Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20

Download by: [The University of British Columbia] Date: 16 January 2017, At: 13:29

Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: 1368-3500 (Print) 1747-7603 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Catalysts for transformative learning incommunity-based ecotourism

Pierre G. Walter

To cite this article: Pierre G. Walter (2016) Catalysts for transformative learning incommunity-based ecotourism, Current Issues in Tourism, 19:13, 1356-1371, DOI:10.1080/13683500.2013.850063

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.850063

Published online: 09 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 260

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Catalysts for transformative learning in community-basedecotourism

Pierre G. Walter∗

Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,Canada

(Received 24 June 2013; final version received 8 September 2013)

This paper illustrates how community-based ecotourism (CBET) is a site of experientiallearning which may encourage transformative learning for visitors. An experientialCBET curriculum is identified which is centred on ecotourists’ nature, adventure andcultural experiences. In this curriculum, Nature Shock, Adventure Shock and CultureShock serve as Concrete Experiences in Kolb’s [1984. Experiential learning.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall] experiential learning cycle, and may potentiallyact as disorienting dilemmas to stimulate transformative learning. These three typesof disorienting dilemmas are discussed with reference to literature on wildlife andnature tourism, adventure tourism and outdoor education, and international volunteertourism, respectively. Three empirical case studies of CBET in Southeast Asia areused to provide context to the discussion. Finally, the paper provides an elaborationof six pedagogical themes pertaining to how the transformative learning of visitors toCBET projects might be enhanced.

Keywords: community-based tourism; nature-based tourism; visitor experience

Introduction

The precise nature of ecotourism and its relationship to other forms of nature-based tourismcontinues to be the subject of rich debate (Arnegger, Woltering, & Hubert, 2010; Bjork,2007; Donohoe & Needham, 2006; Fennell, 2001; Weaver, 2005). However, there isalso a broad consensus around three core principles of ecotourism which help to distinguishit from other forms of tourism: (1) attractions should be nature-based, (2) activities shouldpromote socio-economic and environmental sustainability and (3) visitor experience shouldfocus on learning and education (Honey, 2008; Scheyvens, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2007).With a few exceptions (Walter, 2009a, 2013a; Walter & Reimer, 2011), most academicwork on the third component of tourist learning has examined marine wildlife ecotourism,as opposed to other forms of ecotourism (Ballantyne, Packer, & Sutherland, 2011; Luck,2003; Tisdell & Wilson, 2005; Walter, 2009b; Zeppel, 2008). Moreover, this scholarshiphas largely adopted ‘free choice’ and behaviourist models of learning as its theoreticallens, neglecting other theories of adult learning and their explanatory potential for learningin ecotourism (Walter, 2013a). Among these is Mezirow’s (2000, 2009) model of transfor-mative learning.

First popularised in the early 1990s with the publication of Mezirow’s (1991) bookTransformative dimensions of adult learning, research and theory on transformative

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: pierre.walter@ubc.ca

Current Issues in Tourism, 2016Vol. 19, No. 13, 1356–1371, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.850063

learning have grown exponentially in the last three decades, and have now attained a pos-ition of central importance to the field of adult education (Taylor, 2007; Taylor & Cranton,2012). Transformative learning has had its own quarterly journal since 2003, has been thesubject of 10 international conferences, and produced a handbook in 2012. Among manyareas of nonformal adult learning and educational practice, the theory of transformativelearning has been applied to understand the development of an environmental conscious-ness among scientists (Walter, 2013b), the motivations of environmental activists (Kovan& Dirkx, 2003), the acquisition of traditional Hawaiian ecological knowledge among uni-versity students (Feinstein, 2004), public participation in natural resource and environ-mental management (Diduck, Sinclair, Hostetler, & Fitzpatrick, 2012), studentexperiences in outdoor adventure education (D’Amato & Krasny, 2011), sustainability edu-cation (Lange, 2009), tour guide training (Christie & Mason, 2003), travel (Morgan, 2011)and volunteer tourism (Coghlan & Gooch, 2011).

Briefly stated, Mezirow’s (2000, 2009) theory of transformative learning is a ten-stagemodel of learning in which an adult first experiences a catalysing ‘disorienting dilemma’which causes her or him to question and revise previously unexamined frames of reference(habits of mind and beliefs about the world) to bring about and act upon a more open-minded, reflective and well-justified worldview. In Mezirow’s (1991) early formulations,transformative learning was seen primarily as a rational, cognitive and individual learningprocess involving discrete phases of critical self-reflection, exploration of new ideas androles, planning action for change, the development of new knowledge, skills and roles,the testing and assessment of these roles and re-assimilation into society with a newframe of reference (i.e. a ‘perspective transformation’). Today, the theory has been elabo-rated to include a recognition of the role of emotions, intuition and imagination (Dirkx,2001) and social constructivist views of learning which position learning as a holisticrather than analytical process, which occurs in relation to context and other learners(Taylor, 2007).

This paper examines the possibilities for transformative learning on the part of touristsparticipating in community-based ecotourism (CBET), and offers suggestions for how suchlearning might be enhanced. CBET, like other forms of ecotourism, is centrally concernedwith visitor learning and education. However, as a variant of community development, itaims not only to help conserve the natural environment, but also to preserve local and indi-genous cultures, and contribute to the livelihood of local communities (Honey, 2008;Reimer & Walter, 2012; Zeppel, 2006). As such, CBET encompasses visitor experiencesin nature (wilderness treks, encounters with megafauna such as elephants, dolphins andbears), physical and mental challenges associated with adventure tourism (rock climbing,kayaking and caving) and cross-cultural experiences (staying with a local host family,eating local foods and learning a foreign language). This paper hypothesises that each ofthese three realms of ecotourist experience might offer catalytic ‘disorienting dilemmas’for transformative learning. These disorienting dilemmas are labelled ‘Nature Shock’,‘Adventure Shock’ and ‘Culture Shock’, respectively.

The first potential disorienting dilemma, nature shock, is discussed with reference to lit-erature on wildlife and nature tourism (Curtin, 2009, 2010; Vespestad & Lindberg, 2011).The second, adventure shock, is examined in light of literature on risk, thrill, flow and ‘rush’in adventure tourism (Buckley, 2012; Cater, 2006; Pomfret, 2012) and research on outdoorwilderness education (Brown, 2009; D’Amato & Krasny, 2011; McKenzie, 2000). Finally,culture shock as a stimulus for transformative learning in CBET is considered in relation toliterature on international volunteer tourism (Coghlan & Gooch, 2011; Higgins-Desbiolles,2003; Wearing & McGehee, 2013; Zahra & McIntosh, 2007). Based on the identification

Current Issues in Tourism 1357

and discussion of possible disorienting dilemmas stimulating transformative learning, thepaper then proposes how CBET ventures might be enhanced to encourage such learningby ecotourists. The paper has three guiding research questions:

(a) What comprises the informal experiential learning curriculum for visitors partici-pating in CBET?

(b) What disorienting dilemmas might CBET visitors experience and how might theseserve as stimuli for transformative learning?

(c) How might transformative learning be enhanced in CBET?

The paper draws on the literature noted above as well as three empirical case studies ofCBET conducted in Southeast Asia from 2009 to 2012 (Reimer & Walter, 2012; Tran &Walter, n.d.; Walter, 2009a; Walter & Reimer, 2011). At the three research sites, researchersstayed with local families in homestay accommodations, conducted interviews with tourismguides, host families and visitors, and participated in a wide range of ecotourism activities.These were interpretive case studies (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003) designed to understand thecomplex nature of CBET projects as they are put into practice, and, in particular, the role ofinformal adult learning in meeting CBET sustainability goals. The three research sites werechosen because they had each been identified as award-winning, successful models ofCBET in Southeast Asia.

The first case study was a CBET project in the Muslim Thai Malay island community ofKoh Yao Noi located among the karst mountains and coral reefs of southern Thailand’sAndaman Sea in Phang Nga Bay National Park. Visitor ecotourism activities includedhiking, snorkelling, kayaking, boating, fishing, batiking, cooking, rice planting, rubbertapping and homestays. The second was located in Cambodia, in Chiphat, a remote rainfor-est village formerly populated by Khmer Rouge soldiers. Visitor activities here includehiking, swimming, biking, visiting cave and archeological sites, bird watching andanimal tracking, camping, farm and orchard tours and homestays. The final site was aCBET project in Giao Xuan community in Vietnam’s Xuan Thuy National Park, part ofthe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Red River BiosphereReserve, and home to the Vietnam’s first recognised Ramsar wetlands site (i.e. wetlandsdesignated as internationally important under the Convention on Wetlands). Ecotourismactivities include biking, bird watching, boating in the mangroves, local homestays in tra-ditional Vietnamese houses, rice farming, shellfish harvest, visits to local churches, pagodasand a marketplace, trips to local churches, pagodas, fish sauce, rice wine and jellyfish pro-cessing factories and performances of traditional opera.

Field research was conducted at the Koh Yao Noi site from December 2008 to January2009, during which time the author (fluent in Thai) and two Thai researchers lived with alocal Muslim Malay family, visited a range of local ecotourism sites and participated infocus group discussions with leaders, guides and community members in the ecotourismproject. Field research at the Cambodian CBET site was conducted in two week-longvisits in November, 2010. Researchers (one Canadian and one Khmer) conducted a totalof 26 interviews and several focus groups with major stakeholders in the project, includingstaff, homestay hosts, guides and local villagers. Field research at the Giao Xuan site wasconducted from August to October 2011 by a Vietnamese researcher (Linh T. Tran). Four-teen in-depth interviews were conducted with local CBET participants at the Giao Xuansite. As was the case at the other two sites, the researcher participated in all visitor ecotour-ism activities.

1358 P.G. Walter

The three case studies focused on generating a broad understanding of the role of adultlearning and education in CBET, but did not focus specifically on visitor learning. As such,the examples presented below rely mostly on data collected through participation in eco-tourism activities by researchers, observation of visitor learning and anecdotal evidencefrom visitors. Since visitor learning in CBET is an area of research which has receivedlittle attention to date, the case studies provide useful context to frame initial hypothesesabout visitors’ transformative learning in CBET, which might then be tested throughfurther research focusing directly on visitor experiences.

The experiential CBET curriculum

Based on research findings from the case studies above, the informal curriculum of visitorlearning in CBET can be seen to have three areas of experiential learning: wildernessexperiences (Nature), outdoor ‘adventure’ activities (Adventure) and immersion in localculture (Culture) (Figure 1). In this curriculum framework, all ecotourists have a centralexperience in Nature; for example, hiking through wild tropical rainforests in southwesternCambodia, swimming in the Andaman Sea of southern Thailand or exploring tidal flats inthe Red River Delta of northern Vietnam. Depending on the setting and the activities inwhich they choose to participate, CBET visitors could experience a physically and mentallychallenging Adventure experience in local wilderness settings as well. These experiencesincluding climbing sheer rock faces of Karst limestone cliffs; mountain biking through rain-forests, rivers and cleared landmine fields; wilderness camping among wild elephants, giantleeches and gibbons; and descending into a slippery, dark caves filled with bats. Finally,

Figure 1. The CBET curriculum.

Current Issues in Tourism 1359

visitors to the CBET projects experienced local Culture. They stayed in the traditional,fairly sparse homes of local families, ate strange local foods, were guided by localpeople and exposed to the local language, customs and beliefs. Each of the three CBET cur-riculum areas is now elaborated with reference to relevant literature in wildlife and naturetourism, adventure tourism and outdoor education, and international volunteer tourism,respectively.

Nature

Visitor experience in the first curricular area of Nature is the defining characteristic and theprimary motivation for visitors to ecotourism projects of any kind, including CBET.Visitor encounters with wildness landscapes, wild animals and other forms of immersionin nature may evoke strong emotional experiences of awe, wonderment or transcendence.Such experiences may engage the five senses, can be profoundly spiritual, and emotionallyand physically restorative (Grill, 2003; Louv, 2012). Wilderness Nature experiences in thethree Southeast Asian CBET sites could venture on the spiritually sublime and therapeutic.Examples include snorkelling in warm Mediterranean blue ocean waters over reefs of multi-coloured tropical fish and coral, watching wild Asian elephants casually feeding on hugebanana stems amidst lush green jungle vegetation and spying endangered black-faced spoon-bills scooping up brackish water on the mudflats of coastal mangrove wetlands.

Recent tourism scholarship on visitor experiences of nature in nature-based and wildlifetourism has described the spiritual and transcendent dimensions of these nature experiences.In a review of literature of nature-based tourism, Vespestad and Lindberg (2011) identify two(of four) perspectives on nature-based tourist experiences related to transcendence and spiri-tuality. First, visitors seek authenticity in their encounters with pristine nature and come tounderstand ‘a real self’ through experiences that are removed from everyday life. Second,visitors’ experiences in nature involve attaining a different ‘state of being’; a state of wonder-ment and awe with a sense of newness of perception and process. In her research on wildlifetourism, Curtin (2009, p. 251) captures this human psychological, spiritual and emotionalresponse to close encounters with wilderness and wildlife:

Nature’s design, performance and immense biodiversity initiate an emotional response of awe,wonder and privilege that unlocks ecocentric and anthropomorphic connections to wildanimals and a feeling that is ‘beyond words’. There is time to stand and stare, and contemplate.Nature and wildlife are not only spatial events but also temporal ones. In this liminal, embodiedspace of a wildlife encounter, socially constructed modern fast time dissipates and is replacedby stillness and nature’s time whereby participants are totally absorbed in the spectacle. Allthought and action is concentrated on the moment. This provokes a deep sense of well-being that transcends the initial encounter leading to spiritual fulfilment and psychologicalhealth benefits.

Curtin (2009, p. 461) goes on to say that visitors experience a ‘sensual awakening’ in which‘engagement with nature can be an epiphany of self-realisation ... They feel very much intouch with both themselves and with the world around them, which provokes an intensefeeling of delight’.

Adventure

Beyond exposure to wildlife and awe-inspiring natural settings, outdoor Adventureexperiences in CBET engage visitors in personal physical and mental challenges, with

1360 P.G. Walter

strong parallels to adventure tourism (Buckley, 2012; Cater, 2006) and outdoor adventureeducation (Brown, 2009; McKenzie, 2000), respectively. In the three study sites, adventureexperiences included difficult rainforest treks, caving, rock climbing, mountain biking, seakayaking and wilderness camping. These experiences involve risk, fear, thrill and exhilara-tion. They are a ‘hard’ form of ecotourism (Weaver, 2005) which pushes the physical bodyand psyche to its limits, in contrast to the ‘softer’, sublime, spiritual and sensual realms ofthe heart in the Nature curricular area. That is, adventure experiences involve bodily kines-thetic learning (Lawrence 2012) and physical experiences ‘facilitated by the naturalenvironment’ (Pomfret, 2012, p. 148).

The adventure experience often provokes very strong emotions in visitors. Theseinclude a sense not only of risk, fear and thrill, but also ‘flow’ and ‘rush’ (Buckley,2012; Cater, 2006; Pomfret, 2012). Risk is associated with the physical danger posed byadventure activities. Fear is related to real or perceived risks and can become ‘thrill’when safely commodified by adventure tourism operators (Cater, 2006). Visitors maythen play with their fear: ‘they step inside the mythology of adventure, reinforced by theoperators, and gain that authentic capital for which they have been searching’ (Cater,2006, p. 322). That is, visitors may have ‘other world’ feelings of separation and escapism:they ‘figuratively enter another world which is distinctly different from the norm’ (Pomfret,2012, p. 147). In more physically challenging activities like white rafting and mountaineer-ing, visitors also may experience ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) where they are soimmersed in a highly skilled activity with both mind and body that nothing else seemsto matter.

As Buckley (2012, p. 963) makes clear in a review of over 50 studies on visitor experi-ences in adventure tourism, flow may be experienced without thrill (e.g. by surgeons andmusicians); and thrill – ‘a purely adrenalin-based physiological response unrelated toexpertise’ – may be felt without flow (e.g. by winning the lottery). However, the twocan occur together in the experience of ‘rush’, a kind of peak performance referring tothe ‘simultaneous experience of thrill and flow associated with the successful performanceof an adventure activity at a high level of skill’ (p. 963). Moreover, rush is addictive, andrequires ‘ever-increasing doses to maintain the same degree of response’; that is, ever moredifficult adventure experiences as new challenges are mastered and skills developed(p. 967). Visitors to CBET may experience flow or even rush depending on the nature ofan activity and their level of skill or mastery. Learning to navigate a longtail ocean boator becoming expert at casting fish nets may provide a sense of flow; riskier mountainbiking, hiking, rock climbing, zip-lining and kayaking challenges may give participantsa feeling of rush.

In more mundane, less risky versions of adventure tourism experienced in CBET, astrong parallel might be found in the literature of Outdoor Adventure Education (Brown,2009; McKenzie, 2000). In programmes such as Outward Bound and the NationalOutdoor Leadership School, an experiential learning curriculum is built around the physicaland mental challenges of adventure experiences (mountaineering, kayaking and wildernesscamping). Participants develop self-confidence, self-reliance, interpersonal skills, environ-mental awareness and wilderness survival skills through increasingly difficult individualand group experiential learning challenges. Wilderness adventure experiences involve par-ticipants using their bodies and engaging their emotions and mental capacities. They aredesigned to be challenging enough to stimulate fear in participants, but minimise physicaldanger. Thus they are a safer, more educational version of adventure tourism, and withmastery of skills, may involve thrill and flow, but likely not rush (Buckley, 2012), as thiswould involve too much physical danger for participants.

Current Issues in Tourism 1361

Culture

The curriculum area of Culture in CBET is a particularly rich site of informal adult learning.Homestays with local families were a core component in the three Southeast Asian CBETprojects, as were local ecotourism guides, interactions with elders and local people, and par-ticipation in livelihood activities and community events. Living with a local family meantlearning about their various customs of sleeping, eating, ettiquette and hygeine, as well asspiritual and religious beliefs, kinship, gender roles and relations, language and localhistory. In Thailand, this cultural curriculum area included Muslim Malay religious and cul-tural beliefs, family and community geneology, and kinship arrangements; in Vietnam, itcovered many of these areas as well as indigenous medicine, Catholicism and communityhistory; in Cambodia, it touched on Buddhism and local Buddhist temples, the history of theKhmer Rouge in the area and local impressions of Westerners, their languages and cultures.

In understanding the nature of learning about local cultures through close personal contactwith hosts, and longer term stays in CBET, it is useful to consider the literature on volunteertourism and the intercultural experiences of participants (Brown, 2005; Wearing & Grabow-ski, 2011; Wearing & McGehee, 2013). Volunteer tourism can in fact be seen as an extensionof ecotourism which focuses on environmental conservation and local humanitarian needs(Wearing & McGehee, 2013). Volunteer tourist stays are fairly short term and, like CBETvisits, involve close relations with local people and immersion in local culture. In thissense, volunteer tourism, like CBET, constitutes a cross-cultural experience in which volun-teers learn local language, customs and worldviews and may even engage in political actionsaround community development, environmental conservation and decolonisation (Brown,2005; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2003; Zahra & McGehee, 2013).

Disorienting dilemmas as catalysts for transformative learning

In understanding the processes by which visitors learn the informal curriculum of CBET,two frameworks for learning are particularly useful: Kolb’s Cycle of Experiential Learningand Mezirow’s Model of Transformative Learning (Walter, 2013a). This section outlinesKolb’s framework and its application to visitor experience and the informal CBET curricu-lum, and then posits a link between Kolb’s notion of a Concrete Experience and Mezirow’sdisorienting dilemma as the catalyst for transformative learning.

Briefly, Kolb’s (1984) four-stage cycle of experiential learning cycle involves a visitorto CBET: (1) having a Concrete Experience, (2) engaging in Reflective Observation on thisexperience, (3) coming up with generalisations about it; that is, Abstract Conceptualisationand (4) testing these generalisations out through Active Experimentation and further experi-ences (Figure 2). This experiential learning cycle can appear in the curriculum area ofNature, come more directly in the learning of outdoor Adventure skills and is evidentmost clearly in the learning of Culture, especially in livelihood activities. A ConcreteExperience may come in the sighting of a wild elephant or massive, vibrantly beautifulorchid blooms (Nature), conquering a steep, muddy, leach-infested jungle trail (Adventure),fording of river rapids (Adventure), braving ocean swells on a small boat (Adventure),learning how to cook and eat strange foods (Culture), tapping a rubber tree or transplantingrice seedlings (Culture) or learning local language, songs and dances or religious rituals(Culture). Family members and other local experts, calling on long traditions of apprentice-ship learning, may gradually guide visitors to develop mastery of curriculum contentthrough demonstration, observation and practice of skills. This hands-on learning mayencompass Reflective Observation (reflection with others on the success or failure oftheir attempts to learn the skills), Abstract Conceptualisation (generalising from their

1362 P.G. Walter

individual experiences to come up with effective mastery strategies), Active Experimen-tation (testing out these strategies, learning from additional successes and failures) andback to Concrete Experiences (moving on to new challenges).

It is possible that certain Concrete Experiences in CBET comprise disorienting dilem-mas stimulating transformative learning (Figure 2). Disorienting dilemmas can involve an‘acute personal or social crisis’ such as divorce, death or disease, job loss, natural disasters,war or a debilitating accident (Taylor, 2008). They may also be less dramatic transitions orchallenges, for example, having or adopting children, a mid-life crisis, retirement, studyabroad, a field experience, service learning, outdoor adventure, intercultural experienceor an epiphany in nature (D’Amato & Krasny, 2011; Morgan 2011; Walter, 2013b). A dis-orienting dilemma may then stimulate subsequent stages of transformative learning includ-ing a highly emotional self-examination, questioning of one’s assumptions and worldview,a recognition of shared discontent with others, an action planning process, acquisition ofnew skills and knowledge, trying out of new roles, building of competence and confidenceand, finally, reintegration of a new perspective into one’s life (Mezirow, 2000, 2009).

In a review of literature on volunteer tourism, Coghlan and Gooch (2011) identify manyof Mezirow’s 10 stages of transformative learning, and note that disorienting dilemmaswhich provoke ‘strong emotional responses from tourists’ (p. 720) are characteristic oftransformative learning stimuli among volunteer tourists. This may include ‘CultureShock and experiencing an unfamiliar cultural/social/natural environment’ (p. 718).Other studies, while not adopting Mezirow’s framework, have identified the life-changingeffects of volunteer tourism (Wearing, Deville, & Lyons, 2008; Zahra, 2011; Zahra & McIn-tosh, 2007), triggered by possible disorienting dilemmas. Zahra (2011), for example,reports that volunteer tourists’ personal encounters with extreme poverty, the castesystem and religion had life-changing consequences. As a result of their experiences, vol-unteers became less self-centred, less materialistic, more conscious of the importance of

Figure 2. Concrete experience as the stimulus for transformative learning.Sources: Kolb (1984), Mezirow (2000).

Current Issues in Tourism 1363

family and community and more involved in social justice advocacy. For CBET visitors, thedisorienting dilemmas of transformative learning potentially appear in all three curriculumareas of Nature, Adventure, and Culture. Here these dilemmas are referred to as NatureShock, Adventure Shock and Culture Shock, respectively. Each is elaborated in turn.

Disorienting dilemmas as Nature Shock can be experienced when CBET visitors have atranscendent, spiritual experience in wilderness juxtaposed with a disturbing experience ofthe destruction of the natural environment, its wildlife and human habitat. In the Cambodiaecotourism project, for example, a disorienting dilemma or Nature Shock could be experi-enced when scenes of spectacular waterfalls or wild elephants were followed by a trekthrough barren, deforested fields, many only recently de-mined after years of brutalwarfare. Visitors could experience further shock as they listened to stories of the KhmerRouge genocide and its consequences for local people. Visitors could then be motivatedto participate in the project’s reforestation project or join in the political battle to fightoff a proposed mega titanium mine in the local area. Similarly, in southern Thailand, visitorsindicated that they experienced Nature Shock when, after snorkelling over pristine tropicalreefs, they were later confronted with the sight of dead stumps of coastal mangroves on mudflats dredged for shrimp farms. As a result, these visitors stated that they intended to learnmore about and perhaps join in local efforts to prevent shrimp aqua farming, industrialfishing and real estate and tourism developers from further destroying mangrove forests,reefs and shorelines.

Along these lines, Walter (2013b, p. 39), in his study of transformative learning amongscientist-environmentalists, proposes that an appreciation of pristine nature might be com-bined with experiences of environmental destruction to act as disorienting dilemmas intransformative learning:

. . . in pedagogical terms, . . . if we wish to foster transformative learning that might lead to eco-logical and environmental consciousness and activism, experiences not only of nature but alsoof the environmentally destructive practices of human beings should be a central concern. Suchenvironmental education might take the form, for example, of visiting a clear-cut forest andstudying the reasons for its destruction, tracing the sources of severely polluted water, exam-ining the effects of habitat degradation on animals and humans, investigating the consequencesof lawn care pesticides, housing developments, or shopping malls on human and ecologicalhealth and so on . . .

Disorienting dilemmas may also come as Adventure Shock when CBET visitors face andovercome physical and psychological challenges in often unfamiliar, and at times danger-ous, wilderness environments. In the Cambodian CBET project, for example, this mightmean carrying a mountain bike over slippery river rapids and narrow plank bridges, sleep-ing in a jungle hammock amidst grunting wild pigs, giant leeches and gibbons, or exploringan isolated river cave filled with bats. In southern Thailand, a close encounter with a largemonitor lizard, skin diving among stingrays and leopard sharks, or riding a small boatamidst a sudden squall, and then hearing local guides tell horrifying stories of the 2004Tsunami could constitute Adventure Shock.

Finally, Culture Shock may come with immersion in a strange culture, in the cognitive,cultural and emotional dissonance or ‘cultural disequilibrium’ which ‘challenges partici-pants’ meaning perspectives, pushing them to learn new ways to bring balance back intotheir lives’ (Taylor, 1994, p. 169). In the Vietnam project, for example, urban-educatedVietnamese indicated that they felt a cultural disjuncture in family homestays as theyexperienced different and foreign beliefs, values and practices in livelihood activities,food, sanitation and social etiquette. In the ecotourism project in southern Thailand, visitors

1364 P.G. Walter

expressed feelings of cognitive dissonance between, for example, their Lonely planet guide-book’s portrayal of the island in terms of its tourism infrastructure (arrival piers, hotels, res-taurants and tourist attractions) and local indigenous spatial representations (land use,transport routes, cultural and spiritual designations for certain areas, village names,fishing grounds, etc.) presented by CBET hosts.

Enhancing the potential for transformative learning in CBET

In considering the ways in which transformative learning might be enhanced in volunteertourism, Coghlan and Gooch (2011) suggest that volunteer tourists may benefit from moreexplicit opportunities to develop action plans, try out new roles and gain feedback on theirefforts (i.e. the later stages of Mezirow’s model of transformative learning). Further, theynote the need for research to understand the roles of host communities and volunteer organi-sations in promoting or hindering transformative learning. D’Amato and Krasny’s (2011)likewise argue that the ‘post-course’ behavioural change stages of transformative learningin Outdoor Adventure Education might be better recognised and enhanced.

Within the broader scope of transformative learning, the ways in which such learningmight be promoted in practice, including nonformal education in community settingssimilar to CBET, is the subject of recent scholarship in the field. This comes most directlyin a collection of case studies, Transformative learning in practice, edited by Mezirow andTaylor (2009). In the final, integrative chapter of the book, Taylor and Jarecke (2009) offersix suggestions for how transformative learning might be enhanced in educational practicein a broad range of settings. These are: (1) seeing transformative learning as a purposefuland heuristic process, (2) confronting power and engaging difference, (3) understandingtransformative learning as an imaginative process, (4) leading learners to the edge, (5) fos-tering reflection and (6) modelling. Each of these is now taken in turn and applied to theinformal educational practice of CBET.

Seeing transformative learning as a purposeful and heuristic process acknowledgesthat such learning has an educational, political and social agenda, involves the developmentof a critical consciousness and promotes personal or social empowerment (Taylor &Jarecke, 2009, pp. 276–278). Education to facilitate this learning may have a framework,structure and process, but is not prescriptive or step-wise. In CBET, the primary aim is topromote local sustainability (environmental, cultural and economic) and encourage visitorsto become more environmentally, culturally and socially aware and, in some cases, to joinin and later engage in social and environmental activism. As we have seen, an informalexperiential CBET curriculum facilitates this learning process. In basic terms, transforma-tive learning might be encouraged here by making visitor experiences central to an edu-cational framework which fosters critical consciousness and action. This might involvean experiential problem-based or problem-posing pedagogy, along the lines of thoseemployed in other areas of participatory adult education. This occurs, for example, in non-formal educational programmes promoting critical reflection among tour guides (Christie &Mason, 2003), experiential learning about socio-environmental justice for university stu-dents (Wittmer & Johnson, 2000) and continuing adult education about sustainability(Lange, 2009).

Confronting power and engaging difference means that learners ‘develop an acuteawareness of power and its relationship to cultural difference’, recognise their own positionin relation to other forms of power (e.g. class, race and gender) and develop political con-sciousness (Taylor & Jarecke, 2009, pp. 278–280). This aspect of promoting transforma-tive learning draws on the arts to foster imagination and dialogue. For CBET visitors,

Current Issues in Tourism 1365

this might involve examining host–guest relationships and the inequities of development,engaging in cross-cultural dialogue, becoming aware of local environmental issues andtheir connection to globalisation, and participating in political actions with and on behalfof the local community. In volunteer tourism, the call to acknowledge power relations,social inequities and the ‘Other’ in visitor–host relationships is increasingly common(Higgins-Desbiolles, 2003; Wearing and Grabowski, 2011), and might be applied toCBET as well. For visitors to CBET, such ‘political’ knowledge might build on the existingcurriculum, in terms of both content and process. For instance, the learning of local songs,art or dramatic performance might be oriented towards environmental or developmentissues, and in this way may help to develop a critical consciousness among visitors.Drawing on art to encourage critical consciousness is in fact a common practice in environ-mental adult education taking place in community settings (Branagan, 2005; Walter, 2012),and might likewise be adopted in CBET learning.

Understanding transformative learning as an imaginative process involves learningwhich goes beyond the cognitive and embraces the emotional, imaginative and spiritualdimensions of learning (Taylor & Jarecke, 2009, pp. 280–283). This process engagesimages, symbols and rituals to facilitate self-awareness and new perspectives, andemploys activities such as journaling, storytelling and drama. CBET clearly provides visi-tors with all sorts of experiences that incorporate sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. More-over, a focus on local and indigenous knowledge in the CBET curriculum means thatvisitors normally learn about local history, culture, nature and cosmology, often throughstorytelling, and may participate in religious and cultural rituals. Visitors might also beencouraged to write, create and tell their own stories or act out their own dramas inexchange with hosts. As Ballantyne et al. (2011, p. 778) suggest (for wildlife ecotourism),local CBET guides and hosts might ‘ . . . (use) interpretive commentaries and signage toreinforce visitors’ sense of wonder, awe, excitement and privilege, . . . (and encourage) visi-tors to use their imaginations to enter into the animals’ world, to identify with individualanimals and to experience empathy’.

Leading learners to the edge refers to the construction of experiences to create feelingsof discomfort and unrest; that is, gently challenging visitors to move beyond their comfortzones, thereby fostering disorienting dilemmas (Taylor & Jarecke, 2009, pp. 283–285). Inthis practice, a safe and supportive learning environment is maintained, but adults are ‘con-fronted with individuals and lifestyles that portray another way of living and provide newperspectives to students’ (Taylor & Jarecke, 2009, p. 284). In CBET, there are ample oppor-tunities for this sort of cross-cultural experience, whether these are found in cultural, liveli-hood, religious or political differences. As noted above, variations of Nature, Adventureand Culture Shock might also be integrated into the Curriculum as disorienting dilemmaswith the potential to move visitors towards transformative learning. Borrowing a chapterfrom Outdoor Adventure Education (McKenzie, 2000), progressively more challengingmental, emotional and physical activities pushing visitors just beyond their expertise andcomfort levels might likewise be encouraged.

Fostering reflection means connecting content with prior knowledge and experience to‘transform the way (learners) think about themselves, others or society’ (Taylor & Jarecke,2009, p. 284). In practice, this involves dialogue, opportunities for action, exposure toalternative perspectives, work in groups and again arts-based activities, role plays and story-telling. Christie and Mason (2003) argue that many of these techniques for promoting criti-cal reflection might be used in ‘transformative tour guiding’ education for ecotourismguides, who may in turn foster reflection among ecotourism visitors. For CBET visitors,reflection may be encouraged by transformative tour guiding and the many hands-on

1366 P.G. Walter

livelihood, cultural, nature and adventure activities in which visitors participate, in cross-cultural experiences and informal dialogues in homestays with local activities, and in thearts-based activities in which many already engage.

As Ballantyne et al. (2011, p. 778) argue, ‘non-active’ time reserved for visitor reflec-tion is also important, as are follow-up activities:

Set aside a time and space for visitors to reflect on the meaning of the experience, and to interactwith companions or family members, . . . (encourage) visitors to spend some time in the days orweeks after the visit to reflect on or discuss their responses to the experience; and (provide)resources that visitors can access after the visit to follow-up particular interests, extend theirlearning and maintain their motivation to act.

In CBET, such reflection may also be fostered through pre-arrival questionnaires and orien-tations, opportunities for reflective storytelling, journal and blog-writing, group activitiesand post-visit follow-up. As with volunteer tourism (Wearing & McGehee, 2013), forCBET visitors, follow-up activities might include documenting visits with photography,video and blogs, and maintaining contact with hosts and other visitors through social media.

Modelling refers to educators serving as role models for the behaviours and values theywould like to foster through transformative learning of adult learners (Taylor & Jarecke,2009, pp. 286–288). To this end, educators should practice ‘critical humility’, respectful lis-tening and sustainable ways of living, and demonstrate how they engage in critical reflectionand action themselves. In CBET, local guides and hosts live in communities which are largelydependent on the use and preservation of the natural environments in which they live; that is,there is often already a synergistic and sustainable relationship among local people, nature,culture and livelihood (Walter, 2013a). As such, local CBET guides and host families can inmany cases serve as role models for sustainable living, and integrated forms of traditionalecological knowledge can inform the experiential CBET curriculum (Butler & Menzies,2007; Walter, 2009a). At times, local people may also act as models for critical reflection,particularly when they are engaged in political activism to preserve local environments(e.g. protests by CBET members against shrimp farms and mangrove destruction in southernThailand and against a proposed titanium mine in the Cardamoms rainforests of Cambodia).Finally, local people living in tight-knit, fairly isolated communities may also express acertain humility in dealing with outsiders, and with CBET visitors in particular. As in volun-teer tourism (Zahra, 2011), interactions and activities with local people may promote trans-formative learning for CBET visitors, and eventually become life-changing experiences.

Conclusion

This contribution has elaborated how the informal experiential learning curriculum for visi-tors in CBET might promote disorienting dilemmas as stimuli for transformative learning,and how this transformative learning might be enhanced through educational practice. Inparticular, the paper argues that Nature Shock, Adventure Shock and Culture Shock experi-enced by ecotourists may comprise concrete experiences which act as disorienting dilem-mas in a developmental process of transformative learning. It hypothesises that thisprocess can result in changes in visitor perspectives and foster action that may promotethe sustainability aims of CBET. For the most part, the argument presented is theoretical,and relies on empirical evidence from related research in wildlife and nature tourism,adventure tourism, outdoor wilderness education and volunteer tourism as well as contex-tual and anecdotal evidence from three Southeast Asian CBET case studies.

Current Issues in Tourism 1367

This theorising about disorienting dilemmas and transformative learning in CBET leadsto a number of directions for further research. First, qualitative research approaches atCBET research sites (such as those referenced in this paper) can be used to generate a typol-ogy of CBET visitors, motivations to visit CBET projects, and pathways and short-termoutcomes of transformative learning. Qualitative data can be collected through multiplemethods: participant observation of visitor ecotourism experiences, ‘Go-Along’ interviews(Degen & Rose, 2012) with visitors, semi-structured and in-depth interviews, ‘photo elici-tation’ using visitors’ or researchers’ ecotourism photographs (Rose, 2012; Van Leeuwen &Jewitt, 2010) and spatial mapping of the sites of nature, adventure and cultural disorientingdilemmas. Quantitative survey research can then be employed to test and refine these con-cepts across a wide range of CBET visitors and sites. Second, longitudinal studies of indi-vidual learning trajectories moving through Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Cycle, therole of Nature, Adventure and Culture Shock as disorienting dilemmas, and the stages andoutcomes of Mezirow’s (2009) transformative learning can be conducted. This qualitativeresearch can involve in-depth interviews at regular intervals over several years with CBETvisitors who have initially identified themselves as having experienced disorientingdilemmas.

As related above, most CBET visitors stay with local families in homestay accommo-dations, have relatively lengthy stays and are led by local guides (often family members).Moreover, many visitors develop close relationships with local families, guides and othercommunity members; some participate in environmental conservation initiatives (e.g.planting mangroves and working in a tree nursery), community development (e.g. teachingschool children, helping develop fair trade initiatives and designing and translating tourismmaterials) and political activism (lobbying in media and with non-governmental organiz-ations against destructive shrimp farming, deforestation and mining). Some visitorsreturn for multiple visits and others maintain community relationships post-visit throughsocial media. It is these sorts of visitors who can provide rich insights for research onthe processes and outcomes of transformative learning in CBET, and whose experiencesmight help to design a CBET education curriculum to promote such learning (whichcould then be evaluated through further research).

However, it is also important to understand why some CBET visitors do not engage intransformative learning. Is this a function of their motivations to visit, the nature of theirecotourism experiences, the educational capacities of local guides and hosts, the particula-rities of a site? Are there instances of visitors who arrive fairly uncommitted to CBET sus-tainability goals, but who experience strong transformations as a result of their visits? Whatis the impact of CBET visitors and transformative learning on local communities, both posi-tive and negative (Guttentag, 2009)? How might the CBET curriculum and the suggestionsfor promoting transformative learning in CBET educational practice (discussed above) betailored for different groups of visitors, to promote positive sustainability outcomes?Finally, how can transformative learning be facilitated in post-trip activities (Coghlan &Cooch, 2011)? These are all questions for future research.

CBET visitors and local communities often share the aims of socio-environmental sus-tainability and cultural preservation, and education is a key factor in promoting these aims.To this end, CBET might be positioned and marketed not only as alternative tourism, butalso as tourism where experiential learning is ‘added value’ along with opportunities forvolunteering in community-based environmental and cultural conservation projects. Witha CBET curriculum enhanced to encourage transformative learning, perhaps through care-fully designed and managed nature, adventure and culture ‘shocks’, visitors may then notonly learn about the environment, culture and livelihood of local people, but establish

1368 P.G. Walter

long-term relationships with community members, shift their worldviews and experiencelife-changing results. The concepts elaborated here are an initial attempt at conceptualisingtransformative learning in CBET, with the aim of stimulating further research and debate inthe area, and ultimately enhancing both the educational and sustainability aims of CBET.

ReferencesArnegger, J., Woltering, M., & Hubert, H. (2010). Toward a product-based typology for nature-based

tourism: A conceptual framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 915–928.Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Sutherland, L. A. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism:

Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management, 32,770–779.

Bjork, P. (2007). Definition paradoxes: From concept to definition. In J. Higham (Ed.), Critical issuesin ecotourism (pp. 23–45). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Branagan, M. (2005). Environmental education, activism and the arts. Convergence, 38(4), 33–44.Brown, M. (2009). Reconceptualising outdoor adventure education: Activity in search of an appro-

priate theory. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 13(2), 3–13.Brown, S. (2005). Travelling with a purpose: Understanding the motives and benefits of volunteer

vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 479–496.Buckley, R. (2012). Rush as a key motivation in skilled adventure tourism: Resolving the risk recrea-

tion paradox. Tourism Management, 33, 961–970.Butler, C. F., & Menzies, C. R. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous tourism. In

R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications (pp. 15–27). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinermann.

Cater, C. I. (2006). Playing with risk? Participant perceptions of risk and management implications inadventure tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 317–325.

Christie, M. F., & Mason, P. A. (2003). Transformative tour guiding: Training tour guides to be cri-tically reflective practitioners. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 1–16.

Coghlan, A., & Gooch, M. (2011). Applying a transformative learning framework to volunteertourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 713–728.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychological optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Curtin, S. (2009). Wildlife tourism: The intangible, psychological benefits of human–wildlife

encounters. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(5–6), 451–474.Curtin, S. (2010). What makes for memorable wildlife encounters? Revelations from ‘serious’ wild-

life tourists. Journal of Ecotourism, 9(2), 149–168.D’Amato, L. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Outdoor adventure education: Applying transformative

learning theory to understanding instrumental learning and personal growth in environmentaleducation. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 237–254.

Degen, M. M., & Rose, G. (2012). The sensory experiencing of urban design: The role of walking andperceptual memory. Urban Studies, 49(15), 3269–3285.

Diduck, A., Sinclair, J., Hostetler, G., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2012). Transformative learning theory, publicinvolvement, and natural resource and environmental management. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 55(10), 1311–1330.

Dirkx, J. M. (2001). The power of feelings: Emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning inadult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 63–72.

Donohoe, H., & Needham, R. (2006). Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition. Journal ofEcotourism, 5, 192–210.

Feinstein, B. C. (2004). Learning and transformation in the context of Hawaiian traditional ecologicalknowledge. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(2), 105–120.

Fennell, D. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5),403–421.

Grill, J. (2003). Natural settings, restorative environments, and adult learning. Adult Learning, 14(3),20–23.

Guttentag, D. A. (2009). The possible negative impacts of volunteer tourism. International Journal ofTourism Research, 11(6), 537–551.

Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2003). Reconciliation tourism: Tourism healing divided societies! TourismRecreation Research, 28(3), 35–44.

Current Issues in Tourism 1369

Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). “Being called awake”: The role of transformative learning in the

lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(2), 99–118.Lange, E. A. (2009). Fostering a learning sanctuary for transformation in adult sustainability edu-

cation. In J. Mezirow & E. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning in practice(pp. 193–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawrence, R. L. (2012). Coming full circle: Reclaiming the body. New Directions for Adult andContinuing Education, 125, 71–78.

Louv, R. (2012). The nature principle: Reconnecting with life in a virtual age. New York, NY:Algonquin Books.

Luck, M. (2003). Education on marine mammal tours as agent for conservation – But do tourists wantto be educated? Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, 943–956.

McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved? A review of theliterature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 19–28.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Eds.), Learning as

transformation (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.),

Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education(pp. 18–31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E. W. (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community,workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, A. D. (2011). Journeys into transformation: Travel to an “other” place as a vehicle for trans-formative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 8(4), 246–268.

Pomfret, G. (2012). Personal emotional journeys associated with adventure activities on packagedmountaineering holidays. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 145–154.

Reimer, J. K., & Walter, P. (2012). How do you know it when you see it? Community-based ecotour-ism in the Cardamom Mountains of southwestern Cambodia. Tourism Management, 34, 122–132.

Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: Empowering communities. Essex: Prentice-Hall.Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education

Quarterly, 44(3), 154–174.Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of empirical

research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 175–191.Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult & Continuing

Education, 119, 5–15.Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2012). The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and

practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Taylor, E. W., & Jarecke, J. (2009). Looking forward by looking back. In J. Mezirow & E. Taylor

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher edu-cation (pp. 275–289). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tisdell, C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Perceived impacts of ecotourism on environmental learning andconservation: Turtle watching as a case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability,7, 291–302.

Tran, L. T., & Walter, P. (in press). Ecotourism, gender and development in northern Vietnam. Annalsof Tourism Research. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01607383

Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Handbook of visual analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.Vespestad, M. K., & Lindberg, F. (2011). Understanding nature-based tourist experiences: An onto-

logical analysis. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(6), 563–580.Walter, P. (2009a). Local knowledge and adult learning in environmental adult education:

Community-based ecotourism in southern Thailand. International Journal of LifelongEducation, 28(4), 513–532.

Walter, P. (2009b). Environmental learning and education in marine wildlife ecotourism. Journal ofAdult Learning Aotearoa New Zealand, 37(2), 72–89.

1370 P.G. Walter

Walter, P. (2012). Cultural codes as catalysts for collective conscientisation in environmental adulteducation: Mr. Floatie, tree squatting and save-our-surfers. Australian Journal of AdultLearning, 52(1), 114–134.

Walter, P. (2013a). Theorising visitor learning in ecotourism. Journal of Ecotourism, 12(1), 15–32.Walter, P. (2013b). Dead wolves, dead birds and dead trees: Catalysts for transformative learning in

the making of scientist-environmentalists. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(1), 24–42.Walter, P., & Reimer, K. J. (2011). The ‘ecotourism curriculum’ and visitor learning in community-

based ecotourism: Case studies from Thailand and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Journal of TourismResearch, 17(5), 551–561.

Wearing, S., Deville, A., & Lyons, K. (2008). The volunteer’s journey through leisure into the self. InK. Lyons & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International casestudy perspectives (pp. 65–71). Wallingford: CABI.

Wearing, S., & Grabowski, S. (2011). Volunteer tourism and intercultural exchange: Exploring the‘Other’ in the experience. In M. Benson (Ed.), Volunteer tourism: Theory framework to practicalapplications (pp. 193–210). New York: Routledge.

Wearing, S., & McGehee, N. G. (2013). Volunteer tourism: A review. Tourism Management, 38, 120–130.

Weaver, D. B. (2005). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 32(2), 439–455.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. (2007). Progress in tourism management twenty years on: The state ofcontemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management, 28, 1168–1179.

Wittmer, C., & Johnson, B. (2000). Experience as a foundation of environmental adult education: TheAudubon Expedition Model. Convergence, 33(4), 111–122.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design & methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Zahra, A. (2011). Volunteer tourism as a life-changing experience. In A. M. Benson (Ed.), Volunteer

tourism: Theoretical frameworks and practical application (pp. 90–101). Oxon: Routledge.Zahra, A., & McGehee, N. G. (2013). Host perceptions of volunteer tourism: A community capital

perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 22–45.Zahra, A., & McIntosh, A. J. (2007). Volunteer tourism: Evidence of cathartic tourist experiences.

Tourism Recreation Research, 32(1), 115–119.Zeppel, H. D. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management.

Oxfordshire: CABI.Zeppel, H. D. (2008). Education and conservation benefits of marine wildlife tours: Developing free

choice learning experiences. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(3), 3–17.

Current Issues in Tourism 1371