityalaska

70.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2021, November 19). USDA announces steps to restore roadless protections on Tongass National Forest. Retrieved November 17, 2022, from https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/11/19/usda-announces-steps-restore-roadless-protections-tongass-national

71.

Vega-Muñoz

Arjona-Fuentes

J. M.

Ariza-Montes

Han

Law

(2020). In search of ‘a research front’ in cruise tourism studies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 85, 102353.

72.

Wondirad

(2019). Retracing the past, comprehending the present and contemplating the future of cruise tourism through a meta-analysis of journal publications. Marine Policy, 108, 103618.