## 6 Concluding Discussion
However, as [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2004) [35] argue, a certain level of heterogeneity is beneficial for collective action, which would imply that collective action could benefit from making ICT systems available for all users of common-pool resources. On the other hand, access to technologies is an incentive for joining the network and accepting its sustainability goals. Hence, an externally imposed obligation to be a member of AECO to operate commercial cruise tourism in Svalbard could be beneficial for collective action. ICT creates internal dependence within a network while contributing to its external independence. Currently, AECO's ICT systems are not fully integrated with Svalbard's governmental tourism management systems, and operators have to report through different systems at the same time. This creates confusion among operators and results in trade-offs being made between investing time and resources in reporting on activities and undertaking the actual tourism activities themselves [15]. By providing alternative tools to those introduced by governmental authorities, AECO, as a network of resource users, partially takes over responsibilities of tourism governance and in-situ management [28] and may even be more effective than the government in managing tourism sites. In our case, the introduction of ICT in support of collective action blurs the boundary between the public and private realm [43] by enabling non-governmental organizations, at least partially, to replace government functions with self-regulation. As we have shown, in the context of Arctic tourism ICT can contribute to the success of collective action by adjusting norms to sustainability goals, decreasing incentives for free riding, creatingartificial proximity between geographically dispersed actors, and overcoming some of the challenges of operating in remote places. However, we stress that, while technology is an asset in collective action, it does not automatically guarantee its success. ICT has limitations, e.g., in relation to its versatility, its structural rigidity or the users' ICT capabilities, and a broader suite of social capital is needed to effectively use ICT in collective action. Besides, many Arctic locations are sparsely populated, but attract economic interest, not only from tourism, but also, e.g., fishing or oil and gas industry. ICT helps to better monitor changes in Arctic environment and enables on-going responses to the observed pressures. In locations far from human settlements, industry monitoring is often the only way to follow environmental changes caused by human activities. Our study is subject to a number of limitations. Firstly, by taking a case-study approach, our results cannot be easily generalized and are to be viewed within a Svalbard context. More research with different geographical foci is needed to develop a broader, and more generalizable, understanding of the role of ICT in collective action in Arctic tourism operations. Secondly, as the approach we used to study the role of ICT in collective action in tourism is novel, further work is needed before we can conceptualize the role of ICT in relation to the social capital of tourism networks. While ICT is nowadays widely used by the tourism industry, including in the management of nature-based tourism sites, we still only have limited understanding of its roles and impact, which we explored in this study through a social capital lens. A message that clearly emerges from our research is that ICT has a role to play in sustainable tourism management, especially in remote Arctic environments. Collaborative efforts by the tourism industry and government authorities, both with the support of ICT, could successfully minimize crowding in Arctic tourism destinations.