The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism

The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism

Edited by

David B. Weaver

School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Australia

Advisory editors

Kenneth F. Backman, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management,Clemson University, USA

Erlet Cater, Department of Geography, University of Reading, UKPaul F.J. Eagles, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of

Waterloo, CanadaBob McKercher, Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong

Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

CABI Publishing

CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International

CABI Publishing CABI PublishingCAB International 10 E 40th StreetWallingford Suite 3203Oxon OX10 8DE New York, NY 10016UK USA

Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 212 481 7018Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 212 686 7993Email: cabi@cabi.org Email: cabi-nao@cabi.orgWeb site: http://www.cabi.org

© CAB International 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechan-ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior per-mission of the copyright owners.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library,London, UK.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataThe encyclopedia of ecotourism / edited by David B. Weaver.

p. cm.Topical chapters arranged under a common theme.Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-85199-368-0 (alk. paper)1. Ecotourism. I. Weaver, David B. (David Bruce)

G156.5.E26 E53 2000338.497910--dc21

00-044459

ISBN 0 85199 368 0

Typeset by Columns Design Ltd, Reading.Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King’sLynn.

Contributors ix

Preface xiii

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO ECOTOURISM 1D.B. Weaver

1 Principles of Ecotourism 5R.K. Blamey

2 Types of Ecotourism 23M.B. Orams

3 Ecotourists: Not a Homogeneous Market Segment 37P.A. Wight

4 Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 63D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

5 Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 73D.B. Weaver

SECTION 2: A REGIONAL SURVEY BY CONTINENT 85E. Cater

6 Kenya and South Africa 89P.U.C. Dieke

7 Anglo-America 107D.A. Fennell

8 Asia 123A.A. Lew

9 Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific) 139R.K. Dowling

10 Europe 155S. Blangy and S. Vautier

Contents

v

11 Latin America and the Caribbean 173D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

SECTION 3: A REGIONAL SURVEY BY BIOME 189D.B. Weaver

12 Rainforests 193W. Frost

13 Mountain Ecotourism: Creating a Sustainable Future 205P.W. Williams, T.V. Singh and R. Schlüter

14 Polar Environments 219B. Stonehouse

15 Islands and Coasts 235E.A. Halpenny

16 Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 251D.B. Weaver

17 Marine Environments 265C. Cater and E. Cater

SECTION 4: ECOTOURISM VENUES 283D.B. Weaver

18 Public Protected Areas 287L.J. Lawton

19 Privately Owned Protected Areas 303J. Langholz and K. Brandon

20 Modified Spaces 315L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

21 Wilderness 327W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

22 Indigenous Territories 345T. Hinch

SECTION 5: ECOTOURISM IMPACTS 359P.F.J. Eagles

23 Economic Impacts 363K. Lindberg

24 Environmental Impacts 379R. Buckley

25 Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 395S. Wearing

26 Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 411E. Sirakaya, T.B. Jamal and H.-S. Choi

27 Rural Development 433R.W. Butler

vi Contents

SECTION 6: PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONS 447K.F. Backman

28 Management Tools and Techniques: an Integrated Approach to Planning 451S. Backman, J. Petrick and B.A. Wright

29 Policy and Planning 463D.A. Fennell, R. Buckley and D.B. Weaver

30 Ecotourism-related Organizations 479E.A. Halpenny

31 Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context 497J. Cohen

32 The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policy and Planning 509S. Parker

SECTION 7: THE BUSINESS OF ECOTOURISM 521B. McKercher

33 Accommodations 525J. Gardner

34 Tour Operators 535B.R. Higgins

35 Tour Guides and Interpretation 549B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

36 The Business of Ecotourism 565B. McKercher

37 The Pursuit of Excellence: Benchmarking, Accreditation, Best Practiceand Auditing 579J.-P. Issaverdis

SECTION 8: METHODOLOGIES, RESEARCH AND RESOURCES 595D.B. Weaver

38 Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 597K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

39 Information Sources for Planning and Management 611P.F.J. Eagles

40 Education and Training 627N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

41 Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 639D.A. Fennell

Glossary 657

Index 663

Contents vii

Kenneth F. Backman Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management,Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1005, USA

Sheila Backman Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, SC 29634-1005, USA

Russell K. Blamey Urban and Environmental Program, Research School of SocialSciences, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia

Sylvie Blangy Department of Tourism and Sustainable Development, SECA (Sociétéd’Eco-Amènagement), Parc Scientifique Agropolis, 34 397 Montpelier Cedex 5, France

Katrina Brandon 4110 Gallatin Street, Hyattsville, MD 20781-2132, USA. Present address:Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington, Districtof Columbia, USARalf Buckley International Centre for Ecotourism Research, School of Environmental and

Applied Science, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Parklands Drive, Southport,Queensland 4217, Australia

Richard W. Butler School of Management Studies for the Service Sector, University ofSurrey, Guildford, GU2 5XH, UK

Carl Cater School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, UKErlet Cater Department of Geography, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6

2AB, UKHwan-Suk Choi Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M

University, College Station, TX 77843-2261, USAJudy Cohen Marketing Department, Rider University, 2083 Lawrenceville Road,

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-3099, USAPeter U.C. Dieke University of Strathclyde, The Scottish Hotel School, 94 Cathedral

Street, Glasgow G4 0LG, UKRoss K. Dowling School of Marketing, Tourism and Leisure, Faculty of Business and

Public Management, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, AustraliaPaul F.J. Eagles Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo,

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1David A. Fennell Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Faculty of Physical

Education and Recreation, Brock University, St Catherines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1Warwick Frost Department of Management, Monash University, Clyde Road, Berwick

3806, Australia

Contributors

ix

John Gardner Cooper and Gardner Architects, 14 Par-la-Ville Road HM 08, PO BoxHM 1376, Hamilton HM FX, Bermuda

Elizabeth A. Halpenny Nature Tourism Solutions, R.R.#2, Almonte, ON K0A 1A0, CanadaSam H. Ham College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Department of Resource

Recreation and Tourism, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1139, USAWilliam E. Hammitt Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson

University, Clemson, SC 29634-1005, USADonald E. Hawkins School of Business and Public Management, The George Washington

University, 2121 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USABryan R. Higgins Department of Geography and Planning, State University of New York

at Plattsburgh, 101 Broad Street, Plattsburgh, NY 12901-2681, USATom Hinch Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H9Jean-Pierre Issaverdis Victoria University, Footscray Park Campus, K538, PO Box 14428,

Melbourne, MC 8001, AustraliaTazim B. Jamal Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M

University, College Station, TX 77843-2261, USAKristin Lamoureux School of Business and Public Management, The George Washington

University, 2121 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USAJeff Langholz 312 Fernow Hall, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University,

Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. Present address: Program in International EnvironmentalPolicy, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, California, USA

Laura J. Lawton School of Business, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4229,Australia

Alan A. Lew Department of Geography and Public Planning, Northern ArizonaUniversity, PO Box 15016, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5016, USA

Kreg Lindberg School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold CoastCampus, PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia

Neil Lipscombe School of Environmental and Information Science, Charles SturtUniversity, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia

Bob McKercher Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong PolytechnicUniversity, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Duarte B. Morais School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management, 201 MateerBuilding, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-1307, USA

Mark B. Orams Centre for Tourism Research, Massey University at Albany, Private Bag102 904, North Shore MSC, New Zealand

Steven Parker Department of Political Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV89154-5029, USA

James Petrick Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, SC 29634-1005, USA

Regina Schlüter Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Turisticos, Avenida del Libertador774, Piso 6 – Of. ‘W’, 1001 Buenos Aires, Argentina

Tej Vir Singh Centre for Tourism Research and Development, A-965/6 Indira Nagar,Lucknow, India 226016

Ercan Sirakaya Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Sciences, 308 Francis Hall,Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2261, USA

Bernard Stonehouse Scott-Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, LensfieldRoad, Cambridge CB2 1ER, UK

Mathew C. Symmonds Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management,Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1005, USA

Rik Thwaites School of Environmental and Information Science, Charles SturtUniversity, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia

x Contributors

Sandrine Vautier Wittelsbacherallee 121, D-60385 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyStephen Wearing School of Leisure and Tourism Studies, University of Technology,

Sydney, PO Box 1, Lindfield, NSW 2070, AustraliaDavid B. Weaver School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold

Coast Campus, PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, AustraliaBetty Weiler Department of Management, Monash University, Berwick Campus, PO Box

1071, Narne Warren, VIC 3078, AustraliaPamela A. Wight Pam Wight and Associates, 14715-82 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada T5R 3R7Peter W. Williams School for Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser

University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6Brett A. Wright Center for Recreation Resources Policy, George Mason University, Mail

Stop 4E5, 10900 University Blvd, Manassas, VA 20110, USA

Contributors xi

Preface

The beginning of the new century is a goodtime to take stock of the activities and top-ics that have been studied under the guiseof ‘ecotourism’ for just over a decade. ThisEncyclopedia of Ecotourism is the firstattempt to review the sector in a compre-hensive way within a single volume. Its 41chapters, whose authors include manyleaders in the field, represent a diversity ofperspectives and styles. This diversity,within reason, has been encouraged, sincethere is no one correct way to analyse theecotourism sector or gain insight into itsevolution. Topically, the chapters havebeen divided into eight sections, each rep-resenting a common theme. The first sec-tion establishes the context for the volumeby considering fundamental issues of defi-nition, categories, market development,growth and relationship to other forms oftourism. The next set of chapters reviewsthe status of ecotourism in all of theworld’s major regions, while the spatialtheme is continued in Section 3 with itsfocus on major biomes, including rainfor-est, alpine and polar regions, savannahs,islands and marine environments. Genericecotourism settings, such as protectedareas, modified spaces and indigenous ter-ritories, are examined in the fourth section.Section 5 changes the focus by consideringthe environmental, socio-cultural and eco-

nomic impacts of ecotourism on host desti-nations, including rural areas, and byreviewing sustainability indicators. This isfollowed by a series of chapters that con-siders aspects of planning, managementand institutions, including those that areexternal to ecotourism itself. The theme ofSection 7 is the business of ecotourism,which incorporates accommodations, touroperators, tour guiding and interpretation,planning and marketing, and quality con-trol issues. The eighth and final sectionconcentrates on the creation and dissemi-nation of ecotourism knowledge by consid-ering prevalent research methodologies,information sources, training and educa-tion, and research needs.

An ambitious volume such as thiswould not have been possible without thefine efforts and dedication of numerousindividuals. My heartfelt thanks first of allgo to the authors, who made time in theirfull schedules to prepare an impressivearray of contributions that will mark thisvolume as an indispensable reference tothose with any kind of interest in eco-tourism. Special thanks go to authors suchas Dave Fennell, Elizabeth Halpenny andRalf Buckley who readily and willinglyagreed to make additional chapter contri-butions when other potential contributorswere forced to withdraw from the project.

xiii

As Chief Editor, I was fortunate to workwith an excellent team of Advisory Editors,consisting of Ken Backman, Erlet Cater,Paul Eagles and Bob McKercher. This teamof experts laboured away at the coalface,working directly and effectively with theauthors through their first and seconddrafts, and thereby making my final editor-ial responsibilities a pleasant rather thanonerous task. The team at CABI Publishingalso deserves the highest praise. As mydirect contact with the publisher,Development Editor Rebecca Stubbs per-formed a great number of essential tasks,and also provided encouragement andexpert advice when required. Her profes-sionalism is a major reason for the success-

ful production of the Encyclopedia. As theoriginator of the project, Tim Hardwick,Publisher, must be congratulated for hisinspired and timely book idea. I would alsolike to extend my gratitude to ProductionEditor Zoe Gipson for her excellent work inbringing the manuscript to final produc-tion. The reviewers of the original bookproposal were also most supportive, byencouraging publication and providingexcellent feedback on refining the scopeand contents of the book. Finally, I extendmy deep gratitude to Laura Lawton, whoassisted with the Encyclopedia in a varietyof ways, provided unwavering support,and kept me sane during the hectic finalphases.

xiv Preface

Authors who contribute to the introductorysection of a volume such as this face thespecial responsibility of having to establishthe context for the sections that follow. Inthe case of ecotourism, this is a particularlyvexatious task since the knowledge base isincipient, and no consensus currentlyexists as to the meaning and interpretationof the term itself. Yet, even in this atmos-phere of conceptual fuzziness, these intro-ductory chapters perform the extremelyuseful function of pointing out the debates,disputes, shortfalls and ambiguities thatcharacterize a field which is, after all, stillonly in its infancy. Moreover, where war-ranted, they suggest areas in which somedegree of consensus or cohesion may beemerging; indicators, perhaps, that eco-tourism is moving toward a higher level ofmaturity.

This duality between persisting ambigu-ity and emerging consensus is evident inChapter 1, where Blamey puts forward cri-teria around which ecotourism seems to becoalescing, but also emphasizes the debatesand uncertainties that continue to dog allof these criteria. For example, he acknowl-edges the widespread perception that eco-tourism is ‘nature-based’, but then burststhe bubble of consensus by citing unre-solved issues such as how proximate tonature the experience should be to qualify

as ecotourism, and how disturbed a land-scape can be yet still qualify as an eco-tourism venue. In similar vein, Blameycites the learning imperative of ecotourism,but asks whether product interpretationshould merely satisfy consumer demandfor information at a superficial level, orwhether it should try to change consumerattitudes toward an enhanced sense ofenvironmental responsibility.

The third criterion that he discusses,sustainability, is even more contentiousand ambiguous. While most stakeholdersagree that there is an onus on ecotourism tobe environmentally and socio-culturallysustainable, stakeholders have dramaticallyvariant perspectives on what this meansand how it should be effected. For ex-ample, there are those who argue that eco-tourism must contribute actively to theenhancement of the resource base, whileothers contend that it is sufficient for eco-tourism to make things no worse than thestatus quo. But it is not a question of adopt-ing just one or the other perspective. InChapter 2, Orams demonstrates how eco-tourism can adhere to its core criteria yetembrace a spectrum of motivations, levelsof involvement and outcomes, rangingfrom ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ types of ecotourism,and from the ‘active’ to the ‘passive’. In thehard, active pole of ecotourism, resource

Section 1

Introduction to Ecotourism

D.B. WeaverSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 1

enhancement is generally regarded as animperative. This is not the case in soft,passive ecotourism, although Orams sup-ports the implementation of measures thatwould move the latter toward the moreenhancive side of the continuum.

Some researchers and practitionersdemonstrate a strong bias in favour of hardecotourism, sometimes even to the point ofexcluding the soft perspective as a legiti-mate expression of the sector. This elitistapproach, however, may be seen as mis-guided for a number of reasons. In reality,this type of ecotourism involves such asmall number of participants as to render italmost irrelevant in terms of economicimpacts on destinations, and in its capacityto foster adequate lobbying clout in theface of larger stakeholders such as theforestry and mining industries. The softtype of ecotourism, in contrast, is muchmore prevalent and therefore potentiallymore advantageous in both respects. Aswell, soft ecotourism is far more accessibleto those who are not wealthy, young orhealthy. Yet, even here there is risk, espe-cially in the possibility that such a mode ofecotourism might mutate into the sort ofconventional mass tourism that academicshave been criticizing for so many years –and to which, ironically, ecotourism wasoriginally conceived as a more appropriatealternative.

Despite this risk, the option of embrac-ing both the hard and soft types of activityinto a single ecotourism spectrum seems tobe gaining support, and is reflected in theremaining three chapters in the section. InChapter 3, Wight draws from a growingbase of market knowledge to identify howthe emerging ‘ecotourist’ differs from thetourist and consumer markets in general.The ‘typical’ ecotourist, it appears, tends tooriginate in a more developed country, isfemale, has higher-than-average incomeand education levels, and is somewhatolder than the average tourist. However,Wight also stresses that the ecotourist mar-ket differs internally with respect to age,income, activity patterns, motivation, etc.,differences that in large part reflect thehard–soft continuum. Soft ecotourists, for

example, appear to be younger than hardecotourists in some origin regions, thoughmore research is required to determinewhether such findings are more than just aregional trend.

The hard–soft spectrum is also implic-itly embraced in Chapter 4 by Hawkins andLamoureux, who show that ecotourism,perceived in this liberal way, constitutes asubstantial portion of the overall touristmarket. Furthermore, ecotourism is arapidly expanding sector, as evidenced bythe growth of indicators such as the provi-sion of ecotourism-related educationalopportunities, the formulation of strategicplans and policies, and the availability offunding from international agencies. ButHawkins and Lamoureux also point out thedifficulties in trying to quantify the magni-tude and growth of a sector that is oftenregarded interchangeably or included withother forms of tourism, such as ‘nature-based’, ‘adventure’ and ‘sustainable’. Thisconfusion of terminology is a hindrance tothe systematic study of ecotourism as a dis-crete sector, and is another indication ofthe sector’s immaturity.

In Chapter 5, Weaver helps to alleviatethis situation by exploring the relationshipbetween ecotourism and other relevanttypes of tourism. After reviewing much ofthe available literature, he concludes thatecotourism is a subset of both nature-basedand sustainable tourism, and overlaps withadventure, cultural and 3S (sea, sand, sun)tourism. In many cases, as with trekking,ecotourism hybridizes with these other sec-tors, making it impossible to differentiatethe constituent components. More con-tentiously, and in concert with his ownsupport for the hard–soft continuum,Weaver asserts that ecotourism can be asubset of alternative tourism or masstourism, as long as the basic criteria aremet. Reflecting a point made in Chapter 1by Blamey, he indicates that ecotourismhas long been and is still widely regardedas a form of alternative tourism. This ten-dency owes to the origins of ecotourism inthe ‘adaptancy platform’ of the 1980s(Jafari, 1989), which proposed small-scalealternatives to conventional mass tourism

2 D.B. Weaver

that were reputed to be inherently morebenign. However, the ‘knowledge-basedplatform’ that appeared in the late 1980s,by adopting a more objective and less ideo-logical approach to tourism, has served toerode the association between the scale of atourism product and the perception that itis either good or bad as a result. Dependingon the given circumstances, alternativetourism and mass tourism can both haveeither positive or negative consequences,and hence there is no inherent reason formaking a categorical disassociation betweenecotourism and mass tourism. Going evenfurther, a good argument can be made

that the majority of ecotourism alreadyoccurs in the guise of mass tourism, andthat large scales of operation afford certainadvantages in the provision of sustainableoutcomes and quality education that arenot available in small-scale alternativetourism operations. As stated earlier, this isa controversial line of reasoning, and theissue of scale remains one of the focalpoints of debate and dispute within the evolving area of ecotourism studies. Either implicitly or explicitly, each chapterin this section, and indeed in this volume,provides its own perspective on this point.

Introduction to Ecotourism 3

Reference

Jafari, J. (1989) An English language literature review. In: Bystrzanowski, J. (ed.) Tourism as a Factorof Change: a Sociocultural Study. Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences,Vienna, pp. 17–60.

Chapter 1

Principles of Ecotourism

R.K. BlameyUrban and Environmental Program, Research School of Social Sciences,

Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Around the world, ecotourism has been hailed as a panacea: a way to fund conservation andscientific research, protect fragile and pristine ecosystems, benefit rural communities, promotedevelopment in poor countries, enhance ecological and cultural sensitivity, instill environmentalawareness and a social conscience in the travel industry, satisfy and educate the discriminatingtourist, and, some claim, build world peace.

(Honey, 1999, p. 4)

Introduction

Although the origins of the term ‘eco-tourism’ are not entirely clear, one of thefirst to use it appears to have been Hetzer(1965), who identified four ‘pillars’ or prin-ciples of responsible tourism: minimizingenvironmental impacts, respecting hostcultures, maximizing the benefits to localpeople, and maximizing tourist satisfac-tion. The first of these was held to be themost distinguishing characteristic of ‘eco-logical tourism (“EcoTourism”)’ (Fennell,1998). Other early references to ecotourismare found in Miller’s (1978) work onnational park planning for ecodevelopmentin Latin America, and documentation pro-duced by Environment Canada in relationto a set of road-based ‘ecotours’ they devel-oped from the mid-1970s through to theearly 1980s. Each tour focused on a differ-ent ecological zone found along the corri-dor of the Trans-Canada highway, with aninformation pack available to aid interpre-tation (Fennell, 1998).

Ecotourism developed ‘within thewomb’ of the environmental movement inthe 1970s and 1980s (Honey, 1999, p. 19).Growing environmental concern coupledwith an emerging dissatisfaction with masstourism led to increased demand fornature-based experiences of an alternativenature. At the same time, less developedcountries began to realize that nature-basedtourism offers a means of earning foreignexchange and providing a less destructiveuse of resources than alternatives such aslogging and agriculture (Honey, 1999). Bythe mid 1980s, a number of such countrieshad identified ecotourism as a means ofachieving both conservation and develop-ment goals.

The first formal definition of ecotourismis generally credited to Ceballos-Lascuráin(1987), who defined it as: ‘travelling torelatively undisturbed or uncontaminatednatural areas with the specific objective ofstudying, admiring, and enjoying thescenery and its wild plants and animals, aswell as any existing cultural manifestations

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 5

(both past and present) found in theseareas’. While definitions such as that ofCeballos-Lascuráin (1987) and Boo (1990)tended to emphasize the nature-basedexperience sought by the tourist, morerecent definitions have tended to highlightvarious principles associated with theconcept of sustainable development.According to Wight (1993), sustainableecotourism imposes an ‘ethical overlay’ onnature-based tourism that has an educativeemphasis. Although this overlay hasarguably been implicit, if not explicit, inearlier discussions of ecotourism, the con-cept does appear to have evolved intosomething explicitly normative over thepast decade. This is in part a reflection ofincreasing recognition among industry andgovernment that nature-based tourism canonly be sustained in the long term if a prin-cipled and proactive supply-side manage-ment approach is adopted.

Some of the definitions of ecotourismthat have proved popular in recent years,and which are consistent with the defini-tion offered in the introduction to this vol-ume, are listed in Table 1.1. Although anynumber of principles of ecotourism can bedevised, an analysis of definitions such asthese indicates that three dimensions canrepresent the main essence of the concept.According to this interpretation, eco-tourism is:

• nature based,• environmentally educated, and • sustainably managed.

The last dimension is taken to encompassboth the natural and cultural environmentsinvolved in supplying the ecotourismexperience. Thus, where Ross and Wall(1999) outline five fundamental functionsof ecotourism; namely: (i) protection of nat-ural areas; (ii) education; (iii) generation of

6 R.K. Blamey

Table 1.1. Selected definitions of ecotourism.

Source Definition

Ceballos-Lascuráin (1987, p. 14) Travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontami-nated natural areas with the specific objective ofstudying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and itswild plants and animals, as well as any existingcultural manifestations (both past and present)found in these areas

The Ecotourism Society (1991a, b) Responsible travel to natural areas which conservesthe environment and improves the well-being oflocal people

Ecotourism Association of Australia (1992) Ecologically sustainable tourism that fostersenvironmental and cultural understanding,appreciation and conservation

National Ecotourism Strategy of Australia Ecotourism is nature-based tourism that involves (Allcock et al., 1994) education and interpretation of the natural

environment and is managed to be ecologicallysustainable

This definition recognizes that ‘natural environment’includes cultural components and that ‘ecologicallysustainable’ involves an appropriate return to thelocal community and long-term conservation of theresource

Tickell (1994, p. ix) Travel to enjoy the world’s amazing diversity ofnatural life and human culture without causingdamage to either

money; (iv) quality tourism; and (v) localparticipation, the last three fall under theheading ‘sustainably managed’ in thischapter. The three-dimensional interpreta-tion is also consistent with Buckley’s(1994) restrictive notion of ecotourism inwhich ecotourism is nature based, environ-mentally educated, sustainably managedand conservation supporting.

One further dimension of ecotourism,not referred to in most definitions, but wor-thy of the status of at least a ‘secondaryprinciple’, involves the small-scale, per-sonalized and hence alternative nature ofmany classical ecotourism experiences.The above three principles, together withthis fourth, provide the defining character-istics of classical ecotourism as shown inFig. 1.1. Popular ecotourism is similar toclassical ecotourism with the exceptionthat it does not qualify as a form of alterna-tive tourism. Each principle is nowdescribed in detail, beginning with thenature-based dimension.

Nature Based

The most obvious characteristic of eco-tourism is that it is nature based. As notedabove, it is this dimension that is empha-

sized in earlier definitions. Valentine(1992a, p. 108) defines nature-based tourismas tourism ‘primarily concerned with thedirect enjoyment of some relatively undis-turbed phenomenon of nature’. A variety ofmotivations for nature-based tourism havebeen suggested, including the desire to get back in touch with nature, a desire toescape the pressures of everyday life,seeing wildlife before it is too late, andspecific interests and activities such astrekking, birdwatching, canyoning andwhite-water rafting and kayaking (Whelan,1991).

Valentine identified three main dimen-sions of nature-based tourism (NBT) per-taining to the experience, style andlocation. In terms of the type of experienceinvolved, different NBT experiences varyin nature dependency, intensity of interac-tion, social context and duration. Differentstyles are associated with different levels ofinfrastructure support, group size and type,cultural interaction factor, willingness topay and length of visit. Locations vary interms of accessibility (remoteness), devel-opment contribution, ownership andfragility (Valentine, 1992a, b).

Questions arise as to what does anddoes not constitute a nature-based experi-ence. Does a drive through a forested area

Principles of Ecotourism 7

Education andinterpretation Small groups/

personalized

A

B

Sustainablymanaged

Nature based

A = Classicalecotourism

B = Popularecotourism

Fig. 1.1. Dimensions of ecotourism.

qualify as nature based, or must the driveractually pull over and go for a wander (theactivity/experience component)? If he orshe does wander, how long must this wan-der be for the individual to be considered anature-based tourist (the duration com-ponent)? A further question relates to thenatural environment itself (the attraction/experience component). Does walkingthrough regenerated forest areas, or swim-ming in slightly polluted or littered lakesor streams, or for that matter any publicbeach, constitute a nature-based experi-ence? (Blamey, 1997).

The issue of proximity is one that com-monly arises when considering whether atourism experience involving nature can beconsidered nature based. Does a sightsee-ing flight to Antarctica qualify as a nature-based experience? What about the touristwho travels to Nepal, arguably an ‘eco-tourism destination’, but gets no closer tothe Himalayas than sitting in a restaurantwith great views of the Annapurna range.Alternatively, the tourist might take a shortstroll up a nearby hill to get better views.Even the dedicated trekker may get littlecloser to true wilderness than the loweraltitude areas dominated by subsistencefarming. In all these cases, a guide canreadily be hired to provide interpretation.

Requiring ecotourism to take place inprotected areas (Kutay, 1989) does notresolve the question of what qualifies asnature based. While ecotourism oftenoccurs within ‘protected areas’ such as theAnnapurna Sanctuary, these areas maycontain environments that have been quitedisturbed by human activity (possibly lead-ing to the protected area status). Further-more, relatively undisturbed areas are alsocommonly found outside protected areas(Kusler, 1992). Indeed, it can be argued thatecotourism should occur outside protectedareas since, by definition, protected areasare worthy of protection from develop-ment, and tourism represents a form ofdevelopment. Unprotected areas are alsomost suited to another claimed benefit ofecotourism activity: promoting conserva-tion of non-protected areas (Bottrill andPearce, 1995).

Some authors have also questionedwhether environments with significant evi-dence of human disturbance might qualifyas ecotourism, particularly if they demon-strate adherence to other ecotourism prin-ciples. Whelan (1991), for example, askswhether farmstays might in some casesqualify as ecotourism, and Chirgwin andHughes (1997, p. 97) suggest that modifiedareas such as wetlands associated withhuman-made watercourses can serve as an‘ecotourist venue if they are well presentedand managed, aesthetically pleasing andprovide the opportunity to observewildlife’. While such areas are not natural,they may qualify as ‘nature based’, depend-ing on how one interprets terms such as‘relatively undisturbed’. Tourism in urbanenvironments can be sustainably managed(Hinch, 1996), but the ‘natural’ environ-ments within them are often highly influ-enced by humans and do not generallysatisfy the ecotourism criterion of beingnature based. Acott et al. (1998) argue thatit is possible for individuals to be eco-tourists in ‘non-ecotourist locations’.

Operational definitions of nature-basedtourism, and hence also ecotourism willclearly require the line to be drawn some-where. Subjective decisions cannot beavoided. Ultimately, any definition of theseconcepts will have an arbitrary component(Blamey, 1997). Nature-based tourism, andhence ecotourism, are indeed fuzzy con-cepts.

Environmentally and CulturallyEducative

A feature of ecotourism experiences is edu-cation and interpretation about the naturalenvironment and any associated ‘culturalmanifestations’. In contrast to learning,which is ‘a natural process, occurringthroughout life and mostly incidental’,education involves ‘a conscious, planned,sequential and systematic process, basedon defined learning objectives and usingspecific learning procedures’ (Kalinowskiand Weiler, 1992). Interpretation is ‘an edu-cational activity which aims to reveal

8 R.K. Blamey

meanings and relationships through theuse of original objects, by first hand experi-ence, and by illustrative media, rather thansimply to communicate factual informa-tion’ (Tilden, 1977 cited in Moscardo,1998). Although virtually all nature-basedtourism involves some degree of learning,it is education and interpretation thatserves as a key element and defining char-acteristic of ecotourism experiences. Forthe purposes of this chapter, the term edu-cation includes interpretation.

Two main purposes of environmentaleducation can be distinguished in the eco-tourism context. The first involves satisfy-ing tourist demand for informationregarding natural and cultural attractions,thereby providing a satisfying recreationalexperience. The second involves changingin a pro-environmental way, the knowl-edge, attitudes and/or behaviour oftourists, with a view to minimizing nega-tive impacts and producing a more envi-ronmentally and culturally aware citizenry.The two purposes will often be related, forexample, when information provided aboutthe sensitive nature of the ecology servesboth purposes. Education can, however, beenvironmentally informative without beingenvironmentally supportive (Blamey, 1995).

The first function of environmental edu-cation in ecotourism coincides with whatwill often be the primary motivation forundertaking an ecotourism experience:learning about the plants, animals, land-scapes and so on that are unique to an area.Interpretation may be static, as with self-guided walks involving information signs,displays and the like, or personalized,where guides provide information (Burgess,1993). To varying degrees, individuals cantailor the educative experience to meettheir own interests, for example by askingquestions, moving closer, smelling, havingeye contact with particular species andlearning the mannerisms of species.

It is important to recognize that differenttourists will have different needs for cogni-tion in the form of formalized educationand interpretation. A distinction can bedrawn between more passive forms oflearning and those with a heavier emphasis

on active learning and formalized educa-tion. As Urry (1990, p.1) states, ‘When we“go away” we look at the environment withinterest and curiosity. It speaks to us inways we appreciate, or at least we antici-pate that it will do so. In other words, wegaze at what we encounter’. Most gazinginvolves learning. It is difficult to view ananimal for the first time without learningsomething. This experiential form of learn-ing is distinct from formal educationregarding the biology, zoology or ecology ofareas. Many tourists work hard for most ofthe year and primarily seek spiritualrenewal and rejuvenation of the mind as afirst priority for their holidays (Honey,1999). Selectively attending to and process-ing the words of a tour guide is one thing,while studying information packs in detailbefore embarking on a tour may be quiteanother.

To the extent that ‘ecotourists’ are moti-vated by an interest in learning aboutnature, ecotourism can be considered aform of special interest tourism, or tourismin which ‘the traveller’s motivation anddecision making are primarily determinedby a particular special interest’ (Hall andWeiler, 1992, p. 5). Adventure tourism isanother case of special interest tourism.The first type of education does more todistinguish ecotourism from nature-basedadventure tourism than it does to distin-guish ecotourism from other nature-basedsightseeing tours.

The second function of environmentaleducation can be achieved in a variety ofways, some more overt than others. Forexample, tourists can be educated abouthow best to minimize their impacts whilevisiting a site, and presented with a code ofethics for tourist conduct. This recognizesthat pursuit of the first educative functionoften impacts on local cultures and floraand fauna. It is often the desire for experi-ential learning that drives the tourist tomove closer to the objects of their interest,thereby increasing the impact. Anotherapproach is to simply provide informationpertaining to ecological relationships andthe sensitive and possibly threatenednature of such relationships and the

Principles of Ecotourism 9

species involved. The resultant knowledgechanges will sometimes translate into atti-tudinal and behavioural change, particu-larly when presented in a caring andemotionally involving manner. The ethic ofcare implicit in some interpretation stylescan readily flow over to the tourist.Another fairly covert way of influencingbehaviour is to provide information aboutalternative sites, routes or activities with aview to moving visitors away from heavilyused and ecologically and/or culturallysensitive sites (Moscardo, 1998).

The longer-term objective of the secondfunction of environmental education issummarized well by Ceballos-Lascuráin(1988 cited in Ziffer, 1989, p. 5):

the person who practices ecotourism has theopportunity of immersing him or herself innature in a way most people cannot enjoy intheir routine, urban existences. This personwill eventually acquire a consciousness …that will convert him into somebody keenlyinvolved in conservation issues.

Individuals who do not normally con-sider in any detail their impacts on theenvironment may adopt a more reflective,sensitive and enlightened perspective onceengaged in ecotourism experiences, whichmay last beyond the life of that experience.In Norton’s terminology, the objective hereis to instil transformative values in touristsand locals (Ross and Wall, 1999). Ofcourse, the possibility exists that thosewho take most notice of tourist codes ofbehaviour and other information or mater-ial pertaining to the minimization of touristimpacts, may well be those who least needit (Hall, 1993).

In addition to being educated for thepurposes of short- or long-term pro-environmental changes in knowledge, atti-tudes and/or behaviour, tourists can beeducated about how to get the most out oftheir experiences in other ways. Thisinvolves providing information about theexperiences available at a site, suggestedwalks and routes, the location of toiletsand other facilities, safety and warningmessages, how to cope with sea and roadsickness, and so on (Moscardo, 1998).

Local communities and industry canalso be the target of environmental commu-nications, as the principles outlined byWight (Table 1.2) demonstrate. For exam-ple, local communities can be educatedregarding the sensitive nature of naturalareas, and how best to protect these areasand maximize tourism-related revenuesand benefits. Industry can also be educatedabout best environmental and/or businesspractice. More generally then, the eco-tourism industry ‘consists of a number ofsectors which need to work together effec-tively for the industry to flourish. Each sec-tor has specific needs for formal trainingand access to information. Each also has itsown communication task to deliver infor-mation to other sectors’ (Social ChangeMedia, 1995). The sectors considered bythe strategy include consumers, travelagents, operators and guides, naturalresource managers, trainers, industry bod-ies, state tourism bodies and the media. Ofcourse, most if not all industries are depen-dent for their success on communicationwithin and between sectors. It is the twoenvironmental education functions referredto above that can be considered as definingcharacteristics of ecotourism.

Sustainably Managed

The term sustainable tourism developmentis a derivative of the more general conceptof sustainable development, brought toprominence with the publication of OurCommon Future, the report of the WorldCommission on Environment and Develop-ment (WCED, 1987). The WCED definedsustainability as ‘meeting the needs of thepresent without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their ownneeds’ (WCED, 1987, p. 8). This reportstimulated much discussion regarding defi-nitions of sustainability and sustainabledevelopment, and the principles and prac-tices held to be consistent with any onedefinition.

Responses to the sustainable develop-ment concept appear to take one of twomain forms (Barbier, 1989). The first is a

10 R.K. Blamey

Principles of Ecotourism 11

Table 1.2. Ecotourism principles and guidelines.

National Ecotourism AccreditationThe Ecotourism Society Program (NEAP), Australia.

Wight (1994) (Lindberg and Hawkins, 1993) Eligibility principles

It should not degrade the Prepare travellers to minimize Focuses on personally resource and should be their negative impacts while visiting experiencing natural areas in ways developed in an environmentally sensitive environments and cultures that lead to greater understanding sound manner before departure and appreciation

It should provide long-term Prepare travellers for each Integrates opportunities to benefits to the resource, to the encounter with local cultures understand natural areas into local community and industry and with native animals and plants each experience

It should provide first-hand, Minimize visitor impacts on the Represents best practice for participatory and enlightening environment by offering literature, ecologically sustainable tourismexperiences briefings, leading by example, and

taking corrective actions

It should involve education Minimize traveller impacts on Positively contributes to the among all parties: local cultures by offering literature, ongoing conservation of natural communities, government, briefings, leading by example, and areasnon-government organizations, taking corrective actionsindustry and tourists (before, during and after the trip)

It should encourage all-party Use adequate leadership, and Provides constructive ongoing recognition of the intrinsic maintain small enough groups to contributions to local communitiesvalues of the resource ensure minimum group impact

on destinations. Avoid areas that are under-managed and over-visited

It should involve acceptance of Ensure managers, staff and contact Is sensitive to, interprets and the resource in its own terms, employees know and participate in involves different cultures, and in recognition of its limits, all aspects of company policy to particularly indigenous cultureswhich involves supply-oriented prevent impacts on the management environment and local cultures

It should promote understanding Give managers, staff and contact Consistently meets client and involve partnerships employees access to programmes expectationsbetween many players, which that will upgrade their ability to could involve government, communicate with and manage non-governmental organizations, clients in sensitive natural and industry, scientists and locals cultural settings(both before and during operations)

It should promote moral and Be a contributor to the conservation Marketing is accurate and leads to ethical responsibilities and of the region being visited realistic expectationsbehaviour towards the natural and cultural environment by all Provide competitive, local players employment in all aspects of business

operations

Offer site-sensitive accommodations that are not wasteful of local resources or destructive to the environment, which provide ample opportunity for learning about the environment and sensitive interchange with local communities

1 Although such wish-lists have value, several authors have argued that they are typically very general innature and that this leaves a significant gap between policy endorsement and implementation (Berry andLadkin, 1997; Hunter, 1997; Garrod and Fyall, 1998). Ashcroft (cited in Wheeller, 1995) argues that‘Reading each principle in turn I found myself increasingly asking the questions, Why? How? When? Withwhat? It soon became very tiresome ploughing through so many platitudinous points’. Consequently, recentyears have seen attention turning to the development of guidelines, codes of conduct, indicators ofsustainable tourism, accreditation and so on.

generalized, normative and energizedresponse associated with the pursuit ofsynergisms and balance among environ-mental impacts, economic development,participatory processes, intergenerationaland intragenerational equity, sustainablelivelihoods and so on. The second, whileoverlapping with the first, is narrower andinvolves the development of formal rulesfor sustainability. Different rules or modelsare associated with different assumptionsregarding what it is that is to be sustained.This has become known as the constantcapital perspective and is outlined later inthis chapter.

The first type of response appears tohave dominated discussions regarding sus-tainable tourism development and isreflected in a wide range of governmentand industry initiatives in the ecotourismcontext, including ecotourism strategies,sustainability indicators, accreditation andso on. Sustainable development providesan organizing concept for the developmentof such initiatives (de Kadt, 1992). Thisperspective tends to see the pursuit of sus-tainable tourism development as involvingthe balancing of social, economic and envi-ronmental goals (Wight, 1993). Discussionsand initiatives are also commonly focusedaround lists of sustainability principlesand guidelines. In the first edition of theJournal of Sustainable Tourism, for ex-ample, Bramwell and Lane (1993) outlinefour basic principles of sustainabledevelopment and sustainable tourism devel-opment: (i) holistic planning and strategy-making; (ii) preservation of essentialecological processes; (iii) protection of bothhuman heritage and biodiversity; and (iv)development to ensure that productivitycan be sustained over the long term forfuture generations.

Another well known list of principles

and guidelines is that developed byTourism Concern (1991) in associationwith the Worldwide Fund for Nature(WWF). Each of the ten sustainability prin-ciples listed in Box 1.1 is accompanied bya list of recommendations. Associated withthe first general principle, for example, arerecommendations that the tourism industryshould: (i) prevent damage to environmen-tal resources; (ii) act as a force for conser-vation; (iii) develop and implement soundenvironmental policies in all areas oftourism; (iv) install appropriate systems tominimize pollution from tourism develop-ments; (v) develop and implement sustain-able transport policies; (vi) adhere to theprecautionary principle; (vii) research,establish and abide by the carrying capac-ity of a destination; (viii) respect the needsand rights of local people; (ix) protect andsupport the cultural and historical heritageof peoples worldwide; (x) carry out prac-tices in a responsible and ethical manner;and (xi) actively discourage the growth ofexploitative sex tourism1.

Two sustainability principles that arecommonly highlighted in the ecotourismcontext are that ecotourism should: (i) sup-port local economies; and (ii) supportconservation. The Australian NationalEcotourism Strategy, for example, ‘recog-nizes that “natural environment” includescultural components and that “ecologicallysustainable” involves an appropriate returnto the local community and long-term con-servation of the resource’ (Table 1.1)(Allcock et al., 1994, p. 3). The require-ment that local communities and regionsbenefit from ecotourism and participate indecision making, or at least be no worseoff, appears to be based on two mainpremises. The first draws on the principlesof intragenerational equity and intergenera-tional equity underlying the concept of

12 R.K. Blamey

Principles of Ecotourism 13

sustainable development, and essentiallyholds that it is the socially responsible, orright, thing to do. The second is instrumen-tal in nature and involves the assumptionthat local communities are most likely toprotect or maintain a resource base in aform that is suitable for tourism if theystand to benefit from it. In this case, theyhave an incentive to protect the resource.

Support for local economies and conser-vation can take a variety of forms. Potentialeconomic benefits include foreign exchangeearnings, employment, infrastructure devel-opment, long-term economic stability andeconomic diversification (Lindberg, 1991;Wight, 1994). To the extent that the rev-enues obtained through entrance fees, dona-tions and ancillary goods and services(accommodation, souvenirs, etc.) are suffi-cient in magnitude and earmarked for con-

servation, they can be used for conservationpurposes (Ziffer, 1989). Other ways of sup-porting conservation include participatingin rehabilitation projects, participating inscientific monitoring and removing litterfrom sites visited. The instrumental effectreferred to above is additional. It is recogni-tion of the potential of ecotourism to assistthe twin goals of conservation and eco-nomic development that has resulted in itspopularity as a core development strategy innumerous less developed countries (Honey,1999).

The extent to which a region can supplylocally made products for consumption bythe tourism industry depends on the extentof development and the diversity ofeconomic development (Ziffer, 1989). Byintegrating ecotourism development intobroader regional development strategies,

Box 1.1. Principles for sustainable tourism (Tourism Concern, 1991).

Using resources sustainablyThe conservation and sustainable use of resources – natural, social and cultural – is crucial andmakes long-term business sense

Reducing over-consumption and wasteReduction of over-consumption and waste avoids the costs of restoring long-term environmentaldamage and contributes to the quality of tourism

Maintaining biodiversityMaintaining and promoting natural, social and cultural diversity is essential for long-term sustainabletourism, and creates a resilient base for the industry

Integrating tourism into planningTourism development which is integrated into a national and local strategic planning framework andwhich undertakes environmental impact assessments, increases the long-term viability of tourism

Supporting local economiesTourism that supports a wide range of local economic activities and which takes environmental costsand values into account, both protects these economies and avoids environmental damage

Involving local communitiesThe full involvement of local communities in the tourism sector not only benefits them and theenvironment in general but also improves the quality of the tourism experience

Consulting stakeholders and the publicConsultation between the tourism industry and local communities, organizations and institutions isessential if they are to work alongside each other and resolve potential conflicts of interest

Training staffStaff training which integrates sustainable tourism into work practices, along with recruitment ofpersonnel at all levels, improves the quality of the tourism product

Marketing tourism responsiblyMarketing that provides tourists with full and responsible information increases respect for thenatural, social and cultural environments of destination areas and enhances customer satisfaction

Undertaking researchOngoing research and monitoring by the industry using effective data collection and analysis isessential to help solve problems and to bring benefits to destinations, the industry and consumers

14 R.K. Blamey

leakages can be minimized and the eco-nomic benefits from ecotourism maxi-mized. The extent to which nature-basedtourists seek out locally owned accommo-dation, tours and so on is still somewhatunclear. It is one thing to buy a locallymade souvenir and quite another to seekout locally made products when they haveno clear linkages to the local area. Forexample, wooden sculptures are likely tobe made locally (local in supply) andtourists are likely to be looking for localproduct (local in demand). However, bat-teries for one’s camera will often not belocally made, and partly in expectation ofthis, consumers are unlikely to search forlocal product.

As with the other principles discussedin this chapter, operational definitions ofecotourism will require some means of dis-tinguishing between those tourism experi-ences that do and don’t qualify. How doesone decide when a nature-based tourismexperience is sufficiently supporting oflocal communities and/or conservation toqualify as ecotourism? One approach is toassess these principles in terms of absolutelevels of support. For example, ecotoursmight be required to make contributions toconservation organizations to the amountof 5% of the tour price. Alternatively, thesebenefits can be assessed in relation to thecosts, with a requirement of no net loss inwelfare. While cost–benefit analysis (CBA)offers a means of conducting such ananalysis, it is both time consuming andcostly, and of questionable use when deal-ing with matters of equity. How does onedecide if benefits to local communities inthe form of employment and income justifyirreversible losses in cultural identity andsense of purpose? Compensating localswith tourist income may simply add fuel totheir decline in identity2.

Several authors have considered the cul-tural impacts of tourism. Pearce (1992), forexample, refers to a number of studies thathave looked at impacts on host communi-

ties, covering such areas as languagechanges, land tenure, desecration of com-munity life, begging, prostitution andcrime. Finucane (1992, p. 13) expressed aconcern that ‘heavy tourist exposure willresult in a gradual erosion of indigenouslanguage and culture or the creation of acommercialized culture’. Johnston andEdwards (1994) argue that codes of con-duct and other strategies associated withresponsible tourism may represent struc-tural adjustments, but not necessarily thestructural transformations required tomake tourism sustainable. They argue(p. 475) that sustainability is a ‘distracting,and arguably unobtainable notion. Perhapswhat is needed is a more realistic articula-tion of what ecotourism can and cannotoffer hosts and guests’. Cultural impactscan often be minimized by involving localcommunities in decisions that affect them,particularly regarding the kind and amountof tourism that should occur (Scheyvens,1999; Wallace, 1999). The assumption hereis that communities know what is good forthem, and can put aside short-term inter-ests in order to achieve the best long-termoutcomes. A related tension exists betweenrevenue raising and keeping the number oftourists below social and environmentalcarrying capacities (Honey, 1999) (see alsoChapter 25 in this volume).

Twining-Ward (1999) argues that newtypes of development based on ‘soundprinciples’ may be a case of treating thesymptoms rather than the cause and thatcare is required to ensure that ecotourismdoes not divert attention from issues ofscale and intensity of tourism develop-ment. To the extent that ecotourisminvolves a growing means by which ‘devel-opment’ encroaches on to pristine naturalareas, it may be operating at the margins ofserious attempts to move towards sustain-able tourism. As an ecotourism destinationbecomes more popular, it begins to lose itsappeal, thereby prompting operators tomove into new, pristine areas, with the

2 To some extent, the cultural values at stake may have existence value among other members of society,which a comprehensive CBA might attempt to incorporate.

cycle repeating itself indefinitely if notcontrolled. Burton (1998) found that it isoften the genuine ecotourism operators thatseek to initiate the geographic spread oftourism by seeking new unspoiled environ-ments. Lawrence et al. (1997) argue thatthe legitimacy of ecotourism is threatenedby the tension between sustainability prin-ciples and the basic fact that growth in eco-tourism involves more and more touristsmoving into pristine areas. Even the mostbenign forms of ecotourism will still havesome negative impact on the environment.Wheeller (1995) has questioned whetherthere can ever be a symbiotic relationshipbetween tourism and the environment,arguing that the commitment of tour opera-tors, tourists and host communities to prin-ciples of sustainability will tend to beconditional on self-interest: ‘we rarely sac-rifice so much as to cause any adverseeffect on ourselves. The utility derived (byus) usually outweighs the cost of that sacri-fice. So too … with expressed support for sustainable tourism’ (Wheeller, 1995,p. 128).

While such concerns are generallyregarded as important, they have taken lit-tle of the gloss off the growing ecotourismmovement. One way that the continuedpursuit of ecotourism has been justified, inlight of such concerns, is to argue that eco-tourism can serve as a model for otherforms of tourism, thereby facilitating thegreening of tourism as a whole. The ulti-mate goal of the ecotourism ‘movement’ isthus to infuse the entire travel industrywith sustainability principles (Honey,1999). Clearly, there are substantial benefitsto be gained by integrating environmentaltechnologies and practices into mainstreamtourism development, rather than restrict-ing their application to a small niche market.

The constant capital perspective

As mentioned earlier, the constant capitalperspective of sustainable developmentfocuses on the development of formal rulesfor sustainability, with different rules ormodels being associated with different

assumptions regarding what it is that is tobe sustained. Sustainable development isinterpreted to imply a requirement thathuman welfare does not decline with time.According to the constant capital rule, thiscan be achieved by leaving the next genera-tion a stock of capital assets no less thanthe current stock. Intergenerational equityis achieved by acknowledging the right offuture generations to ‘expect an inheritancesufficient to allow them the capacity togenerate for themselves a level of welfareno less than that enjoyed by the currentgeneration’ (Turner et al., 1992, p. 2).Capital can take several forms, includingman-made, human, natural, moral and cul-tural capital. Discussions most commonlyfocus on man-made and natural capital,with the latter being divided into cate-gories such as non-renewable, renewable,semi-renewable and recyclable.. The pre-servation of cultural capital involves themaintenance of sustainable livelihoods andhence a diversity of knowledge and per-spectives on how to adapt to one’s environ-ment. Cultural diversity is hence related tobiological diversity, and both have clearinterrelations with moral capital.

A key issue that arises when implement-ing the constant capital rule is the extent towhich the different types of capital can orshould be substituted for one another, or inother words, what it is that is to be sus-tained. Several different schools of thoughthave emerged on this issue and these aresummarized in Box 1.2. Stronger forms ofsustainable development are associatedwith less optimistic views regarding theextent to which human-made capital canbe substituted for natural capital in thelong term. These two forms of capital areinstead held to be complementary in themajority of cases. A precautionary andproactive environmental managementapproach is advocated, which involves tak-ing a risk-averse perspective when consid-ering impacts that are uncertain andpotentially irreversible. Strong notions ofsustainable development are also associ-ated with environmental (or ecological)sustainability. This involves the main-tenance of natural capital, consisting of

Principles of Ecotourism 15

16 R.K. Blamey

Box 1.2. The sustainability spectrum.

Very weak sustainabilitySustainability requires the total capital stock, consisting of the aggregate of natural, man-made, human,moral and cultural stocks, to remain constant over time. Any type of capital can hence be reduced aslong as it is compensated for by the provision of other capital assets deemed to be of equal value tohumans. Different types of capital are hence assumed to be perfectly substitutable. Renewable capitalcan hence be substituted for non-renewable capital and man-made capital can be substituted for anytype of natural capital. This position is consistent with exploitation and an emphasis on economicgrowth. Economic growth increases consumer choice and satisfaction, and provides the human capitalin the form of research and development expertise required to devise technical fixes and generallymaintain human welfare at a constant level (Turner, 1991).

Weak sustainabilityVery weak sustainability is modified here in response to the problematic nature of the assumption ofperfect substitutability. Some types of natural capital are assumed to be complements rather thansubstitutes, and some key species and processes are not considered to be substitutable at all (Commonand Perrings, 1992). The latter are referred to as critical natural capital. Ecological constraints areimposed on the use of natural assets such that stocks remain within the bounds thought to coincide withecosystem stability and resilience (Turner et al., 1992). A broad, systemic management perspective,drawing on the precautionary principle and safe minimum standards is likely to be involved. A set ofenvironmental indicators may be derived to provide an indication of the state of ecosystems.

Strong sustainabilityThis rule requires that natural capital remains constant in aggregation, but one form of natural capitalcan be substituted for another, subject to certain ecological constraints. Physical indicators are againused to provide the monitoring necessary to inform managers. This approach assigns primaryimportance of maintaining ecosystem structure and function and responds to and takes a precautionaryapproach to uncertainties and irreversibilities. Unlike the safe minimum standard, constant naturalcapital must be maintained even when the opportunity costs (benefits forgone) are considered to bevery high.

Very strong sustainabilityThis rule coincides with a steady-state economy, characterized by zero economic growth and zeropopulation growth, and is motivated in part by a consideration of thermodynamic limits. This is likely torequire constant stocks of individual natural assets in addition to a constant aggregate stock of naturalcapital. This position coincides with a more biocentric view in which the intrinsic rights of nature areacknowledged and given significant weight in decision making.

both source and sink functions, over aspecified time and space. Box 1.3 offers amore rigorous definition of this natural sci-ence concept (Goodland, 1999).

The constant capital perspective isattracting increasing attention in the sus-tainable tourism literature (see, for ex-ample, Hunter, 1997; Garrod and Fyall,1998). Hunter (1997) argues that there is aneed to conceptually reconnect sustainabletourism to the sustainable development lit-erature in general, and the constant capitalliterature in particular. According toHunter (1997), the plethora of definitions

of sustainable tourism that now exist mostcommonly reflect a weak sustainabilityposition (Box 1.2), although little attentionis typically given to such distinctions. Onereason for the lack of consensus on a defin-ition is that sustainability ‘has been usedby both industry and the conservationmovement to legitimize and justify theirexisting activities and policies’ (McKercher,1993, p. 131).

Hunter (1997) argues that different sus-tainable development paths, correspondingto different positions in Box 1.2 and differ-ent manifestations of these positions, are

Principles of Ecotourism 17

suited to different circumstances. Forexample, a weak sustainability perspectivewith a strong emphasis on economicgrowth will most easily be justified whenthere is a strong link between poverty andenvironmental degradation and whentourism activity would result in a declinein more harmful activities such as uncon-trolled logging. Stronger notions of sustain-able tourism, on the other hand, may bebetter suited to circumstances that are lesscharacterized by poverty relationships andwhere the alternative to tourism activity iscomplete protection. Hunter (1997) arguesthat sustainable tourism should be concep-tualized as an adaptive paradigm.

The constant capital perspective is onlyworkable if the relevant stocks and flowscan be measured (Garrod and Fyall, 1998).Garrod and Fyall (1998) consider some ofthe issues arising. An interesting questionis whether activities traditionally viewedas consumptive in orientation can qualifyas ecotourism experiences. Holland et al.(1998) argue that billfish angling can oftensatisfy ecotourism criteria since it ofteninvolves, inter alia, a unique naturalresource, an emphasis on catch andrelease, experiential learning and positivecontributions to resource conservation andlocal economies. In terms of strong notionsof sustainable development (Box 1.2) andthe associated concept of environmental

sustainability (Box 1.3), if the loss ofspecies due to non-return and non-recov-ery following release is sufficiently low tokeep the total loss, from all sources, belowthe maximum sustainable (or economic)yield, billfish angling can be consideredenvironmentally sustainable. Applying theconcept of environmental sustainability totourism in natural areas thus involvesadapting the input and output conditionsspecified in Box 1.3 to the tourism contextin question and developing a holistic andmultiple-use management plan to ensurethat the conditions are met.

The first perspective on sustainabledevelopment tends to address ecologicalsustainability via the concepts of carryingcapacity, indicators of sustainable develop-ment and so on. Along these lines, theAustralian National Ecotourism Strategystates that ‘Planning for ecotourism isbased on resource constraints. Ecotourismopportunities will be lost if the resilienceof an area and the ability of its communityto absorb impact are exceeded, or if its bio-diversity and physical appearance arealtered significantly’ (Allcock et al., 1994,p. 17). The two perspectives on sustainabletourism development clearly have much incommon, and both advocate a holisticapproach to environmental management inorder to avoid the tyranny of incrementalism.

Box 1.3. A definition of environmental sustainability (adapted from Goodland, 1999, p. 716).

Environmental sustainability involves the maintenance of natural capital according to the followingrules:

1. Output rule: Waste emissions from a project or action should be kept within the assimilative capacity of the localenvironment without unacceptable degradation of its future waste absorptive capacity or otherimportant services.

2. Input rule: (a) Renewables: Harvest rates of renewable resource inputs must be kept within regenerative capacities

of the natural system that generates them.(b) Non-renewables: Depletion rates of non-renewable resource inputs should be set below the rate at

which renewable substitutes are developed by human invention and investment. An easilycalculable portion of the proceeds from liquidating non-renewables should be allocated to theattainment of sustainable substitutes.

An Alternative to Mass Tourism

Ecotourism is more than just sightseeing. Itis an experience. For many ecotourists andothers involved in the ecotourism industry,this experience differs fundamentally to themass tourism experience. As noted earlier,disillusionment with mass tourism mayhave triggered the emergence of ecotourism.To the extent that ecotourism, as a form ofalternative tourism, offers a less problemati-cal form of tourism than mass tourism, it ispotentially as diverse as the problems asso-ciated with mass tourism. Butler (1992,p. 33) observes that tourism can have detri-mental impacts with regard to

price rises (labor goods, taxes, land); changesin local attitudes and behavior; pressure onpeople (crowding, disturbance, alienation);loss of resources, access, rights, privacy;denigration or prostitution of local culture;reduction of aesthetics; pollution in variousforms; lack of control over the destination’sfuture; and specific problems such asvandalism, litter, traffic, and low-paidseasonal employment.

Many of these problems are addressed bythe sustainability principles described inthe previous section. However, ecotourismoften offers an alternative to mass tourismin ways that do not necessarily fall withinthe principles described thus far in thischapter. And some of these attributesappear to be important from a demand per-spective. In particular, tourists are increas-ingly seeking authenticity, immersion,self-discovery and quality rather thanquantity (Hall and Weiler, 1992). They areseeking novel, adventuresome and person-alized experiences in unique, remoteand/or primitive locations (Wight, 1996b).The less popularized ecotourism develop-ments thus tend to be small scale and lowkey and involve a high degree of participa-tion by the local population. Crowdedareas are to be avoided.

The fact that a significant proportion ofthe ecotourism market offers small-scaleand personalized experiences suggests thatsuch characteristics often represent animportant element of the ecotourism expe-

rience. However, it is debatable whetherthese should be viewed as necessary char-acteristics of ecotourism, since this wouldrule out a large number of tours that satisfythe other criteria, some of which may excelon the sustainability and education dimen-sions. Hence, this dimension is perhapsbest thought of as a secondary characteris-tic or principle that distinguishes classicalecotourism from popular ecotourism.

As with the other dimensions of eco-tourism, this dimension is associated withcertain tensions. In particular, a tensionexists between the alternative tourist’s desirefor authentic, low key and intimate experi-ences and the need to be sensitive to com-munity values. As Butler (1989, cited inButler, 1990, p. 44) observed, it can be argued

that tourism which places tourists in localhomes, even when they are culturallysympathetic, and not desiring a change inlocal behavior, is much more likely to resultin changes in local behavior in the long runthan is a larger number of tourists in moreconventional tourist ghettos, where contactwith locals is limited.

More generally, small-scale tourismoperations may or may not be more sus-tainable than larger-scale operations(Thomlinson and Getz, 1996). Destinationsthat are targeted towards the exclusive,quality rather than quantity, type of eco-tourism experience also run the risk ofbeing seen as elitist (Whelan, 1991).

Differing Perspectives

As with many other types of tourism, agood deal of confusion has surrounded theconcept of ecotourism. To a large extent,this is a result of different stakeholdersadopting different perspectives (Blamey,1997). In particular, different perspectiveshave been adopted by: (i) scientific, conser-vation and non-governmental organizations;(ii) multilateral aid organizations; (iii)developing countries; and (iv) the travelindustry and travelling public (Honey,1999). Honey (1999, p. 11) observes that‘almost simultaneously but for different

18 R.K. Blamey

reasons, the principles and practices ofecotourism began taking shape withinthese four areas, and by the early 1990’s,the concept had coalesced into the hottestnew genre of environmentally and sociallyresponsible travel’.

One of the key distinctions is betweendemand and supply-based perspectives onthe ecotourism product. Those adoptingthe former tend to begin with an observa-tion that for several decades now, a minor-ity of tourists have sought to get away fromthe masses and seek experiences of a smallscale, educative, personalized and uniquenature. Ecotourism is a response to thisdemand. The ecotourism industry can onlybe profitable in the long term, however, ifmeasures are taken to protect the natural-resource base upon which ecotourismdepends. To this end, a holistic approachto environmental and tourism managementis required, consisting primarily of supply-side initiatives such as restrictions ofaccess, zoning systems, pricing mecha-nisms and monitoring. While ecotourismmust be conducted in a sustainable way,the product is defined primarily from ademand perspective. While some touristsinterested in ecotours actively seek out theenvironmentally friendly ones, this is verymuch the minority.

The second perspective tends to viewthe above indications of changing con-sumer demand as an opportunity todevelop a new class of nature-basedtourism product. The product is ‘environ-mentally and culturally friendly nature-based experiences with an educativeemphasis’. It is environmentally friendly inmuch the same way that toilet paper madefrom recycled and unbleached paper isseen as environmentally friendly. To theextent that consumers do not alreadydemand the environmentally friendlyproduct attribute, the demand for it needsto be created via advertising and otherforms of promotion.

While the above demand perspectivemight be viewed as insufficiently proactiveand less socially responsible, the supply-based perspective runs the risk of unneces-sarily isolating a portion of the nature-

based tourism market. Blamey (1997,p. 117) observes that if

tourists are not currently demandingenvironmentally responsible tourismpractices, there is no reason to focusdiscussions and initiatives regardingenvironmental responsibility aroundecotourism in preference to other forms oftourism, unless ecotourism offers the greatest potential for improvement, or thebest display of green tourism practices.

Preece et al. (1995) argue that a ‘falsedistinction’ is being made between tourismand ecotourism. Nature-based tourism andecotourism ‘should be considered aswoven into the broad fabric of tourism, andshould not be limited by artificially tryingto categorise the phenomenon’ (p. 10).They go on to state that ‘the narrow focuson the term “ecotourism” has blinkered theview of planners and policy makers’ (p. 13).

Although the above perspectives differin how they define the ecotourism product,they both hold that a sustainable eco-tourism industry requires supply-side man-agement (Wight, 1993). The combination ofsupply-side initiatives that best serves theindustry is itself subject to differing per-spectives. Questions about how best tomanage the environmental impacts of anindustry, whether it be ecotourism or theproduction of automobiles, are typicallydistinct from the issue of how one definesthe industry producing those impacts.

The supply-side management challengefor environmental and tourism manage-ment is to ensure ‘that ecotourism doesn’toccur willy-nilly wherever there is ademand for it, but that governments, touroperators, conservation groups, and localcommunities, among others, plan togetherwhere ecotourism sites should be estab-lished and how they should be managed’(Whelan, 1991, p. 20). Local communitiesmay need to be involved in managementdecisions. As previously observed, supply-side initiatives pertaining to restrictions ofaccess, use of permits and pricing mecha-nisms can be accused of being elitist orinequitable (Allcock et al., 1994).

Ultimately, the complete integration of

Principles of Ecotourism 19

20 R.K. Blamey

environmental and developmental objec-tives requires a convergence among differ-ing perspectives (Barbier, 1989). In thetourism context, this will require conver-gence in demand and supply perspectivesand the different perspectives within each(particularly the latter) (Fig. 1.2). Wheeller(1995, p. 64) argues that people will inter-pret notions of ecotourism and sustainabletourism as suits them, and that ‘no interna-tional decree will disperse the convenientclods of confusion’ that have enveloped theterms. Ecotourism is, however, a fairly newconcept in many countries, and the poten-tial thus exists for the divergent currentperspectives to merge into a coherentwhole in the medium to long term (Blamey,1995). Although ecotourism ‘is indeed rare,often misdefined, and usually imperfect, itis still in its infancy, not on its deathbed’(Honey, 1999, p. 25).

Thesustainableecotourism

ideal

Ecotourismin

supply

Ecotourismin

demand

Fig. 1.2. One potential merging of perspectives.

References

Acott, T.G., La Trobe, H.L. and Howard, S.H. (1998) An evaluation of deep ecotourism and shallowecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6, 238–253.

Allcock, A., Jones, B., Lane, S. and Grant, J. (1994) National Ecotourism Strategy. CommonwealthDepartment of Tourism, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Barbier, E. (1989) Economics, Natural-Resource Scarcity and Development, Conventional andAlternative Views. Earthscan, London.

Berry, S. and Ladkin, A. (1997) Sustainable tourism: a regional perspective. Tourism Management 18,433–440.

Blamey, R.K. (1995) The Nature of Ecotourism, Occasional Paper No 21. Bureau of Tourism Research,Canberra.

Blamey, R.K. (1997) Ecotourism: the search for an operational definition. Journal of SustainableTourism 5, 109–130.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls, Vols 1 and 2. WorldWide Fund for Nature,Washington, DC.

Bottrill, C.G. and Pearce, D.G. (1995) Ecotourism: towards a key elements approach to operationalis-ing the concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 45–54.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 1, 1–5.

Buckley, R. (1994) A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 661–669. Burgess, A.S. (1993) The environmental responsibilities of commercial ecotourism in Tasmania.

Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.Burton, R. (1998) Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: ecotour operators’ responses to tourism

growth. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6, 117–142.Butler, R.W. (1990) Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28

(Winter), 40–45.Butler, R.W. (1992) Alternative tourism: the thin edge of the wedge. In: Smith, V.L. and Eadington,

W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism.University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 31–46.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1987) The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal January, 13–14.

Chirgwin, S. and Hughes, K. (1997) Ecotourism: the participants’ perceptions. Journal of TourismStudies 8, 2–8.

Common, M.S. and Perrings, C. (1992) Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. EcologicalEconomics 6, 7–34.

Ecotourism Association of Australia (1992) Newsletter 1, 2.The Ecotourism Society (1991a) The Ecotourism Society Newsletter Number 1, Spring. The Ecotourism Society (1991b) Ecotourism Guidelines for Nature-Based Tour Operators. The

Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.Fennell, D.A. (1998) Ecotourism in Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 25, 231–235.Finucane, S.J. (1992) A report on the environmental impacts of ecotourism in Western Australia.

Postgraduate report, Murdoch University, Western Australia. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (1998) Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management 19,

199–212.Goodland, R. (1999) The biophysical basis of environmental sustainability. In: Van den Bergh, J. (ed.)

Handbook of Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 709–721.Hall, C.M. (1993) Submission on strategic direction for ‘ecotourism’. Submission to National

Ecotourism Strategy, Commonwealth Department of Tourism, Canberra.Hall, C.M. and Weiler, B. (1992) Introduction: What’s special about special interest tourism? In:

Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (eds) Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 1–14.Hetzer, W. (1965) Environment, tourism, culture. Links July, 1–3.Hinch, T.D. (1996) Urban tourism: perspectives on sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4,

95–110.Holland, S.M., Ditton, R.B. and Graefe, A.R. (1998) An ecotourism perspective on billfish fisheries.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6, 97–115.Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,

Washington, DC.Hunter, C. (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 21,

850–867.Johnston, B.R. and Edwards, T. (1994) The commodification of mountaineering. Annals of Tourism

Research 21, 459–478. de Kadt, E. (1992) Making the alternative sustainable: lessons from development for tourism. In:

Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in theDevelopment of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 47–75.

Kalinowski, K.M. and Weiler, B. (1992) Educational travel. In: Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (eds) SpecialInterest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 15–26.

Kusler, J. (1992) Ecotourism and resource conservation: introduction to issues. Paper presented at theWorld Congress on Adventure Travel and Ecotourism, August.

Kutay, K. (1989) The new ethic in environmental travel. In: The Environmental Journal, cited inZiffer, K.A. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance, Working Paper #1. ConservationInternational, Washington, DC.

Lawrence, T.B., Wickins, D. and Phillips, N. (1997) Managing legitimacy in ecotourism. TourismManagement 18, 307–316.

Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits.International Conservation Financing Project Working Paper, World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds) (1993) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. TheEcotourism Society, Vermont, USA.

McKercher, B. (1993) Some fundamental truths about tourism: understanding tourism’s social andenvironmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1, 6–16.

Miller, K. (1978) Planning National Parks for Ecodevelopment: Methods and Cases from LatinAmerica. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Moscardo, G. (1998) Interpretation and sustainable tourism: functions, examples and principles.Journal of Tourism Studies 9, 2–12.

Pearce, D.G. (1992) Alternative tourism: concepts, classifications and questions. In: Smith, V.L. andEadington, W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development ofTourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 15–30.

Principles of Ecotourism 21

Preece, N., Van Oosterzee, P. and James, D. (1995) Two Way Track – Biodiversity Conservation andEcotourism: an Investigation of Linkages, Mutual Benefits and Future Opportunities.Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 5. Department of the Environment, Sport and the Territories,Canberra.

Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999) Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. TourismManagement 20, 123–132.

Scheyvens, R. (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management20, 245–249.

Social Change Media (1995) A National Ecotourism Education Strategy. Commonwealth Departmentof Tourism, Canberra.

Thomlinson, E. and Getz, D. (1996) The question of scale in ecotourism: case study of two small eco-tour operators in the Mundo Maya region of Central America. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4,183–200.

Tickell, C. (1994) Foreword. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism: a Sustainable Option?John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane, pp. ix–x.

Tourism Concern (1991) Beyond the Green Horizon. Tourism Concern and WWF, RoehamptonInstitute, London.

Turner, R.K. (1991) Environment, economics and ethics. In: Pearce, D., Barbier, E., Markandya, A.,Barrett, S., Turner, R.K. and Swanson, T. (eds) Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy.Earthscan, London, pp. 208–224.

Turner, R.K., Doktor, P. and Adger, N. (1992) Sea level rise and coastal wetlands in the UK: mitigationstrategies for sustainable management. Paper presented to the conference of the InternationalSociety for Ecological Economics, Stockholm, 6–8 August.

Twining-Ward, L. (1999) Towards sustainable tourism development: observations from a distance.Tourism Management 20, 187–188.

Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications,London.

Valentine, P.S. (1992a) Review. Nature-based tourism. In: Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (eds) SpecialInterest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 105–128.

Valentine, P.S. (1992b) Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some recent develop-ments in Micronesia. In: Weiler, B. (ed.) Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom.Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra, pp. 4–9.

Wallace, G.N. (1999) Toward a principled evaluation of ecotourism ventures. Working paper locatedat http://www.ecotourism.org/textfiles/wallacea.txt

Wheeller, B. (1995) Egotourism, sustainable tourism and the environment – a symbiotic, symbolic orshambolic relationship? In: Seaton, A.V. (ed.) Tourism: the State of the Art. John Wiley andSons, Brisbane, pp. 647–654.

Whelan, T. (1991) Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development. In: Whelan, T. (ed.) NatureTourism: Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3–22.

Wight, P.A. (1993) Sustainable tourism: balancing economic, environmental and social goals withinan ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies 4, 54–66.

Wight, P.A. (1994) Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G.(eds) Ecotourism: a Sustainable Option? John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane, pp. 39–56.

Wight, P.A. (1996a) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Journal ofTravel Research Spring, 2–10.

Wight, P.A. (1996b) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences and destinations.Journal of Travel Research Summer, 3–10.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Ziffer, K.A. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance, Working Paper no. 1. ConservationInternational, Washington, DC.

22 R.K. Blamey

Chapter 2

Types of Ecotourism

M.B. OramsCentre for Tourism Research, Massey University at Albany, North Shore MSC, New Zealand

Introduction

The rise of the term ‘ecotourism’ has beenrelatively rapid. In 1980 the term did notexist and now, 20 years on, thisEncyclopedia represents the thinking ofmany different authors from around theworld on the topic. The term ecotourismhas also become the subject of muchdebate; what it is, what it should be andhow it can work are all questions that con-tinue to dominate the literature. This chap-ter continues with the debate initiated inChapter 1, for this kind of discussion ishealthy. Complex problems, such as manag-ing tourists’ impacts on natural ecosystems,seldom have simple answers. Because ofthis complexity a concept such as eco-tourism should not be expected to providea universal simple answer. Consequently,ecotourism is not ‘the’ answer to the prob-lems caused by nature-based tourism. It is,however, a concept that has value, and real-izing that value is best achieved by con-structive thinking and debate, but most ofall by learning from practical application ofthe ideas contained within the ecotourismconcept. A consideration of the types ofecotourism activity is one way to contributeto this debate, and this chapter attempts todo just that. In addition, this chapter alsocontains two case studies that are illustra-

tive of the practical component that is nowso important in the further evolution of theecotourism concept.

Semantic Debates

The evolution of language is an interestingphenomenon. It seems that a natural part ofthis evolutionary process is the invention,adoption and eventual common usage ofterms that describe valuable concepts orideas. There are many examples through-out history. In the context of this discus-sion, namely the management of humaninfluences on natural ecosystems, threeterms provide examples of this process.

The terms ‘conservation’ and ‘sustain-ability’ have become popular terms forvaluable approaches to managing naturalresources. Each evolved in a similar way.First, the concepts themselves appear tohave existed for many centuries. Second,the invention of the specific terms occurredand usage of them became more wide-spread and diverse in their application.Third, debates ensued regarding defini-tions, typologies and the value of theterms/concepts. For example, Fennell(1999, p. 72) outlines three differing per-spectives that evolved in the early use ofthe term conservation:

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 23

The first involved the view that conservationshould entail the maintenance of harmonybetween humankind and nature, the secondthat conservation was related to the efficientuse of resource. The final perception was thatconservation – preservation could ideally beattained from the standpoint of religion andspirituality.

Finally, the terms became used in more for-mal contexts, such as in law, in interna-tional agreements and within governmentagencies.

The semantic evolutionary process illus-trated by ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainability’has also occurred with regard to the con-cept of ‘ecotourism’. The idea of integratingtourism with conservation has probablybeen around since the early days of Africansafaris and the development of the nationalpark concept in the 19th century. In thetourism literature, the concept was givenwider and more explicit exposure byBudowski in a 1976 article entitled‘Tourism and conservation: conflict, co-existence or symbiosis?’. However, whileBudowski’s paper made a case for theideals of ecotourism, as generally under-stood today, he did not explicitly use theterm ‘ecotourism’ to describe his thinking.There is no general agreement on whoinvented or first used the term ‘ecotourism’(Fennell, 1999), but it is clear that the termfirst appeared in the published materialduring the 1980s (for example, Romeril,1985; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1987; Laarmanand Durst, 1987; Ziffer, 1989). Certainly,even if the term itself was not used, theconcept has been around for centuries(Fennell, 1999). It seems likely that theinvention of the term ‘ecotourism’ itself isrelated to the connotations associated withterms with the ‘eco’ prefix such as ‘ecology’and ‘ecosystem’. Thus combining this pre-fix with the term tourism provides a suit-able label for the concept that authors likeHetzer (1965), Budowski (1976) and othershave advocated.

The idea of visiting areas for the pur-poses of observing and experiencing ele-ments of the natural environment pre-dates‘ecotourism’. Safaris to places such as

Africa to view wildlife were popularamong explorers and adventurers fromWestern Europe during the 1800s (Adler,1989). Recreational activities such as hik-ing, birdwatching, climbing, cross-countryskiing, fishing, canoeing and other boatingare all based on the natural environmentand have been popular for centuries.Therefore, many of the activities that cannow be included under the label ‘eco-tourism’ have existed long before the termitself was invented. The successful evolu-tion of the term ‘ecotourism’ (in the sensethat it is now widely used) is related tothree main issues. First, it is a reactionagainst the negative impacts associatedwith ‘mass tourism’ (Weaver, 1998). Forexample, Glasson et al. (1995, p. 27) stated:‘Tourism contains the seeds of its owndestruction; tourism can kill tourism,destroying the very environmental attrac-tions which visitors come to a location toexperience’. Second, it has developed inresponse to the growth of tourism based onnatural environmental attractions andthird, as an outcome of the growing under-standing and acceptance of the principlesof environmental conservation and sustain-ability (Orams, 1995) (see Chapter 1).

Defining Ecotourism: Lines in the Sand

It is difficult to consider the subject ‘typesof ecotourism’ without having a clear defi-nition or understanding of what eco-tourism actually is. Thus, a considerationof the topic occurs within the semanticdebate that has dominated the literature onecotourism to date. As with all suchdebates the difficulties arise when consid-ering the ‘margins’. That is, while theremay be a general acceptance of what thebasic concept includes and a correspond-ing general acceptance of what it does notinclude, there is little agreement regardingthose activities or operations that don’tclearly fit into either scenario. For exam-ple, does a safari that includes both an edu-cational component and the hunting ofwildlife constitute an ‘ecotourism’ experi-

24 M.B. Orams

ence? Similarly, what of a tourism opera-tion that has the best conservation inten-tions but through ignorance and/oraccident the natural attraction is harmed?An example of this is the September 1998collisions between whale-watching vesselsand whales off Stellwagen Bank north ofCape Cod, Massachusetts. These collisionsresulted in injury for a humpback whaleand the death of a minke whale(Associated Press, 1998).

There are now so many definitions ofecotourism and so many papers discussingthese definitions that to review all of theseagain here would be repetitious and per-haps even annoying. Instead, the readershould consult useful publications such asthose by Valentine (1990), Figgis (1993),Miller and Kaae (1993), Moore and Carter(1993), Hvenegaard (1994), Orams (1995),Higgins (1996), Weaver (1998), Fennell(1999) and Chapter 1 of this Encyclopedia.At the risk of inducing ‘eco-nausea’, how-ever, it is useful to consider the range ofdefinitions offered in terms of the concep-tual approaches they represent. This analy-sis is important, for if we are to understandthe range of ‘types of ecotourism’ it is help-ful to clarify what this range includes.

Mass and alternative tourism

Fennell (1999) considers that ecotourismexists within the broader classification oftourism types which, at an initial level, canbe divided into ‘mass tourism’ and ‘alterna-tive tourism’. Mass tourism is seen as themore traditional form of tourism develop-ment where short-term, free-market princi-ples dominate and the maximization ofincome is paramount. The development ofthe tourism industry was originally seen asa desirable and relatively ‘clean’ industryfor nations and regions to pursue. This wasparticularly true in terms of benefits in for-eign exchange earnings, employment andinfrastructural development such as trans-port networks (Warren and Taylor, 1994).However, in the past two decades the‘worm has turned’. ‘These days we aremore prone to vilify or characterise con-

ventional mass tourism as a beast; a mon-strosity which has few redeeming qualitiesfor the destination region, their people andtheir natural resource base’ (Fennell, 1999,p. 7). It should be remembered, however,that there are many locations where themass tourism ‘beast’ has been an economicsaviour and has, on balance, not been thedestructive, exploitive industrial develop-ment that the modern tourism literaturepaints it. This is particularly true when oneconsiders the potential alternative uses ofthose resources which formed the basis ofthe development of tourism, for example,as when a beach area is developed as atourist resort as an alternative to sand min-ing.

This is not to deny that ‘mass tourism’has caused problems, because it has. Therehas, quite justifiably, been a need to iden-tify an alternative approach to tourismdevelopment that lessens the negative con-sequences of the mass tourism approach.Thus the ‘alternative tourism’ perspectivehas become a popular paradigm. This alter-native approach has been described as a‘competing paradigm’ to mass tourism(Fennell, 1999), but it can also be viewedas a complementary approach to tourism.That is, it is not possible to have ‘alterna-tive tourism’ without something for it to be‘alternative’ to. So, the discussion returnsto a semantic debate … perhaps it is best toaccept that alternative tourism is a naturaloutcome of the maturing understanding oftourism development and its strengths andweaknesses. Fennell (1999, p. 9) states that:

AT is a generic term that encompasses awhole range of tourism strategies (e.g.‘appropriate’, ‘eco-’, ‘soft’, ‘responsible’,‘people to people’, ‘controlled’, ‘small scale’,‘cottage’, and ‘green’ tourism) all of whichpurport to offer a more benign alternative toconventional mass tourism in certain types ofdestinations.

However, Weaver (1998) quite rightlypoints out that there are also many criti-cisms of alternative tourism. It is clear thatjust because alternative tourism has devel-oped as a reaction to the negative con-sequences of mass tourism it is not

Types of Ecotourism 25

necessarily less harmful or better than itsalternative. It does however, provide a use-ful means to conceptualize the relationshipbetween differing views of tourism (Fig.2.1). In Chapter 5 of this Encyclopedia,Weaver challenges the dichotomous per-spective on alternative tourism and masstourism in suggesting circumstances underwhich ecotourism can be considered as aform of mass tourism.

Nature-based tourism versus ecotourism

There appears to be a consensus in the lit-erature on tourism that demand for oppor-tunities to interact with nature has beenincreasing rapidly (Jenner and Smith,1992). This general interest in nature andexperiences based upon natural attractionsis reflected in an increasing demand andvalue being placed on relatively undis-turbed natural environments and, in partic-ular, wild animals (Gauthier, 1993).Tourism of this type has been applaudedby many as a suitable saviour for threat-ened wildlife populations (Davies, 1990;

Borge et al., 1991; Groom et al., 1991;Barnes et al., 1992; Burnie, 1994) and thusis widely viewed as ‘ecotourism’. However,many authors point out that significantnegative environmental impacts can resultfrom nature-based tourism (Butler, 1990;Wheeller, 1991; Zell, 1992; Pleumarom,1993; Wheeller, 1994; Glasson et al., 1995)and question whether nature-based tourismis automatically ‘ecotourism’ (see alsoChapter 5).

An additional issue to consider is thenow commonplace inclusion of a socio-cultural component within the discussionof ecotourism. For example, Wallace andPierce (1996, p. 848) argue that ecotourismis travel that is based not only on naturebut also on ‘the people (caretakers) wholive nearby, their needs, their culture, andtheir relationships to the land’. This inclu-sion of a human component within eco-tourism is a significant extension of theconcept. However, the inclusion of theneeds of people does little to clarify theconcept of ecotourism. For if humans, andhuman behaviour, are considered to be partof the ‘natural’ environment the lines in

26 M.B. Orams

Environmentallysustainable activities

Environmentallyunsustainable activities

Masstourism

Alternativetourism

Fig. 2.1. Relationships between mass and alternative tourism (after Weaver, 1998).

the sand bounding the ecotourism conceptare extended even further. If ecotourism isinterpreted too broadly, it becomes mean-ingless. For example, if the viewing of acultural dance performance by an indige-nous group is considered to be ecotourismwhy not include other human activities,sport, art, music and so on?

If ecotourism is to have any meaning,lines bounding its application must bedrawn. As discussed in Chapter 1, eco-tourism is considered to share three basiccharacteristics.

1. The natural (non-human) environmentor a feature of it is the prime attraction forthe tourist. 2. The basis of that attraction for thetourist is an inherent appreciation/educa-tional interest in that natural environmentor natural environmental feature. Based onthis and the first criterion, ecotourismtherefore incorporates such related activi-ties as birdwatching, nature observation,hiking and bushwalking, nature photogra-phy, outdoor education, stargazing andwhale-watching. The status of diving,snorkelling and scuba-diving is a matter ofsome debate, while activities such astrekking and safaris are hybrids withadventure and other forms of tourism.3. A management regime/effort directed atthe conservation/sustainable use of thatnatural environment exists.

Thus, ecotourism is seen as a subset ofnature-based tourism. One of the difficul-ties in applying such an interpretation ofthe concept is in assessing the applicationof the last criterion. Many tourism opera-tors and their clients may satisfy each ofthe three criteria, however, despite the bestintentions for their activities to be conser-vation-oriented and sustainable, the resultof their activities may still be detrimentalto the attraction. This is the essence of theproblem in defining ecotourism. It is a con-cept with worthy intentions. However, itsresults are still often no better than thoseobtained from other forms of tourism.Consequently, ecotourism may not alwaysbe beneficial to the natural environment.

There are, unfortunately, a significant num-ber of relevant examples (Hanna and Wells,1992; Burger and Gochfield, 1993; Griffithsand Van Schaik, 1993; Ingold et al., 1993;Muir, 1993; Viskovic, 1993). As a result,many authors have expressed concern overthe negative impacts that are beinginflicted on natural ecosystems in the nameof ‘ecotourism’ (Hegerl, 1984; Mellor, 1990;Ward, 1990; Laycock, 1991).

For the purposes of this chapter, theecotourism concept is considered broadly.However, it is acknowledged that eventhough the philosophy of ecotourism isethically sound – namely that it attempts atthe very least to minimize its negativeimpacts – the application of that approachis not always successful. Because of thisbroad interpretation and application of theecotourism approach it is useful to con-sider the types of ecotourism operationswithin a conceptual framework.

Conceptual Frameworks forAnalysing Types of Ecotourism

It is clear that there is a great variety of def-initions of ecotourism. Equally, there is agreat variety of tourism operators and agen-cies that have adopted the label with differ-ent interpretations of what the labelactually means. Thus, the types of eco-tourism occur within this range of defini-tions and use of the term. While some mayargue that certain types of operationsshould not use the term ‘ecotourism’ todescribe their activities, the reality is theyare using the label and they cannot be pre-vented from doing so. There is no copy-right on the term, there is no patent onwhat the approach entails. As a conse-quence any debate over who has the rightto call themselves an ecotourism operatoris meaningless. What can be done, how-ever, is to review the range of ecotourismtypes and to categorize them according tothe nature of their operation or the defini-tion of ecotourism that they subscribe to. Anumber of authors have attempted to dojust that, as described below.

Types of Ecotourism 27

Soft–hard

Laarman and Durst (1987) describe ‘hard’and ‘soft’ dimensions of ecotourism (Fig.2.2). These terms refer to the level of dedi-cation of the ecotourist to the experience interms of the physical rigour/effort involvedand the level of interest in the naturalattraction. ‘Hard-core’ ecotourists have adeep level of interest and often expertise inthe subject matter; for example, they mayhave a life-long passion for birdwatching orother forms of nature observation. In addi-tion, ecotourists have differing dispositionsregarding the level of physical challengeand comfort they wish to experience or areprepared to tolerate. A ‘hard’ ecotourist isprepared and may even desire to live basi-cally, with few comforts, and to travel indifficult circumstances for long periodswithin a wilderness context in order totruly ‘experience’ nature. Conversely, the

‘soft’ ecotourist has casual interest in thenatural attraction but wishes to experiencethat attraction on a more superficial andhighly mediated level. Similarly, the softecotourist is less prepared to accept dis-comfort and physical hardship as part ofthe experience, and may be content tospend a considerable amount of their timein an interpretive centre surrounded byother tourists. Typically, hard ecotouristsare engaged in specialized ecotourismtravel, while soft ecotourists engage in eco-tourism as one, usually short duration,element of a multi-purpose and multi-dimensional travel experience.

Laarman and Durst’s (1987) discussionand subsequent work (1993) provide a use-ful context when considering the types ofecotourists themselves (see Chapter 3).However, at a more fundamental leveltypes of ecotourism can be considered interms of their relationships with nature.

28 M.B. Orams

Difficult

Difficult

and

dedicated

Dedicated

Easy

and

casual

Har

dS

oft

Soft Hard

Degree of interest/expertise in natural attraction

Leve

l of c

halle

nge/

phys

ical

diff

icul

ty

Fig. 2.2. Hard and soft ecotourism (after Laarman and Durst, 1987).

Natural–unnatural

Miller and Kaae (1993) have described thediverse number of definitions and applica-tions of the concept of ecotourism as partof a continuum of relatedness to nature(Fig. 2.3). This continuum of ecotourismparadigms is bounded by polar extremes.At one pole is the view that all tourism(including ecotourism) has negativeimpacts on the natural world. That is, nomatter what management strategies are inplace, humans through their mere presencehave an unnatural impact. Therefore, eco-tourism, in this view, is impossible becauseany kind of tourism will have a negativeeffect. At the other extreme, humans areviewed as living organisms – fauna –whose behaviour is inevitably ‘natural’.That is, humans are part of the naturalworld, just like all other living things andtherefore human behaviour is ‘naturalbehaviour’ and contributes to the naturalevolution of life. This view holds thatbecause humans are part of ‘nature’ theyare part of the ‘natural process’ and, as aresult, they are literally unable to behaveunnaturally. There is, therefore, no differ-ence between ecotourism and other formsof tourism in terms of their ‘naturalness’and thus, all ecotourism is tourism andvice versa. These two positions representextreme and unrealistic views. In reality,types of ecotourism can be considered aslying somewhere between these polarextremes.

Exploitive–passive–active

Ecotourism types can also be classifiedaccording to their tendency to be consis-tent with their degree of impact on the nat-ural environment. This classification islinked with a consideration of ethics inecotourism. This consideration is seen by anumber of authors as an integral part ofany discussion of ecotourism (Kutay, 1989;Wight, 1993; Duenkel and Scott, 1994;Karwacki and Boyd, 1995; Orams, 1995;Fennell, 1999), and is pursued further inChapter 41.

It is, in fact, difficult to view ecotourismin any other way; for inherent in almost alldefinitions of ecotourism is the suggestionthat ecotourism is attempting to ‘do theright thing’. The concepts of conservation,sustainability and alternative tourism dis-cussed earlier have a similar ethical com-ponent and are concepts closely linkedwith that of ecotourism. The variationwithin the ecotourism realm surroundswhat the ‘right thing’ actually is. Withoutdelving too deeply into deep ecology andenvironmental ethics, the oft-quoted con-tention of Aldo Leopold (1949, p. 224) is auseful fundamental guideline with regardto ecotourism. ‘A thing is right when ittends to preserve the integrity, stability andbeauty of the biotic community. It is wrongwhen it tends otherwise.’ Thus, ecotourismoperations that actively contribute to theimprovement of the natural environmentcan be viewed as ‘better’ (Orams, 1995), or

Types of Ecotourism 29

Humans are part ofnature

All tourism isecotourism

Humans are separatefrom nature

Ecotourism isimpossible

Current definitions of ecotourism

Fig. 2.3. Humans as natural and unnatural influences and ecotourism (after Miller and Kaae, 1993).

as more positive and responsible. Opera-tions that detract from the quality of thenatural environment can be viewed as‘worse’ or more exploitive and irresponsi-ble. Between these types of ecotourism arethose types that can be viewed as moreneutral and passive, operations that simplyseek to minimize their impacts on the nat-ural environment. This kind of conceptualapproach can be represented diagrammati-cally (Fig. 2.4). It acknowledges that thereare many different types of ecotourism butconsiders that some are better than others.Furthermore, this typology has been usedas a basis for arguing that the role of eco-tourism operators and agencies chargedwith managing ecotourism should be toprompt movement from less desirable tomore desirable states along this continuum(Orams, 1995).

Case Studies of Differing Types ofEcotourism

The following two case studies provideexamples of types of ecotourism activity.The first of these can be viewed as an eco-tourism ‘type’ that is located toward theexploitive, negative end of the continuum,the second as a ‘type’ located toward theresponsible, positive end.

Case study 1: Heron Island, Great BarrierReef, Australia

Heron Island is located in the southernregion of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

among a group of around 13 islands knownas the Capricorn–Bunker Group. Heron is asand cay located at the western end of acoral reef lagoon and is relatively small –around 800 m long and 280 m wide at itswidest point. The island is an ecologicallyimportant breeding site for a number ofspecies of birds and sea turtles. Earlyhuman use of the island was based on theharvesting of turtles, and a turtle soup fac-tory operated at Heron from 1925 to 1929(Limpus et al., 1983). This factory becamea tourist resort in 1932 (Great Barrier ReefCommittee, 1977) and it has been subse-quently bought and developed by the P&Ocompany. Additional development on theisland includes a research station (estab-lished in 1951) now operated by theUniversity of Queensland (Jones, 1967) anda park centre for Heron Island NationalPark (established in 1983) (Neil, 1993).

Heron Island Resort promotes itself asan ‘environmentally friendly’ ecotourismfacility:

Whilst the island is an international resort,great care is taken to make it a ‘live and letlive’ situation with nature. The resort takesup only one corner of the island, with theremainder belonging to the seabirds and theturtles … The golden rule of Heron is toenjoy nature, without disturbing it. This iscarried out right through to details likegarbage disposal. Resort waste that is notbiodegradable such as bottles and cans, isactually shipped back to the mainland andproperly disposed. Every precaution is takenso as not to upset the delicate balance ofnature.

(Heron Island Resort, 1986, p. 2)

30 M.B. Orams

Exploitive– results in

damage to thehost environment

Passive– minimal

damage to thehost environment

Active– contributes to

the health of hostenvironment

More responsible and more desirable ecotourism

Fig. 2.4. The continuum of ecotourism types (after Orams, 1995).

However, despite these ‘green’ sentimentsthere is no doubt that the development andoperation of the resort at Heron Island hascaused significant detrimental environmen-tal impacts. It should also be noted that theoperation of the University of Queenslandresearch station and the national park cen-tre also contributes to these impacts.

Examples of these impacts include thebuilding of structures resulting in a reduc-tion in the area available for nesting forboth seabirds and turtles. This is particu-larly significant for the green sea turtle andthe burrow nesting wedge-tailed shear-water, both of which are thought to returnto the same site each year for nesting. Thelights from buildings are also thought toconfuse hatchlings from both these speciesresulting in increased mortality rates(Gibson, 1976; Hulsman, 1983; Lane,1991). Tourists who walk around the islandhave been observed to collapse the shear-water burrows, killing the nesting bird andchick (Dyer, 1992). In addition, disturbanceof seabirds can cause them to abandontheir nests and hatchlings can die if theparent does not return after as little 15 min(Hulsman, 1984).

Of more direct concern with regard tothe marine environment, is the dredgingand maintenance of the boat channelthrough the reef flat to the western side ofthe island. This channel has significantlyaltered the tidal flow around the island andthe surrounding reef flat (Gourlay, 1991),altering the benthic fauna adjacent to thechannel (Neil, 1988) and acceleratingbeach erosion on the northern and south-ern sides of the island (Neil, 1993). Touristsand their actions also have an impact onHeron’s ecology. The common practice ofwalking over the coral reef flat at low tideat Heron can significantly reduce thehealth and abundance of coral (Woodlandand Hooper, 1977). Litter is common onboth the intertidal areas and the reef flat(personal observation). Recreational fishingis also likely to alter the natural composi-tion of reef fish populations.

Heron Island provides an interestingexample of an ecotourism destination thatcan be classified as being toward the

exploitive end of the continuum. This isbecause, despite best intentions to mini-mize impacts, they still have occurred andhave resulted in a significant deteriorationof the natural environment. This pattern iscommon among many ecotourism destina-tions.

Case study 2: Tiritiri Matangi Island, HaurakiGulf, New Zealand

Tiritiri Matangi Island is located east ofNew Zealand’s Whangaparaoa Peninsula,approximately 30 km north of Auckland.The island was partially cleared of nativeforest by Maori, then almost completelycleared by European settlers near the turnof the century for conversion to pastoralfarmland, primarily for sheep and cattlegrazing (Moon, 1998). In 1971 the NewZealand government assumed responsibil-ity for the island. As a result, public accessto the island was granted (prior to thistime, even though the island was publiclyowned an exclusive grazing lease was inplace and the public had restricted access).In 1982 a working plan was developedwhich adopted a strategy of replanting theisland in native plants and to create anenvironment where natural bush, forestand native bird species could flourish(Drey, 1982). A critical component of thisstrategy was the involvement of visitors tothe island and the promotion of the islandas an easily accessible wildlife sanctuaryfor tourists (domestic and international) tovisit (Hawley, 1997).

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s visi-tors to the island have been encouraged toparticipate in planting programmes, tobecome members of a community sup-porters’ programme, to raise money, and tobecome aware of the conservation values ofthe island (Moon, 1998). In the mid-1990sthe island had become so popular that adaily commercial ferry service began tooperate from nearby Gulf Harbour on themainland. In addition, a number of ‘eco-tour’ operators began to take package toursto the island. With the assistance of thesupporters’ programme and a significant

Types of Ecotourism 31

number of volunteers the gradual reintro-duction of a number of endangered nativebird species has begun. These birds haveadded to the attraction of the island and aremarkable success rate has been achievedin re-establishing these birds and theirbreeding on the island (Moon, 1998).

The support of tourists to the island hasbeen fundamental in re-establishing thenatural habitat that existed on Tiritiribefore humans arrived in this part of theworld. The continued involvement of thesetourists in planting programmes, in finan-cial support for management on the island,in providing educational programmes forother visitors and in ensuring that inappro-priate behaviour (such as the bringing ofpets) is minimized on the island, hasresulted in a major improvement in thequality of the island’s environment overthe past decade (Cessford, 1995).

The development of ecotourism hasbeen of great benefit to Tiritiri Matangiisland. Quite simply, without tourism itwould have remained an ecologicallyinsignificant location. Fortunately, with thehelp of island visitors and supporters, it isfast becoming one of the most importantbird sanctuaries in New Zealand – a nationwith many of the world’s most endangeredbird species. Thus, Tiritiri Matangi is alocation that conforms to the responsible,active end of the ecotourism continuum.

These two case studies may not necessarilyreflect their status as more or less desirableecotourism when considered in a temporalcontext. Rather they may simply representtheir differing stages along the tourismdevelopment path. Tourism is a complexsocial and economic process that does notremain static over time. There are manyexamples of the development of tourism –or ecotourism – at a particular site that inits early stages had few negative impacts,appeared to be sustainable and was viewedas a positive outcome for local communi-ties, both human and natural. However,over time many such locations have beentransformed gradually from the positiveend of the continuum to the exploitive.

This temporal transition is of particular

concern with regard to ecotourism becausemuch of this type of tourism is conductedin high-quality natural sites with fewhuman influences. Ecotourism can, insome situations, simply be the catalyst formore widespread tourist development‘jump-starting’ a pristine natural environ-ment down the path of development. Thisrisk is possibly one of the most significantwith regard to ecotourism. The reality is formany ecotourism locations and operatorswith the best intentions, that once the eco-nomic development ‘ball starts rolling’ it isextremely difficult to control the outcomes.It is understandable then that many arecynical regarding the results of ecotourism,irrespective of whether the type of eco-tourism is responsible and active or not(for example, see the writings of Wheeller,1991, 1994). It can be argued that eco-tourism, while a laudable concept in the-ory has little value in practice. However,cases such as that of Tiritiri Matangi island,provide hope that ecotourism can havepositive practical outcomes.

Conclusions Regarding Types ofEcotourism

It is difficult when examining ecotourismnot to become cynical regarding its appli-cation. The words of the Reverend FrancisKilvert, written in his diary in 1870 seem,in many situations, as apt today (Croall,1995): ‘of all the noxious animals, the mostnoxious is the tourist’. In fact many presentday commentators may argue that becausethe ecotourist is ‘dressed up’ with a palat-able label that ‘of all the tourists, the mostdangerous is the ecotourist’. Others, how-ever, argue that ecotourism is the ‘answer’to tourism development and claim ‘thatecotourism is the only tourism develop-ment that is sustainable in the long term’(Warren and Taylor, 1994, p. 1). The argu-ment that ecotourism should only falltowards the active and hard end of the con-tinuum and contribute to the health andviability of the natural attractions uponwhich it is based is an appealing one.However, these lofty aspirations appear to

32 M.B. Orams

be unattainable in many situations, andpossibly incompatible with the dominantmarket behaviours and expectations.Perhaps this is because the value of theecotourism concept has been dilutedthrough its popularity. It is certainly anattractive label that has been rapidlyadopted by many operators and nationsbecause it expresses ideals that are attrac-tive to the market place. Authors such asWight (1993) recognize that the ecotourismlabel is being utilized to take advantage ofa ‘greening’ of the market and to ‘eco-sell’tourism and travel. In many cases eco-tourism has become nothing more than amarketing gimmick which dresses up exist-ing tourism attractions in an attempt toincrease market share (Wight, 1993).

Irrespective of the marketing of theterm, it is now clear that ecotourism is nota panacea that always both protects theenvironment and supports economic activ-ity (Butler, 1990; Zell, 1992; Pearce, 1994;Wall, 1994; Wheeller, 1994; MacKinnon,1995). However, it was always extremelynaive to expect it to be so. The naturalenvironment is complex and dynamic, andthe invention of a concept does not providean automatic answer to the problemscaused by humans visiting it. The wide-

spread adoption of the terms ‘conservation’and ‘sustainability’ have not solved theplanet’s environmental problems. Neitherwill the concept of ecotourism. However, itis important to remember that the goal ofecotourism is a sound and worthy one. Justbecause it is difficult to achieve in practicedoes not mean that the concept is flawed.Rather, it may be a reflection of the relativeimmaturity of the tourism managementfield and the difficulty of the task. Thisdoes not negate the worth of the eco-tourism concept. The next stage in themanagement of ecotourism is to movebeyond the semantic evolutionary processdiscussed earlier and to further evolve thesuccessful application of the concept. Partof this evolution involves the recognitionof distinctive ecotourism typologies andtypes that utilize different habitats, attractdifferent markets, and require distinctiveplanning and management measures. Thebattle that remains is in developing effec-tive techniques and strategies to makethese various types of ecotourism work inpractice, in its active and responsiblesense. We now know where we want to go,and that is the first important step in get-ting there.

Types of Ecotourism 33

References

Adler, J. (1989) Origins of sightseeing. Annals of Tourism Research 16, 7–29.Associated Press (1998) Conservationists Want Whale-Watching Boats to Slow Down. Associated

Press, Boston, 15 September.Barnes, J., Burgess, J. and Pearce, D. (1992) Wildlife tourism. In: Swanson, T.M. and Barbier, E.B.

(eds) Economics for the Wilds: Wildlife, Wildlands, Diversity and Development. EarthscanPublications, London, pp. 136–151.

Borge, L., Nelson, W.C., Leitch, J.A. and Lestritz, F.L. (1991) Economic Impact of Wildlife BasedTourism in Northern Botswana. Agricultural Economics Report No 262. Agricultural ExperimentStation, North Dakota University.

Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict, coexistence or symbiosis?Environmental Conservation 3(1), 27–31.

Burger, J. and Gochfield, M. (1993) Tourism and short term behavioural responses of nesting masked,red-footed, and blue-footed boobies in the Galapagos. Environmental Conservation 20(3),255–259.

Burnie, D. (1994) Ecotourists to paradise. New Scientist April, 24–27.Butler, R.W. (1990) Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28(3),

40–45.Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1987) Estudio de prefactibilidaad socioeconomica del tourismo ecologico y

anteproyecto asquitectonico y urbanistico del Centro de Turismo Ecologico de Sian Ka’an,Quintana Roo. Study completed for SEDUE, Mexico.

Cessford, G.R. (1995) Conservation Benefits of Public Visits to Protected Islands. Science andResearch Series No. 95, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Croall, J. (1995) Preserve or Destroy. Tourism and the Environment. Calouste Gulbenhin Foundation,London.

Davies, M. (1990) Wildlife as a tourism attraction. Environments 20(3), 74–77.Drey, R. (1982) Tiritiri Matangi Island Working Plan. Department of Lands and Survey for the

Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board, Auckland.Duenkel, N. and Scott, H. (1994) Ecotourism’s hidden potential – altering perceptions of reality.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance October, 40–44.Dyer, P.K. (1992) Wedgetailed shearwater nesting patterns: a spatial and ecological perspective,

Capricorn Group, Great Barrier Reef. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,Australia.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Figgis, P. (1993) Ecotourism: special interest or major direction? Habitat Australia February, 8–11.Gauthier, D.A. (1993) Sustainable development, tourism and wildlife. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R.W.

and Walls, G. (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing.Heritage Resources Centre Joint Publication No. 1, University of Waterloo, Ontario, pp. 98–109.

Gibson, J.D. (1976) Seabird islands no. 38, big island, five islands, New South Wales. Australian BirdBander 14, 100–103.

Glasson, J., Godfrey, K. and Goodey, B. (1995) Toward Visitor Impact Management. AshgatePublishing, Aldershot, UK.

Gourlay, M.R. (1991) Coastal observations for monitoring environmental conditions on a coral reefisland. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering,Auckland. The University of Auckland, Auckland, pp. 73–77.

Great Barrier Reef Committee (1977) Conservation and Use of the Capricorn and Bunker Groups ofIslands and Coral Reefs. GBRC, Brisbane.

Griffiths, M. and Van Schaik, C.P. (1993) The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activityperiods of Sumatran rain forest wildlife. Conservation Biology 7(3), 623–626.

Groom, M.J., Podolsky, R.O. and Munn, C.A. (1991) Tourism as a sustained use of wildlife: a casestudy of Madre de Dios, southeastern Peru. In: Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation.University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 393–412.

Hanna, N. and Wells, S. (1992) Sea sickness. In Focus (Tourism Concern) 5, 4–6.Hawley, J. (1997) Tiritiri Matangi Working Plan. Department of Conservation, Auckland.Hegerl, E.J. (1984) An evaluation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park concept. In: Ward, W.T. and

Saenger, P. (eds) The Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef. Past, Present and Future.Royal Society of Queensland and Coral Reef Society, Brisbane, pp. 173–180.

Heron Island Resort (1986) Advertising brochure. Heron Island Resort, Queensland.Hetzer, N.D. (1965) Environment, tourism, culture. LINKS (July). Reprinted in Ecosphere (1970) 1(2),

1–3.Higgins, B.R. (1996) The global structure of the nature tourism industry: ecotourists, tour operators,

and local businesses. Journal of Travel Research 35(2), 11–18.Hulsman, K. (1983) Survey of seabird colonies in the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park ii: population parameters and management strategies. Unpublished research reportto the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.

Hulsman, K. (1984) Seabirds of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In:Ward, W.T. and Saenger, P. (eds) The Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:Past, Present and Future. Royal Society of Queensland and Australian Coral Reef Society,Brisbane, pp. 159–168.

Hvenegaard, G.T. (1994) Ecotourism: a status report and conceptual framework. Journal of TourismStudies 5(2), 24–35.

Ingold, P., Huber, B., Neuhaus, P., Mainini, B., Marbacher, H., Schnidrig-Petrig, R. and Zeller, R.(1993) Tourism and sport in the alps – a serious problem for wildlife? Revue Suisse de Zoologie100(3), 529–545.

Jenner, P. and Smith, C. (1992) The Tourism Industry and the Environment. Special Report No. 2453.The Economist Intelligence Unit, London.

Jones, O.A. (1967) The Great Barrier Reef Committee – its work and achievements, 1922–1926.Australian Natural History 15, 315–318.

34 M.B. Orams

Karwacki, J. and Boyd, C. (1995) Ethics and ecotourism. Business Ethics 4(4), 225–232.Kutay, K. (1989) The new ethic in adventure travel. Buzzworm: the Environmental Journal 1(4),

174–176.Laarman, J.G. and Durst, P.B. (1987) Nature travel and tropical forests. FREI Working Paper Series.

Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Laarman, J.G. and Durst, P.B. (1993) Nature tourism as a tool for economic development and conser-

vation of natural resources. In: Nenon, J. and Durst, P.B. (eds) Nature Tourism in Asia:Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation and Economic Development. United StatesForest Service, Washington, DC.

Lane, S.G. (1991) Some problems during the exodus of young shearwaters from Mutton Bird Island,New South Wales. Corella 15, 108.

Laycock, G. (1991) Good times are killing the Keys. Audubon 93(5), 38–41.Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Limpus, C.J., Fleay, A. and Guinea, M. (1983) Management and turtles. In: Ward, W.T. and Saenger, P.

(eds) Proceedings of The Inaugural Great Barrier Reef Conference. James Cook University Press,Townsville, pp. 61–78.

MacKinnon, B. (1995) Beauty and beasts of ecotourism. Business Mexico 5(4), 44–47.Mellor, B. (1990) Loving the reef to death? Time 45(Nov), 48–55.Miller, M.L. and Kaae, B.C. (1993) Coastal and marine ecotourism: a formula for sustainable develop-

ment? Trends 30(2), 35–41.Moon, L. (1998) The Singing Island. The Story of Tiritiri Matangi. Godwit, Auckland.Moore, S. and Carter, B. (1993) Ecotourism in the 21st century. Tourism Management 14(2), 123–130.Muir, F. (1993) Managing tourism to a seabird nesting island. Tourism Management 14(2), 99–105.Neil, D.T. (1988) Holothurian populations on Heron Reef, GBR: effect of the boat channel.

Unpublished report to the Australian Marine Sciences Association meeting, 28 May.Neil, D.T. (1993) Barrier Reef Studies. Unpublished course handbook. Department of Geographical

Sciences and Planning, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.Orams, M.B. (1995) Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management 16(1), 3–8.Pearce, D.G. (1994) Alternative tourism: concepts, classifications and questions. In: Smith, V.L. and

Eadington, W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development ofTourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 15–30.

Pleumarom, A. (1993) What’s wrong with mass tourism. Contours (Bangkok) 6(3/4), 15–21.Romeril, M. (1985) Tourism and the environment – towards a symbiotic relationship. International

Journal of Environmental Studies 25, 215–218.Valentine, P.S. (1990) Nature-based tourism: a review of prospects and problems. In: Miller, M.L. and

Auyong, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal And Marine Tourism, Vol. 2.National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute, Corvallis, Oregon,pp. 475–485.

Viskovic, N. (1993) Zootourism. Turizam 41(1–2), 23–25.Wall, G. (1994) Ecotourism: old wine in new bottles? Trends 31(2), 4–9.Wallace, G.N. and Pierce, S.M. (1996) An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of

Tourism Research 23(4), 843–873.Ward, F. (1990) Florida’s coral reefs are imperilled. National Geographic 178(1), 115–132.Warren, J.A.N. and Taylor, C.N. (1994) Developing Ecotourism in New Zealand. The New Zealand

Institute for Social Research and Development Ltd, Wellington.Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Wheeller, B. (1991) Tourism’s troubled times: responsible tourism is not the answer. Tourism

Management 12(1), 91–96.Wheeller, B. (1994) Ecotourism: a ruse by any other name. In: Cooper, C.P. and Lockwood, A. (eds)

Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7. Belhaven Press, London,pp. 3–11.

Wight, P.A. (1993) Ecotourism: ethics or ecosell? Journal of Travel Research 21(3), 3–9.Woodland, D.J. and Hooper, J.N.A. (1977) The effect of human trampling on coral reefs. Biological

Conservation 11, 1–4.

Types of Ecotourism 35

Zell, L. (1992) Ecotourism of the future – the vicarious experience. In: Weiler, B. (ed.) EcotourismIncorporating the Global Classroom. International Conference Papers, The University ofAuckland, Auckland, pp. 30–35.

Ziffer, K. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance. Working Paper No. 1. Conservation International,Washington, DC.

36 M.B. Orams

Chapter 3

Ecotourists: Not a Homogeneous Market Segment

P.A. WightPam Wight and Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Who is the Ecotourist?

The purpose of this chapter is to consoli-date reliable information about ecotourismmarkets, from as global a perspective aspossible. Sections will examine the iden-tity of ecotourists, trends, market and tripcharacteristics, origins and destinations,satisfaction and motivations, as well asinformation to assist in reaching the eco-tourist market.

The oft-asked question, ‘Who are eco-tourists?’ has no definitive answer for manyreasons, including the limited studies ofmarkets, poor definitional understanding,and the fact that ecotourist markets are nothomogeneous. Despite the large body of lit-erature on ecotourism, markets’ studies arelimited to destination area markets, to touroperator perceptions, or to more generalstudies of nature or adventure-basedtourists. Studies tend to discuss generalgrowth in interest, or markets to particulardestinations, rather than identifying charac-teristics, preferences and motivations ofbroad ‘origin’ populations. Studies at theglobal scale do not exist.

There is no clear agreement on ecotourism

As Wylie (1994) points out, there are manydimensions of ecotourism. It can be seen asan activity, a business, a philosophy, a mar-keting device, a symbol, or a set of princi-ples and goals. Since no universallyaccepted definition exists, there is consid-erable overlap with nature, adventure andculture markets (Center for Tourism PolicyStudies, 1998; Klenosky et al., 1998) (seealso Chapter 5). For example, US TravelData Center research (TIAA, 1994) foundthat 50% of travelling adult Americans(146.9 million) had taken an ‘adventurevacation’ in the past 5 years. However,many of the activities described couldapply to ecotourists (46% had taken softadventure vacations, including camping,bird-watching, animal watching, hiking,snorkelling and scuba-diving). Also, ofthose who had not taken any adventuretrips, over one-quarter (28%) indicatedthey would probably do so in the next 5years. This would mean that over 60%have taken or will take an adventure vaca-tion, of which many activities are consid-ered to overlap with ecotourism.

Agreement on a definition, however,does not provide a sufficient basis for reli-able measurement of any concept (Blamey,

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 37

1995). A number of tourism products canincorporate elements of adventure, such asexcitement or the outdoors, which may bewith or without the components thattogether contribute to ecotourism. Theseinclude education, interpretation, andenvironmental and cultural protection.Further, even when there is an educationalfocus, this may not necessarily relate to theenvironment. Similarly, nature-based mar-kets are not necessarily ecotourists (Wight,1993; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1998), becausethe mere desire to be in/see natural envi-ronments does not equate with being eco-logically benign or beneficial. Confusionabout the identity of ecotourists may helpto explain the wide range of ecotourismgrowth projections.

Ecotourism markets are not homogeneous

Even if a definition is established, eco-tourism markets are not a homogeneousgroup. In the same way that there is a spec-trum of products/experiences which maybe termed ecotourism, there is also greatvariation in the activities, motivations andcharacteristics of markets: a spectrum ofdemand (Wight, 1993). Indeed, individualsmay be interested in a number of overlap-ping experiences and activities.

In Australia, Tourism Queensland sur-veyed residents and found that ‘consumers’interest in ecotourism lies along a spec-trum based on a number of elements’(Ecotrends, 1999). These elements ofunderstanding were:

• taking vacations in natural locations;• understanding the term ecotourism;• attitudes towards nature and nature-

based tourism;• reasons for choosing where to take a

vacation, in particular the role of natureand learning about nature;

• the extent of planning for the vacation;• nature-based activities conducted while

on vacation.

The survey used cluster analysis (Law,1999, personal communication) to classifyrespondents into four major classes, as

shown in Table 3.1. The conclusions arethat ‘nearly half the travelling public havean underlying disposition towards natureand learning as part of their vacation’(Charters, 1999). Overall, Tourism Queens-land considers almost 30% of the travellingpublic as ecotourists. Only 1.6% of theserespondents see the term ecotourism as a‘fad’. Over half (51.5%) see ecotourism asenvironmentally friendly tourism that isnot harmful to the environment.

The market has previously been seg-mented many different ways (e.g. free inde-pendent travellers (FIT), group, business,pleasure, occasional, frequent, experi-enced, specialized, general, etc.). However,in any destination, one individual maybelong to more than one segment. In addi-tion, ecotourists can be viewed as softthrough to hard (Wight, 1993; Weiler andRichins, 1995; Diamantis, 1999) withrespect to degree of interest in nature,degree of physical challenge, difficulty orcomfort, occasional or frequent, or portionof total trip desired to be ecotourism activi-ties (see Chapter 2). This chapter attemptsto examine the market as a whole.

Trends Affecting Ecotourism

Increased overall demand

Ecotourism has been considered the fastestgrowing area of tourism for many years(Cook et al., 1992; Laarman and Durst,1993; Parker, 1993; WTO News, 1997,1998). One of the trends fuelling this

38 P.A. Wight

Table 3.1. Degree of commitment/understanding ofecotourism (Ecotrends, 1999).

Class of ecotourist % of Respondents

Definite 27.2Probable 20.6Possible 18.2No commitment/limited

understanding 32.2Total number of respondents 780

growth is the increasing propensity of trav-ellers to take life-enriching vacations thatinvolve education, the outdoors and nature(Wylie, 1997, citing Mass, 1995). Thedesire to learn and experience nature isinfluenced by changing attitudes to theenvironment (based on the recognition ofinterrelationships among species andecosystems), development of environmen-tal education in primary and secondaryschools, and the emergence of environmen-tal mass media (Eagles and Higgins, 1998).

One of the most important trends is theageing of populations in those countrieswhere the international market demand forecotourism is centred: North America,Northern Europe and, to a lesser extent,Japan. As people age they are attracted lessto active, dangerous, outdoor recreationalactivities, and more to appreciative andless strenuous activities. This change indemographics is creating more demand forboth ecotourism trips and related softadventure and culture trips (HLA/ARA,1994; Eagles, 1995). Mature Americans(55+) account for 21% of the total US pop-ulation, and by the year 2010 this isexpected to rise to 25% (75 million). Thisrapid growth of mature travellers, com-bined with their financial ability and avail-ability of leisure time, make them anexcellent potential market. This trend isalso evident in Canada, the EU and Japan(Center for Tourism Policy Studies, 1998).

Growth estimates of ecotourism varyconsiderably (7–30%), even within oneorganization. In October 1997, the WorldTourism Organisation (WTO News, 1997)presented information to indicate that eco-tourism ‘now accounts for between 10 and15 per cent of world tourism’, but byDecember, they had revised their estimatesupward to 20%, under the title Ecotourism,Now One-Fifth of Market (WTO News,1998). To add a level of complexity, rates ofgrowth vary by destination, and even byregion. For example, estimates for Australiavary from 5 to 10% of domestic nature-based tourism experiences, but muchhigher percentages in some locations, suchas the wet tropics. Additionally, growthvaries by country of origin, and may depend

on the activity (e.g. in Australia, outbacksafari tour average annual growth rates are47% for Germans, 21% for Swiss and 44%for other Europeans, but only 5% forScandinavians; Blamey, 1995).

Many estimates are probably too high,being based on an overly liberal definitionof the soft ecotourist. Suffice it to say thatdemand is strong and growing. However, itis also changing, deepening and broaden-ing. Further data that are specific to eco-tourism and nature-based tourism areclearly required before its size, significanceand growth can be estimated accurately.

Mainstreaming

There is a shift of interest by wider tourismmarkets toward experiencing the naturalenvironment (WTO News, 1997), and togreater awareness about environmentallyand socially benign travel (TIAA, 1994;Center for Tourism Policy Studies, 1998). ANorth American survey of travellers inmiddle to upper income households foundthat 77% have taken vacations whichinclude a nature/adventure/culture com-ponent, and the remainder intend to do soin the future (HLA/ARA, 1994). InAustralia, about a quarter of adultsreported being likely to take a nature-basedtrip in the next 12 months that involveslearning about nature (Blamey, 1995).These are significant numbers, and all themore credible because of their consistencyacross an array of origin regions.

Operators offering ecotourism in theAsia-Pacific region identified that a broad-ening of the clientele for ecotourism and ahigh growth in both the number of clientstaking ecotours (23.4%), and the revenuesthat they generate (18.3%), were key trendsin the Asia-Pacific region over the period1993–1995 (Lew, 1998a, b). A number ofstudies in North America and Australiahighlight the fact that the profile of potentialecotourists tends to be broader than the pro-file of actual ecotourists. Blamey and Hatch(1998) state that as ecotourism becomesmore extreme or specialized, the profile ofparticipants becomes narrower, and less

Ecotourists 39

representative of source populations. How-ever, other opinions abound. Lew’s view(1998b) is that while the trends appear toshow that ‘ecotourism is about to break outof the limited speciality travel market, theyactually reflect broader patterns foundthroughout the tourism industry’. EplerWood (1998) indicates that ecotourism oper-ators say their clientele is both broadeningand deepening to attract inexperienced trav-ellers. In fact, since ecotourism is actually asubset of sustainable tourism, then whetherecotourism markets are mainstreaming(Wight, 1995) or whether the entire tourismindustry is experiencing a shift, may be amoot point; what matters is that the trendsexist.

Market Characteristics

There are few globally significant eco-tourism studies. In Europe, a known sourceof ecotourism demand, there are no sub-stantial studies. This chapter will thereforefocus on Canada, the USA, UK andAustralia, where rigorous studies havetaken place, and are summarized in Tables3.2, 3.9 and 3.12. In addition, informationwill be presented which may relate tonature-based, adventure, or nature/adven-ture/culture markets. Table 3.2 summarizesecotourism and related markets’ character-istics. The text expands, rather than repeatsthe information.

Income

In general, household incomes are higherfor ecotourists than for travellers overall(Backman and Potts, 1993; Liu, 1994;Eagles and Cascagnette, 1995). However,this is not supported by a US adventure/outdoors travel survey (TIAA, 1994), norby a previous survey of US ecotourists,which found little divergence from theincome profiles of the average traveller(Cook et al., 1992). Diamantis (1999) foundthat while age affected incomes, the major-ity of UK ecotourists had mid- to high-range incomes.

The relationship between income andactivities varies. In Australia, there wererelatively high intentions to visit a naturalattraction or national park in the upcoming12 months, whether or not respondentshad a full-time or part-time job. Potentialecotourists are only slightly more likely tohave higher gross incomes than non-eco-tourists (Blamey, 1995). Yet, participationin various activities may vary by income:the most affluent US travellers (householdincome > US$50,000) participated more in snorkelling/scuba-diving (39%) andsailing (29%); those with US$20,000–$30,000 hiked more. The least affluent(< US$20,000) camped more than the mostaffluent (95% vs. 77%) (TIAA, 1994).

Occupation

Little information exists on occupation, butin the USA, 35% of ecotourists areprofessional/managerial (TIAA, 1994). InAustralia, those with the highest propen-sity to participate in nature-based activitieswere professional/technical; this groupconstitutes a larger percentage of visitorsoverall (Blamey and Hatch, 1998). In fact,blue collar, skilled trades, students andclerical/sales generally participate morethan their percentage of visitation over-all, although this percentage varies by activity.

Education

There is a finding in all the sampled mar-kets that ecotourists are generally well edu-cated. In North America 75% of generaland 96% of experienced ecotourists haddegrees or at least some college education.In the UK, 61% of frequent ecotouristswere educated to degree or postgraduatelevel (Diamantis, 1998). This was related toincome; the higher the educational statusof frequent ecotourists, the higher theirtotal income earnings. However, studiesshow interest in ecotourism at all levels ofeducation.

40 P.A. Wight

Ecotourists41

Table 3.2. Profiles of ecotourists and related travellers.

US adventure North American North American UK group UK group and outdoor general experienced frequent occasional

Market travellera ecotouristb ecotouristsb Canadian Australian ecotouristse ecotouristsf

characteristics N = 1172 N = 1384 N = 424 ecotouristsc ecotouristsd N = 379 N = 247

Household 76% > US$30,000 Live in No information 57% > CDN$50,000 Higher incomes 13% < £10,000 33% < £10,000income (CDN$40,000) neighbourhoods 36% > CDN$70,000 15% £10–15,000 12% £10–15,000

24% < US$30,000 with > US$35,000 average 22% £15–20,000 14% £15–20,000(CDN$40,000) (CDN$45,000) CDN$64,000 17% £20–25,000 14% £20–25,000

18% > US$75,000 12% £25–30,000 9% £25–30,000(CDN$100,000) 21% > £30,000 18% > £30,000

Age 51% 25–40 10% 18–24 2% 18–24 46% 45–64 36% 20–29 7% 17–24 28% 17–2425% 45–64 24% 25–34 20% 25–34 22% 35–44 23% 30–39 15% 25–34 28% 25–3410% 65+ 25% 35–44 28% 35–44 11% 25–34 27% 50+ 27% 35–44 16% 35–44Average is 40 18% 45–54 28% 45–54 11% 70+ 24% 45–54 17% 45–54

23% 55+ 23% 55+ 18% 55+ 11% 55+

Gender 51% male (vs. 60% Males and females, Males and females, 50 : 50 55% female 54% females 57% femalestravellers overall), varies by activity varies by activity 45% male, 46% males 43% malesvaries by activity varies by activity

Household 66% married 44% couples 47% couples No information No information 58% married 54% single(vs. 56% !d families !f families 34% single 39% marriedtravellers 8% divorced 7% divorcedoverall)

50% have children (vs. 37% travellers overall)

Education 41% completed 45% college grads 82% college > 64% university All levels, but 38% first degree 46% first degreecollege 30% some college graduates education potential 25% secondary 22% secondary

21% high school 14% some college 24% some post ecotourists tend education education5% some HS 4% high school secondary to be more highly 23% postgrad. 21% postgrad.

1% some HS educated 15% high school 11% high schoolContinued

42P.A

. Wight

Table 3.2. Continued

US adventure North American North American UK group UK group and outdoor general experienced frequent occasional

Market travellera ecotouristb ecotouristsb Canadian Australian ecotouristse ecotouristsf

characteristics N = 1172 N = 1384 N = 424 ecotouristsc ecotouristsd N = 379 N = 247

Party 58% couple 59% couples 61% couples No information 30% couples 66% one 63% onecomposition/ 36% with (grand) 26% families with 15% family 14% family/friends 18% two 15% twotravelling children children 13% alone 45% alone (visitors 9% three 9% threecompanions 34% with other adults 7% alone less likely to be 4% four 5% four

11% with (grand) unaccompanied) 3% other 9% otherparents

4% alone

Occupation 35% professional/ No information No information No information Professionals No information No informationmanager greatest number

14% blue collar12% retired10% clerical

a TIAA, 1994; b HLA/ARA, 1994; c Eagles and Cascagnette, 1995; d Blamey and Hatch, 1998; e Diamantis, 1998; f Diamantis, 1999.

Age

Although it cannot be assumed that allpark visitors are ecotourists, Australiannational parks have broad appeal, and visi-tation by each age group is roughly propor-tional to shares of total visitors in thesegroups. This is unlike most other nature-based activities, where participation isgreatest among those aged 20–29 years(Blamey and Hatch, 1998). Diamantis(1998) found that two-thirds of UK eco-tourists were aged 25–54. Similarly, inNorth America, most ecotourists were aged25–54 (67% general ecotourism, 76% expe-rienced; HLA/ARA, 1994). However, allages are interested in ecotourism with atendency for general or occasional eco-tourists to be younger, and more frequentor experienced ecotourists to be older.

Most market surveys use adults as theirbase, so it is difficult to obtain participa-tion rates for children. Previous studieshave indicated that a large proportion ofecotourists appear to be childless or‘empty-nesters’ (Reingold, 1993; WTO,1994), but there is evidence that eco-tourism and nature-based visitation hasbroad appeal. Family vacations became amajor trend in the 1990s (49% increase in adecade; The Center for Tourism PolicyStudies, 1998). In the USA, 36% of adven-ture/outdoor parties take children or grand-children (TIAA, 1994). In Australia, 61% ofrespondents with children intended to visita natural area in the next 12 months asopposed to 48% of those without children(Blamey, 1995, quoting a Newspoll study).

Age may influence activity participationrates. In the USA, those under 24 yearshave a higher than average participationrate for physically demanding activitiessuch as hiking, kayaking/white-water raft-ing, biking, rock-climbing and sailing(TIAA, 1994). In Australia, those under 24were more interested in bushwalking/out-back/safari tours; scuba-divers/snorkellerswere mainly 25–34; and most of those vis-iting a national/state park were 55 and over(Blamey, 1995).

Gender

The tradition of male dominance in nature-based activities has been superseded byfemale dominance. In North America, bothmales and females are equally interested,but participation varies by activity. InAustralia, 55% of ecotourists are women,and women aged 20–29 are the most activeof all nature-based participants (Blameyand Hatch, 1998). Similarly, a higher pro-portion of US adventure/outdoor travellersare women, compared with the profile ofaverage US travellers, with popularity ofvarious activities varying by gender (e.g.snorkel/scuba 35% of males: 26% offemales; kayak/white-water rafting 29% ofmales: 19% of females; sailing 30% offemales: 22% of males) (TIAA, 1994). Inthe UK, Diamantis (1998, 1999) found morefemale ecotourists (both frequent and occa-sional), and a relationship between genderand age: young frequent ecotourists werepredominantly female, while males wereequally distributed between the young andolder age groups.

The reason for this increase in femaleparticipation is not clear, but could berelated to women’s increasing indepen-dence and incomes, the higher populationof older women, their growing majority inuniversities (and thus their higher educa-tion levels), and the desire to socialize withlike-minded women. Other factors considerthat ecotourism may be an acceptable wayfor women to travel on their own, and thatgreater safety and security are available inguided tours. Whatever the reasons, eco-tourism is satisfying women’s needs anddesires. This may be inadvertent, althoughthere are a number of commercial operatorsspecializing in women’s groups.

Trip Characteristics

In North America, ecotourists are more fre-quent travellers, with 41% having travelledout of their state/province six or moretimes in the previous 3 years, versus 24%of travellers in general. This amounts to anaverage of two or more trips per year.

Ecotourists 43

Season

There has been little information in the lit-erature on what times of the year eco-tourism travellers prefer to travel, and thatwhich exists is often contradictory orambiguous. The majority of NorthAmerican ecotourists prefer to travel insummer (23% June, 40% July, 40%August). However, there is winter interest,and strong shoulder season interest (16%May, to 29% September). Experienced eco-tourists, who tend to be more frequenttravellers, are more interested in all sea-sons of travel, particularly shoulder sea-sons. This finding presents usefulopportunities for destinations to extendtheir season well into shoulder seasons andbeyond. In any case, both the destinationand reason for travel have some bearing onseason of travel.

Trip length

Ecotourists’ trip length varies tremen-dously, and may vary by activity. The gen-

eral tourist or vacationer tends to stay for ashorter time than the nature-based trav-eller. Yuan and Moisey (1992) found thatMontana visitors interested in wildland-based activities spent more time in thestate than non-wildland-based visitors(8.22 days backpacking and 5.99 in naturestudy, vs. non-wildland-based visitors,who spent only 3.66 days). In addition, theecotourism portion of the trip may be quitedifferent from the total trip duration. Onehalf of North Americans preferred eco-tourism portions of trips to be over 1 week(this portion is not known for experiencedecotourists) (HLA/ARA, 1994; Wight, 1996)(Fig. 3.1).

In Australia, nature-based visitors spenta longer time (average 33 nights) in thecountry than the traveller average of 24nights. But most nature-based visitors onan organized tour went for a day, a half-dayor less (not overnight). Only 20% tooktours of four or more nights; the averagelength was 2.9 nights, although for males itwas 3.4 nights vs. 2.3 for females (Blameyand Hatch, 1998).

Thus, trip length may vary by destina-

44 P.A. Wight

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1% 1% 1%

10%

24%

28%

40%35%

40%

23%

21%

27%

50%

< 1 1–3 4–7 8–14 > 14

Nor

th A

mer

ican

eco

tour

ists

(%

)

General consumer, total trip

Experienced ecotourist, total trip

General consumer, ecotourism portion of trip

Trip length (days)

Fig. 3.1. Preferred trip length for North American ecotourists (Wight, 1996).

tion. Very often, for more distant locations,the length of stay is understandably greater.For example, nature-based travellers stayan average of five nights at their destina-tion in the south-east USA (Backman andPotts, 1993), yet in Alaska, conservationgroup trips averaged 12 days (ARA et al.,1991). Trip length may also vary by origin.National park visitors from all countriesstayed longer in Australia than non-national park visitors, and some originsstayed more than twice the average of 23nights (UK and Ireland, Scandinavia,Switzerland). Trip length may also vary byactivities, as in Australia (Table 3.3).

Expenditures and willingness to spend

One quarter of North American ecotouristswere prepared to spend US$2000 per per-son per trip that involved ecotourism expe-riences and, on average, would be willingto spend US$238 per person per dayexcluding travel (HLA/ARA, 1994). Themore specialized ecotourists had a higherwillingness to spend.

Laarman and Gregersen (1996) point outthat certain destinations or sites (‘jewels ofnature’) have high scarcity value, and somarkets are more willing to pay for theseproducts, compared with sites for whichseveral alternatives provide roughly similarexperiences. However, they point out thatwillingness to pay also reflects such experi-ence-enhancing features as presence andquality of accommodation, guide service,ground transportation and cooperative gov-ernments. UK ecotourists claim that eco-tourism holidays are not expensive (59.9%agreement overall) which ‘suggests that fre-

quent ecotourists were not concernedabout the expensive price, hence it was nota determinant during the decision makingprocess’ (Diamantis, 1998).

Willingness to pay is not the same thingas actual expenditures, but expenditurestudies support willingness-to-pay studies.Montana tourists interested in wildland-based activities spent 25–50% more perday than non-wildland tourists (Yuan andMoisey, 1992). Canadian ecotourists spentconsiderably more per day than generalCanadian travellers (Eagles and Cascagnette,1995). US outdoor/adventure travellersspent US$871 on average. Those who spentthe most had the highest incomes(US$1275) and were older (US$1461 over65s); those who spent least were aged25–34 (US$589) and had the lowest house-hold incomes (US$326). Also, men spentmore than women (US$908 vs. US$831)(TIAA, 1994).

Ecotourists have been found to have dif-ferences in expenditure characteristicsfrom other visitors going to the same nat-ural areas. For example, Leones et al.,(1998) found that nature tourists spendmore per trip in Sierra Vista, Arizona(US$177 per party), than other visitors(US$111) to the same natural areas, butthey stay longer; thus per diem expendi-tures are lower. Similarly, in Australia,nature-based visitors spend considerablymore while in Australia than other visitors,with average expenditure amounting toAU$2256 (13% more than that spent byother visitors, in part because of theirlonger duration of stay). But their averageexpenditure per night is only AU$78excluding tour costs (vs. AU$90 for allvisitors) (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

Ecotourists 45

Table 3.3. Trip length varies by activity (Blamey, 1995).

Nights by international visitors engaged in selected activities in Australia

Scuba- Rock- Horse riding/ Outback Bush diving/ climbing/ trail safari Wildflower All walking snorkelling mountaineering riding tours viewing visitors

49 37 58 74 64 44 23

Those strongly motivated to visitAustralia’s natural areas had the greatestexpenditures, with AU$3222 per personspent per trip (Table 3.4). Also, as in NorthAmerica, visitor expenditure varies byactivity, as well as by country of origin.Expenditures were greatest, on average, forhorse/trail riding, followed by outbacksafari tours, and rock-climbing/moun-taineering. Those markets who spend themost, on average, are Swiss, German,Scandinavian, other European, Canadian and‘other Asian’ (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

The essence of these studies is similar:ecotourists tend to spend more than theaverage traveller. However, while eco-tourists in general are willing to spend sub-stantially more than most tourists, theyexpect value for their expenditures. Theytend to be experienced, discerning trav-ellers who are willing to pay for qualityexperiences. The price that an ecotourismoperator charges may have little bearing onthe value of the product. As McKercherand Robbins (1998) and Laarman andGregerson (1996) have stated, it appearsthan many new operators base prices onthe component parts of the trip (cost pluspricing), whereas the level and quality ofpersonalized service offered is the truevalue, not those of the component parts(see Chapter 36).

Origins and Destinations

Destinations of interest

Popular belief, and much key research, hasdiscussed ecotourism in the context oftropical and developing countries as primeecotourism destinations. However, marketresearch on ecotourists draws a differentpicture (Wight, 1996; Blamey and Hatch,1998). Lew’s study (1998b) of 44 ecotourcompanies operating in the Asia-Pacificregion found that the top six destinationsin terms of popularity included Australiaand New Zealand (Table 3.5). In addition,this does not account for the free indepen-dent travellers’ (FIT) ecotourism destina-tion preferences in the region (e.g. 61% of

Australia’s total visitors were FIT). In theUK, Europe was the top continent of inter-est for ecotourists’ next ecotourism holiday(58%), related in part to air travel andexpenses (Diamantis, 1999). Ranked prefer-ences are shown in Table 3.6. The pre-ferred location for one-third of NorthAmericans’ next ecotourism vacation wasCanada (HLA/ARA, 1994). There are, infact, a huge range of current and potentialdestinations of interest to ecotourists.Attractiveness also varies with specific des-tination attributes and services.

Origins of ecotourists

There is no definitive information on eco-tourism market origins. However, based ondemand data, it is clear that the interna-tional market demands are centred inNorth America and Europe. Eagles andHiggins (1998) estimate from anecdotalsources that the most prominent countries

46 P.A. Wight

Table 3.4. Influence on trip expenditure of desire tovisit natural areas (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

Importance of ‘desire to visit natural areas’, as Expenditure motivator to visit Australia per trip (AU$)

Most important motivator 3222Major factor 2778Influence, but not major 1946Little or no influence 2202

Total nature-based trip expenditure (excluding tour costs) 2256

Table 3.5. Most popular Asia-Pacific destinations(Lew, 1998b).

Destination country Tour companies or region (%)

Indonesia 40.0India 32.5Australia 30.0Nepal 30.0Bhutan 25.0New Zealand 20.0

supplying ecotourists, in order of marketsize, are the USA, the UK, Germany,Canada, France, Australia, The Netherlands,Sweden, Austria, New Zealand, Norwayand Denmark. In addition, Japan, southernEurope and the newly industrialized Asiancountries are also generating increasingnumbers of ecotourists.

In Australia, a study of nature-basedtourists asked about the importance ofnature-based outdoor activities in destina-tion selection. Germans, Scandinaviansand Canadians were much more influencedby opportunities for nature activities thanother origin areas. The percentage ofnational park visitors was analysed as aproportion of total visitation from eachcountry, to determine those origins with ahigher than average propensity to visit.Although the largest numbers of visitors toAustralian national parks were from Asia, asmaller than average proportion from thismarket visited these sites. Japanese visitorsaccount for the largest percentage of partic-

ipants in most nature-based activities,because they account for a very large shareof total visitors (23%). They do not, how-ever, reflect a particularly high propensityto participate in such activities (Blamey,1995). British, US, German and Scandin-avian visitors appear to be more active par-ticipants in nature-based activities, relativeto visitors from other origins. Additionally,Blamey (1995) suggests that outback safaritours are most similar to ecotourismexperiences. Table 3.7 shows origin inter-ests by select experience.

Origin markets may vary with locationof ecotour companies. Lew (1998b) foundthat for Asia-Pacific ecotour companiesbased in the USA (22 of 44), the largestproportion of clients originated from theUSA (plus some from Australia and Canada).For companies based in Asia-Pacific (16),the main sources of clients were more var-ied, and included Australia, the USA andEurope. Asian sources (Japan, Indonesiaand the Philippines) were less important.

Ecotourists 47

Table 3.6. Preference, by continent, of UK ecotourists (Diamantis, 1999).

Destination continent UK frequent ecotourists (%) UK occasional ecotourists (%)

Europe 58.3 30.0Asia 49.6 24.3Americas 36.1 23.1Australia/New Zealand/Pacific 33.8 10.9Africa 31.9 11.7

Table 3.7. Origins of Australian visitors by experience interest (Blamey, 1995).

Country of % All % Non-national % National % Outback Degree of residence visitors park visitors park visitors safari visitors interest

UK and Ireland 11 8 14 22 More Germany 4 2 6 17 interestedUSA 10 7 12 13Other Europe 5 3 7 13Scandinavia 1 1 2 4Switzerland 2 1 3 7Canada 1 0 2 7Japan 23 25 21 8Other Asia 22 24 19 5 LessNew Zealand 17 22 10 2 interested

Domestic visitors

A neglected group of ecotourists are thosewho originate in the same country, domes-tic visitors. For example, in Australia,recent research found ecotourists to repre-sent nearly 30% of domestic travellers(Ecotrends, 1999). Similarly, in NorthAmerica as a whole, there is a high propen-sity to select domestic destinations for eco-tourism. This varied by country, with USArespondents regarding the USA and otherdestinations as almost equally attractive,while Canadian respondents by far preferto visit their own country for their nextecotourism trip (HLA/ARA, 1994) (Table3.8). Thus domestic ecotourism visitorsrepresent an important and hithertoneglected market.

Preferences

A survey of US travellers has found thatadventure and outdoor travellers are simi-lar to the general population of travellerswith respect to income, number of wageearners, education, occupation, householdsize and region of origin (TIAA, 1994). Itmay therefore be preference and motiva-tional features that mainly differentiateecotourists from other markets. Table 3.9shows preferences of ecotourists fromglobal survey information.

Activities

Typically, the most popular ecotourismactivities in all surveys are visitingnational parks, hiking, water-based activi-ties (especially rafting), admiring nature,

camping and touring. Additionally, cul-tural/aboriginal experiences may be ofinterest. Preferences also vary by site type.McNeely (1988), Dixon and Sherman(1990), and Laarman and Gregersen (1996)feel the main attraction for nature-basedtourism is publicly owned national parks,wildlife reserves and other protected areas(see Chapters 18 and 19). This is the mainactivity by international visitors toAustralia (50%). For Australian domesticmarkets, the most strongly supported recre-ational activity is bushwalking for all ages(< 54 years: 72.3% average; 55–64: 57.1%;> 65 years: 45.1%). Activity preferencesmay also vary by origin, age or gender.Interest may even vary within one destina-tion country, as shown in Table 3.10.

The HLA/ARA (1994) study of NorthAmerican ecotourists took into account thedynamic nature of markets, and asked forlast trip and next trip preferences.Ecotourism market interests changed.Activities which increased in attractive-ness for the next trip include: hiking/back-packing, boating, fishing, cycling andcamping. Of note is the fact that more gen-eral interest ecotourist preferences movedtowards preferences of the experiencedecotourist, supporting earlier suggestionsabout the mainstreaming of ecotourism.

Accommodation

Recent ecotourism research has found thatecotourism markets prefer more than theconventional hotel/motel options, or camp-ing. They desire more rustic, intimate,adventure-type roofed accommodation(such as bed and breakfasts, cabins, lodges,inns) which is a growing market trend

48 P.A. Wight

Table 3.8. Preferred country for ecotourism vacation (HLA/ARA, 1994).

Preferred destination (%)Total

Origin Canada (451) USA (417) All other (486) number (1354)

USA (5 cities) 21.5 38.5 40 970Canada (2 cities) 64 12 24 384

Ecotourists49

Table 3.9. Preferences of ecotourism and related travellers.

US adventure North American North American UK groupand outdoor general ecotourist experienced Australia frequent UK occasional

Market travellersa (next trip)b ecotouristb (next nature-based ecotouristsd ecotouristsd

characteristic N = 1172 N = 1384 trip) N = 424 touristsc N = 379 N = 247

Activity Camping (85%) Hiking (37%) Hiking (60%) All international Educational guided Admiring nature (76%)preferences Hiking (74%) Touring (20%) Rafting (25%) and visitors tours (72%) Observing animals (71%)

Skiing (51%) Camping (19%) other boating (13%) National parks (50%) Admiring nature (72%) Snorkelling (62%)Snorkel/scuba (30%) Boating (17%) Cycling (25%) Bushwalking (19%) Observing animals (68%) Educational guided Sailing (26%) Walking (17%) Camping (21%) Scuba/snorkelling (13%) Bushwalking (54%) tours (60%)Kayaking/white-water (24%) Fishing (16%) Wildlife viewing (15%) Aboriginal sites (11%) Adventure tours (46%) Natural photography Biking (24%) Scenery, other than Scenery other than Outback safari tours (3%) Nature photography (45%) (51%)Rock-climbing (18%) mountain/ocean (14%) mountain/ocean (13%) Rafting (2%) Observing flowers (40%) Camping (49%)Cattle/dude ranch (14%) Swimming (12%) Skiing (13%) Horse-riding (2%) Snorkelling (38%) Scuba-diving (48%)Hang-glide/parasail (8%) Other water (9%) Canoeing (13%) Rock-climbing/ Birdwatching (35%) Bushwalking (47%)

Local cultures (8%) Kayaking (13%) mountaineering (2%) Whale-watching (31%) Adventure tours (37%)Cycling (8%) Fishing (12%) Horse-riding (22%) Observing flowers (37%)

Local cultures (12%) White-water rafting (22%) Whale-watching (33%)Scuba-diving (22%) White-water rafting (28%)Rock-climbing (19%) Turtle-watching (26%)

Birdwatching (25%)Horse-riding (21%)

Accommodation No information 56% hotel/motel 66% cabin/cottage National parks visitors: 60% hotels/motels 53% tent17% camping 60% lodge/inn 70% hotel/motel 41% tent 41% hotels/motels14% lodge/inn 58% camping 42% friend/relative 32% cabins 25% bed and breakfasts14% cabins 55% bed and breakfasts 8% camp 30% bed and breakfasts 23% cabins10% bed and breakfasts 41% hotel/motel 8% backpacker hostel 29% ecolodges 19% ecolodges6% friends/relatives 40% ranch 6% rented house/flat 20% Inns 10% inns5% RVs 56% mid-range luxury 4% youth hostel 6% ranches 3% ranches60% mid-range luxury 38% basic/budget 58% mid-range luxury 48% mid-range luxury31% basic/budget 40% basic/budget 47% basic/budget

a TIAA, 1994; b HLA/ARA, 1994; c Blamey and Hatch, 1998; d Diamantis, 1998.

(Hawkins et al., 1995; Selengut, 1995; HLAConsultants, 1996; Wight, 1997; Diamantis,1998). The overall vacation experienceseems to determine the accommodationchoice.

In addition, preferences vary by activity,and by destination. In North America,those who prefer activities consideredmore as ‘ecotourism’ in nature (hiking,boating, camping or fishing) and experi-enced in relatively wild settings, weremore likely to select accommodation thattends to be found in those settings (tent,cabin/cottage) (HLA Consultants, 1996).The opposite was found for activities lessassociated with ecotourism. Similarly, themost common type of accommodation usedby all international visitors in Australia,

including nature-based visitors, ishotel/motels (69%), followed by the homeof a friend or relative (36%). However,nature-based visitors are significantly morelikely than other visitors to use backpackeraccommodation or to go camping, andshow at least a four times greater than aver-age preference for these accommodationtypes, as well as youth hostels and rentedcampervans. A recent study of UK eco-tourists also found that ecotourists preferhotels, but that alternative forms of accom-modation such as tents, cabins, bed andbreakfasts, ecolodges, etc. are also popular(Diamantis, 1998). It is probable that thelack of alternative more rustic and intimateaccommodation explains why hotels/motels rank quite highly. In terms of com-

50 P.A. Wight

Table 3.10. Interest areas by market origins to Canada (Tourism Canada, 1995).

Market Principal activities of interest in Canada

USA • sea kayaking (37%)• nature observation (36%)• whale-watching (30%)• scuba-diving (29%)• other wildlife viewing (24%)• birdwatching (19%)• canoeing (14%)• rock and ice climbing (13%)• hiking (12%)

Germans • canoeing (31%) and trail riding• other wildlife viewing (11%)• nature observation (6%)• scenery, national parks, forests and wildlife

French • culture and nature

British • canoeing

Japanese • nature observation, soft adventure/ecotourism• locations ‘abundant in nature’, with Canada’s attraction being:

– natural attractions (96%)– national parks (88%)– mountainous areas (88%)– seeing wildlife (83%)

Ontario • birdwatching, sea kayaking and canoeingQuébécois • scuba-diving (30%)British Columbia • hiking (39%)

• sea kayaking (17%),• climbing, hiking and scuba-diving to a lesser degree• whale-watching (15%)• nature observation (14%)

fort level, ecotourists appear to prefer mid-range luxury levels (60% in NorthAmerica, 58% in UK), followed bybasic/budget (31% in North America, 40%in UK) (HLA, 1996; Diamantis, 1998).

FIT vs. group ecotourists

There is an important conceptual distinc-tion between ecotourists who are FITs (freeand independent travellers) and those whogo on group tours. Studies tend to examineeither speciality tour operators and clients,or to examine all visitors to a destination.Exceptions include the North Americanmarket research which included separateecotourist and tour operator surveys(HLA/ARA, 1994), and the Australianresearch, where group tour travellers wereanalysed separately, both for volume andfor characteristics.

In Australia, 39% of all visitors cameinto the country on a fully pre-paid pack-age tour, although this varied by activity(Table 3.11). In addition, FIT travellers maytake tours once at their destination.Australian visitors, on average, partici-pated in three nature-based tours, but thisranged from one to four tours. Also, the ori-gin of visitors influenced the number oftours (Germans participated in 6.7,whereas Asian visitors participated in thefewest) (Blamey and Hatch, 1998). Allactivities except non-guided walks tendedto be part of an organized tour.

Lew (1998b) reports a large increase inFITs in the Asia-Pacific region. It is possi-ble that as ecotourism matures, this un-organized dimension will increase. Clearly,changes in ecotour markets are occurring.Asia-Pacific operators are seeing more peo-ple of varied ages and incomes taking eco-tours, leading to a softening of theadventure aspect of the tours, as well as anincreased market sensitivity to pricing. Byproduct modification, operators may attractor generate new markets, and operatorspredict the future broadening of marketdistribution channels, expansion of eco-tourism into new areas, and new productsfor FITs (Lew, 1998b).

Purpose, Satisfaction and Motivation

Reasons for ecotourism trip

Table 3.12 summarizes the reasons andmotivations for taking an ecotourism tripfrom various surveys. In all surveys, theprimary reasons largely revolve aroundexperiencing various elements of natureand scenery. Also prominent are new expe-riences, learning and exposure to local cul-tures. Even adventure/outdoors travellershad a strong interest in nature, with the55–66-year-olds more interested than aver-age in taking the trip because of an interestin the environment.

The location of residence, age and otherfactors may have considerable influence on

Ecotourists 51

Table 3.11. Fully inclusive prepaid package tour use.

Activity % Not on inclusive package % Package tours

Snorkelling 49 51Scuba 68 32White-water rafting 49 50Horse-racing/riding 60 40Rock-climbing/mountaineering 65 35National parks 57 43Aboriginal sites 62 38Bushwalking 67 33Outback safari tours 65 35Whale-watching 80 20All visitors 3,422,000 61% (2,097,300) 39% (1,324,700)

52P.A

. Wight

Table 3.12. Trip reason and motivations of ecotourism and related travellers.

US adventure North American North American UK group UK groupand outdoor general ecotourist experienced Australia frequent occasional

Market travellera (next trip)b ecotouristb (next Canadian nature-based ecotouristse ecotouristse

characteristic N = 1172 N = 1384 trip) N = 424 ecotouristsc touristsd N = 379 N = 247

Reasons, 71% fun and 45% scenery and 45% scenery and nature 1 wilderness/ 1 natural beauty 93% see natural 1 experience new andmotivations entertainment nature 22% new experiences/ undisturbed nature of sites environment different lifestyle

51% get away 28% new places 2 learn about nature 2 new experience 85% experience 2 explore area from it all experiences/places 16% land activities 3 tropical forests 3 wildlife local culture and be educated

21% thrill 16% been and 15% wildlife viewing 4 birds 4 close to nature 78% experience 3 increase knowledge15% try/learn want to return 14% see mountains 5 photography 5 different way of traditional and 4 meeting new people

something new 15% cultural attraction 11% wilderness 6 trees and experiencing nature natural lifestyles 5 outdoor activities14% interest in 15% see mountains 11% not crowded wildflowers 6 exciting 74% travel to wild 6 undisturbed natural

environment 14% study/learn 11% water activities 7 mammals experiences places on earth area7% learn/test nature and cultures 10% cultural attraction 8 national and 7 something to 70% survey/study 7 enjoy weather

something 13% relax and get 10% study/learn provincial parks tell friends natural habitats 8 study/admire/ about selves away from it all nature and culture 9 lakes and streams 8 educational/ 61% historical understand area

7% health 10 see maximum in learning experience attractions 9 interesting time available 9 being physically 59% experience countryside

11 mountains active unique exclusive 10 cultural attractions12 oceanside 10 chance to place 11 experience

escape crowds 45% outdoor/ tranquillity11 escape towns recreational activities 12 visit national

and cities 34% third world parkscountries

14% expensiveholiday

a TIAA, 1994; b HLA/ARA, 1994; c Eagles, 1992; d Blamey and Hatch, 1998; e Diamantis, 1998.

motivations and reasons for the trip. InAustralia, survey research found thatpeople living in the city have a greaterdesire to see somewhere different fromhome (55.9%) than people living in ruralareas (41.9%) (Ecotrends, 1999). Theopportunity to experience nature-basedoutdoor activities is a significant factorinfluencing visitors to Australia fromGermany, the UK and Ireland.

Motivations

Reasons for the trip are different from moti-vations. Motivations are associated withthe needs of the individual. Reasons fortaking a trip may be fairly broad, whereasmotivational information is more helpfulin differentiating ecotourists. In the USA,motivations varied by age amongoutdoor/adventure travellers (TIAA, 1994):

• the younger age group (39% of 18–24-year-olds vs. 21% of the total group)tended to look for the thrill;

• the older age group (30% of 55–64-year-olds, vs. 14% of the total group) tendedto have an interest in the environment;

• the middle ages (59% of 45–54-year-olds vs. 51% of total group) tended towant to get away from it all.

Eagles (1992) examined types of motivationfor group tour ecotourists, including attrac-tions (related to desired features/attractionsof the destination) and social factors(related to opinions on personal goals andinteraction with others). The motivationsthat are significantly more important togroup ecotourists are shown in Table 3.13.

According to several sources (Crossleyand Lee, 1994; Wight, 1996), motivationsthat differentiate ecotourists from moremass travellers include:

• uncrowded locations,• remote, wilderness areas,• learning about wildlife, nature,• learning about natives, cultures,• community benefits,• viewing plants and animals,• physical challenge.

Getting close to nature is a motivation forecotourism in Australia (Ecotrends, 1999).Recent research on ecotourists and poten-tial ecotourists has revealed three broadmarket segments (Bureau of TourismResearch, 1998). Each has different motiva-tions and different determinants of satisfac-tion (Table 3.14). What this researchstresses is the link between the motivationsof the segments, and the aspects whichdetermine satisfaction.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction is strongly related to meetingvisitor expectations, which are largely builton destination image. Images are partlyconnected with the landscape, and partlywith many other elements of the experi-ence. In this respect, it is important to notethe relative importance which ecotouristsplace on various experience elements.Service/activity importance ratings for gen-eralist and specialist North American eco-tourists are shown in Table 3.15. Walkingand wildlife viewing are clearly top priori-ties, as is visiting a park or protected area.This relates to the importance of settingand landscape to the ecotourism experi-ence. Important services appear to be thosethat are related to learning and cultures,guides, and interpretative education pro-grammes. Knowledgeable guides and goodeducation programmes or interpretivematerials are critical.

Ecotourists 53

Table 3.13. Motivations of group tour ecotourists(Eagles, 1992).

Significant motivations

• wilderness and undisturbed nature• lakes and streams• being physically active• mountains• national or provincial parks• experiencing new lifestyles• rural areas• oceanside• meet people with similar interests

54 P.A. Wight

Table 3.14. Australian ecotourism segments, motivations and satisfaction (Bureau of Tourism Research,1998).

Impulse markets Active market Personalized market

Characteristics• nature-based day trips away from • young-mid aged professionals • older professionals

main tourist destinations • usually book in advance • expecting more comfort• domestic and international • mainly domestic • international, overnight

bookings prior to arrivalMotivations• getaway from masses, small group • enjoy nature and scenic • interaction with • relax, fun, enjoyment wonder environment• nature-based tour • challenge and achievement • education and learning• best possible experience • no high comfort expectations • quality accommodation • convenient transport, no planning • clear, good pre-trip information and food with local • realistic brochure information • social interaction produce

• spontaneity and flexibility to • details associated with individual needs well-scheduled/organized

tour at premium priceSatisfaction determinants• see/experience as advertised • accomplishment more • desire to see/learn about • relax, fun, enjoyment significant the better known environment, local history, • hassle-free day, with pick-up the attraction sense of special experience

and drop-off • escape from daily stresses • maximum enjoyment • enhanced by environmental for time available

knowledge• learn how to contribute to

ecological sustainability

Table 3.15. Relative importance ratings, North American ecotourists (HLA/ARA, 1994).

Experienced ecotourist General interest ecotourist Travel trade

Wilderness setting Casual walking Wilderness settingWildlife viewing Wildlife viewing GuidesHiking/trekking Learn about other cultures Outdoor activitiesVisit national park/other Visit national park/other All inclusive packages

protected area protected area Parks/protected areasRafting/canoeing/kayaking on Wilderness setting Interpretive/educational

river/lake Hiking/trekking programmesCasual walking The importance of guides Cultural experiencesLearn about other cultures Interpretive education Communicate in client’s Participate in physically programmes language

challenging programmes CyclingThe importance of guides Participate in physically Interpretive education programmes challenging programmes

Klenosky et al. (1998) put forward themeans–end theory to develop a betterunderstanding of factors influencing parkvisitors’ use of specific interpretive ser-vices (i.e. individuals select products orservices that produce desired conse-quences or benefits, which are a function ofpersonal values). Thus the tourism productattribute is related to the benefits (or conse-quences) it provides, which are importantto satisfying personal values (the ‘ends’).They found that whatever the park product(self-guided trails, naturalist-led hikes orwalks, or night/overnight programmes),learning was the greatest benefit sought.Even in canoe or fishing programmes,learning was highest, together with doingsomething different. They found that envi-ronmental ethics were part of the productattributes that contributed to obtaining per-sonal benefits, for both the canoe/fishingprogrammes, and the self-guided trails.

Diamantis (1998) found that UK fre-quent ecotourists aim to be educated by theecotourism holiday (63.3%). In addition,91.3% agreed/strongly agreed with thestatement that the value of an ecotourismvacation is to ‘become more knowledge-able’ (the second highest score of all valuesexamined). However, he also found thatwhether or not frequent ecotourists wereseeking to increase their knowledge

depended on how concerned they wereabout the state of the natural environment.A recent Australian survey found that 62%of respondents will pay extra to go on atour with an expert guide (Ecotrends,1999). Sixty-nine per cent of all nature-based visitors report educational or learn-ing experiences were important or veryimportant to them. Table 3.16 shows theirlearning preferences. When nature-basedvisitors were asked about satisfaction aftertours, the friendliness/helpfulness of thestaff (86% very/somewhat satisfied) wasthe individual element that gave them themost satisfaction (Table 3.17). That whichgave highest dissatisfaction was the overallsize of tour numbers (6%).

Ecotourists 55

Table 3.16. Learning preferences of nature-basedvisitors (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

Learning preferences Importance (%)

1 seeing and observing animals, 97plants, landscapes

2 being provided with information 84about the biology/ecology of species

3 cultural and/or historical aspects 74of the area

4 information about geology/ 70landscapes

Table 3.17. Satisfaction with aspects of nature-based toursa (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

Very/somewhat Very/somewhat Element satisfied (%) dissatisfied (%)

Information about the natural environment 84a 1(plants, animals, geology, etc.)

Overall size of tour (numbers of participants) 74 6No. of guides on tour 84 1Value for money 80a 1Time spent at sites 76 4Quality of sites 82 1Friendliness/helpfulness of staff 86 —Food 65 5Measures to minimize environmental impacts of tours 75 1The whole tour 87 1

NB Table excludes those who didn’t know or felt neutral about evaluations.a Statistically significant aspects for 2 of 3 clusters of ecotourists examined.

One of the elements of ecotourism thatalso distinguishes it from many othertourism experiences is interpretation.Convincing arguments have been madethat quality interpretation helps to mini-mize the negative environmental impactsof tourism (Moscardo, 1996, 1998). It hasbeen noted that ecotourists tend to be expe-rienced/frequent travellers who demandmore from the experience, and are morelikely to seek learning and educationalcomponents in the tourism experience(Urry, 1990; Cleverdon, 1993; Poon, 1993;Moscardo, 1996; Aiello, 1998). Hence, it isnot surprising that the major source of dis-satisfaction in the ecotourism experience islack of interpretation, education or goodguiding (Almagor, 1985; Blamey andHatch, 1998). Roggenbuck and Williams(1991) and Aiello (1998) show that givingcommercial guides interpretive trainingand area knowledge improves tourist satis-faction. Also, satisfaction improves experi-ences for staff, company owners andgovernments/destinations (see Chapter 35).

Diamantis (1998) found that UK eco-tourists mainly expressed social intentionswhen participating in ecotourism holidays.In terms of values, he found them to bemotivated by maturity and internal values,such as ‘appreciate and respect the worldwe live in’. In Australia, mature travellersstrongly believe that learning about natureenriches life (80.1% for > 45 years), whilethis is a less important attitude for thoseunder 45 years (65.3%).

Social and environmental values

Ecotourists can be considered as a growinggroup of tourists who are shifting awayfrom the consumption of things, toward theconsumption of meaningful, learning andexperiential vacations. More are travellingfor self-improvement or self-enrichment, tolearn and acquire new interests andfriends, or to improve their physical andmental well-being. Part of the reason forthe surge in ecotourism has been increasedlevels of environmental awareness amongtravellers. The Center for Tourism Policy

Studies (1998) states that ‘there is likely tobe more development of eco-resorts asenvironmentally-conscious travel segmentsare expected to grow in the US as well asglobally’. Operators in the Asia-Pacificregion predict an increased awarenessabout environmentally friendly tourismoverall in the future. They also observe thatclients are more aware of social and envi-ronmental issues in the destination, andare generally interested in financially sup-porting local environmental conservationand social development projects, as shownin Table 3.18 (Lew, 1998b).

US ‘green’ travellers are willing tospend, on average, 8.5% more for travelservices and accommodation provided byenvironmentally responsible operators(Cook et al., 1992). In an analysis of thedata tables, it is found that those who tookan ecotourism trip are more likely (92%) tosupport environmentally responsible com-panies than non-ecotourists (86%). Resultswere similar for potential ecotourists(Table 3.19). Similarly, ecotourists weremore willing to pay extra for an eco-awarecompany, than the average traveller or non-ecotourist, and 46% would pay 6–20%more, whereas only 29% of non-ecotouristswould pay 6–20% more (Table 3.20). Table3.21 shows that frequent UK ecotouristswere mainly interested in social and con-servation-oriented elements in terms of theconsequences of their trip (Diamantis,1998). The realization that their visitscould disturb nature (85%) suggested thatfrequent UK ecotourists were a group oftravellers who understood the fragility ofsuch landscapes. Diamantis (1998) alsofound that while males and females were

56 P.A. Wight

Table 3.18. Willingness of clients to donate moneyto local environmental/social causes (Lew, 1998b).

Ecotour clients’ willingness to Number of contribute $ operators %

Very willing 14 38.9Somewhat willing 20 55.6Not interested or willing 2 5.6

both more concerned with social benefitsof ecotourism, females had more environ-mental and educational interests/concernsthan males.

Reaching Ecotourists

Publications read by ecotourists

Ecotourists are extremely well educated.Significant numbers read nature-relatedmagazines (61%) and experienced eco-tourists even more (72%), with the mostpopular being the National GeographicMagazine (Table 3.22). Other publicationswere related to fishing/hunting, clubs,

activities and travel, and such specialitypublications as The Educated Traveler:Directory of Special Interest Travel. Doublethe percentage of experienced ecotouristsread club publications than general con-sumers, since many more experiencedecotourists (50%) are members of organiza-tions than general consumers (11%)(HLA/ARA, 1994)

Membership in clubs/organizations

A potential avenue for reaching the eco-tourist is through nature-related organiza-tions or clubs. The experienced ecotouristin North America exhibits a much greater

Ecotourists 57

Table 3.19. Ecotourists, potential ecotourists and non-potential ecotourists: likelihood to support eco-awaretourism companies (US Travel Data Center Data Tables, 1991).

Did not take ecotourism tripTook Did

Support for eco- ecotourism not take Interest in future No potential for aware companies trip ecotourism trip ecotourism trip ecotourism trip

Somewhat/very likely to 92% 86% 94% 83%support companies

Not very/at all likely to 8% 14% 6% 17%support companies

Totals 63 886 262 624

Table 3.20. Willingness to pay extra for sightseeing tours by environmentally responsible travel suppliers(US Travel Data Center Data Tables, 1991).

% Extra willing Likely to take Not likely toto pay for eco-aware Total ecotourism take ecotourismcompanies travellers (%) trip (%) trip (%)

0 13.5 6.2 17.21–5 43.1 40.4 44.86–10 21.1 25.7 18.9

11–20 13.3 20.0 9.721–40 1.4 2.9 1.041–60 0.9 0.5 0.661–99 0.4 0.2 0.2

100 0.1 — 0.2DK 6.3 4.1 7.4Mean 8.4 9.7 7.4Total No. US travellers 963 271 634

propensity to belong to a nature-orientedclub or organization (50%) than the generalinterest ecotourist (11%). However, generalinterest ecotourists represent a large targetpopulation, so the actual numbers who aremembers of nature-oriented organizationsare by no means small (Table 3.23). It isinteresting to note that the experiencedecotourism traveller, while tending to pre-fer activity-related magazines, belongs tomore nature/wilderness-related organiza-tions. In the UK, Diamantis (1998) foundthat 22% of frequent ecotourists are mem-bers of an environmental group or society.Most of these (67%) are highly involved

ecotourists. For occasional UK ecotourists,Diamantis found that 37% belong to atleast one group, society or organization.Singles and those with higher than averageeducation are more likely to be members.

The information about reaching eco-tourists is helpful, but not critical, in termsof marketing. Packaging the right productfor the right market is very important, asare customer service, quality and value formoney. In addition, the ability to providequality interpretive guides, and to meetand exceed customer expectations is criti-cal (Pam Wight and Associates, 1999).

58 P.A. Wight

Table 3.21. Trip consequence interests (Diamantis, 1998).

% Consequences of ecotourism trip

96 • respect the local population and indigenous people93 • have awareness of the world’s natural environment85 • be concerned that your presence there may damage the natural environment82 • go again when possible75 • maintain environmental standards for future holiday makers63 • create a memory that normal holidays could not give61 • contribute actively in conservation of these areas56 • be more energetic and adventurous54 • feel calm and relaxed51 • feel travel companies just use the word ‘eco-holidays’ to attract more people

Table 3.22. Publications read (HLA/ARA, 1994).

General Experienced consumer ecotourist

% of total sample which reads such publications

61 72Publication % (540 respondents) % (271 respondents)

National Geographic 35 17Outdoor Lifea 10 36Club publications 7 15Fishing/hunting related 6 2General natureb 5 3Field and Stream 5 —General travel 5 6General activity/sports 5 14Wildlife related 4 3

NB Multiple responses were permitted.a Refers to Outdoor Life/Outdoors/Outside/Outdoor Canada.b Refers to nature/natural history publications.

Conclusions

Ecotourism is a complicated subject,involving specialized niche markets thatmay share many characteristics, prefer-ences and motivations, or vary by thesesame attributes. Markets today reflectgreater sophistication, as well as changinglifestyles, attitudes, values and interests.They exhibit well-defined expectations,and seek new experiences and purposes fortravel based on these diverse interests andpreferences. Destinations and operatorsneed to be able to provide convenience andcustomization for these diverse markets.

Ecotourism markets are not homoge-neous. However, it may be that ecotourismmarkets cannot be segmented well at theglobal level. For example, Diamantis (1998)found in the UK that ecotourists were fre-quent or occasional, in North America,HLA/ARA found ecotourists were moregenerally interested or experienced. It maybe that particular destinations attract cer-tain ecotourist segments. In any event, pre-vious studies have revealed a variety ofsegments with distinctive differences and

similarities, as summarized in Tables 3.2,3.9 and 3.12.

While this chapter has attempted thechallenge of analysing and summarizingglobally significant market studies, itshould be pointed out that the applicationof these findings requires care. Like anyother travellers, ecotourists at the aggregatelevel tend to be educated, time-poor, anddesire value for money. They are interestednot simply in a menu of choices, but inquality customer services, customization,interpretation by knowledgeable guides, asense of authenticity, and opportunities toexperience a number of destination areas,all conveniently packaged or available tothe FIT.

Ecotourism markets are dynamic. Theyhave changed somewhat in the last decade,and are likely to continue to refine theirpreferences and seek benefits related totheir motivations, as well as to supportcompanies which provide experienceswhich support their social and environ-mental value systems. Operators (commu-nities and destinations) must increase thevalue of their products, and respond to the

Ecotourists 59

Table 3.23. Membership in organizations/clubs (HLA/ARA, 1994).

General Experienced consumer ecotourist

% of total sample which belongs to club/organization

11 50Club/organization % (153 respondents) % (189 respondents)

Sierra Club 18 34Outdoor activity club 13 11Nature organizationa 10 37Audubon Society 5 17Other wildlife organizationsb 10 8Fishing and hunting 6 —Greenpeace 5 2Worldwide Fund for Nature 4 3National Wildlife Federation 4 3Boy/Girl Scouts 4 —

NB Multiple responses were permitted, therefore total percentage may exceed 100%.a Refers to nature/naturalist/conservation/park organizations.b Refers to organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and wilderness societies.

needs and preferences of ecotourists. It ishow the market findings provided in thischapter are applied, which is relevant,

and this will vary by each operation/destination.

60 P.A. Wight

References

Aiello, R. (1998) Interpretation and the marine tourism industry, who needs it?: a case study of GreatAdventures, Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies 9(1), 51–61.

Almagor, U. (1985) A tourist’s ‘Vision Quest’ in an African game reserve. Annals of Tourism Research12, 31–48.

ARA Consulting Group, Eureka Tourism and Hospitality Management Consultants and the TourismResearch Group (1991) Yukon Wilderness Adventure Travel Market Awareness Study. YukonDepartment of Tourism, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Backman, K.F. and Potts, T.D. (1993) Profiling Nature-Based Travelers: Southeastern MarketSegments. Strom Thurmond Institute, South Carolina.

Blamey, R. (1995) The Nature of Ecotourism, Occasional Paper No. 21. Bureau of Tourism Research,Canberra.

Blamey, R. and Hatch, D. (1998) Profiles and Motivations of Nature-Based Tourists Visiting Australia,Occasional Paper No. 25. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.

Bureau of Tourism Research (1998) Ecotourism Snapshot: a Focus on Recent Market Research. Officeof National Tourism, Australia.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1998) Introduction. In: Lindberg, K., Epler-Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds)Ecotourism: a guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society, NorthBennington, Vermont, pp. 7–10.

Center for Tourism Policy Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa (1998) Repositioning Hawaii’sVisitor Industry Products. Prepared for the Department of Business, Economic Development andTourism, Hawaii Tourism Office.

Charters, T. (1999) Environmental Tourism Manager for Tourism Queensland, quoted in Ecotrends,March.

Cleverdon, R. (1993) Global tourism trends: influences, determinants and directional flows. WorldTravel and Tourism Review 3, 81–89.

Cook, S.D., Stewart, E. and Repass, K., US Travel Data Centre (1992) Discover America: Tourism andthe Environment. Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, DC.

Crossley, J. and Lee, B. (1994) Ecotourists and mass tourists: a difference in ‘benefits sought’.Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference, Bal Harbour, Florida.

Diamantis, D. (1998) Ecotourism: characteristics and involvement patterns of its consumers in theUnited Kingdom. PhD dissertation, Bournemouth University, UK.

Diamantis, D. (1999) The characteristics of UK’s ecotourists. Tourism Recreation Research 24(2),99–102.

Dixon, J.A. and Sherman, P.B. (1990) Economics of Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC.Eagles, P. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 31(2),

3–7.Eagles, P. (1995) Understanding the market for sustainable tourism. In: McCool, S. and Watson, A.E.

(eds) Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Sustainability. Special session of the Annualmeeting of the National Recreation and Park Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota,12–14 October. General Technical Report INT-GTR-323, USDA Intermountain Research Station,Ogden, Utah.

Eagles, P.F.J. and Cascagnette, J.W. (1995) Canadian ecotourists: who are they? Tourism RecreationResearch 20(1), 22–28.

Eagles, P.F.J. and Higgins, B.R. (1998) Ecotourism market and industry structure. In: Lindberg, K.,Epler Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2.The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Epler Wood, M. (1998) New directions in the ecotourism industry. In: Lindberg, K., Epler Wood, M.and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. TheEcotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Hawkins, D., Epler Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (1995) The Ecolodge Source book for Planners andDevelopers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

HLA Consultants (1996) Ecotourism Accommodation: an Alberta Profile. Alberta EconomicDevelopment and Tourism, Edmonton, Alberta.

HLA Consultants and The ARA Consulting Group (1994) Ecotourism – Nature/Adventure/Culture:Alberta and British Columbia Market Demand Assessment. Canadian Heritage, Industry Canada,British Columbia Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Alberta EconomicDevelopment and Tourism, and the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia.

Klenosky, D.B., Frauman, E., Norman, W.C. and Gengler, C.E. (1998) Nature-based tourists’ use ofinterpretive services: a means-end investigation. Journal of Tourism Studies 9(2), 26–36.

Laarman, J.G. and Durst, P.B. (1993) Nature tourism as a tool for economic development and conser-vation of natural resources. In: Nenon, J. and Durst, P.B. (eds) Nature Tourism and Asia:Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation and Economic Development. USDA, ForestService, USAID, USDA, Office of International Cooperation and Development, Washington, DC,pp. 1–19.

Laarman, J.G. and Gregersen, H.M. (1996) Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. TourismManagement 17(4), 247–254.

Leones, J., Colby, B. and Crandall, K. (1998) Tracking expenditures of the elusive nature tourists ofSoutheastern Arizona. Journal of Travel Research 36(3), 56–64.

Lew, A. (1998a) Ecotourism Trends. Annals of Tourism Research 25(3), 742–746.Lew, A. (1998b) The Asia-Pacific ecotourism industry: putting sustainable tourism into practice. In:

Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. AddisonWesley Longman Ltd, Harlow, UK.

Liu, J.C. (1994) Pacific Islands Ecotourism: a Public Policy and Planning Guide. University ofHawaii, The Pacific Business Center Program, Honolulu.

McKercher, B. and Robbins, B. (1998) Business development issues affecting nature-based tourismoperators in Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2), 173–188.

McNeely, J.A. (1988) Economics and Biological Diversity. International Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

Moscardo, G. (1996) Mindful visitors. Annals of Tourism Research 23(2), 376–397.Moscardo, G. (1998) Interpretation and sustainable tourism: functions, examples and principles.

Journal of Tourism Studies 9(1), 2–13.Pam Wight and Associates (1999) Catalogue of Exemplary Practices in Adventure Travel and

Ecotourism. Prepared for the Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa.Parker, T. (1993) Nature tourism in Nepal. In: Nenon, J. and Durst, P.B. (eds) Nature Tourism and

Asia: Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation and Economic Development. USDA,Forest Service, USAID, USDA, Office of International Cooperation and Development.Washington, DC, pp. 21–30.

Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. CAB International, Wallingford,UK.

Reingold, L. (1993) Identifying the elusive ecotourist. In: Going Green, a supplement to Tour andTravel News (October 25), 36–39.

Roggenbuck, J.W. and Williams, D.R. (1991) Commercial tour guides’s effectiveness as nature educa-tors. Paper presented at the World Congress on Leisure and Tourism, Sydney.

Selengut, A. (1995) ‘Foreword’. In: Hawkins, D., Epler Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (eds) The EcolodgeSource Book. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. v-vi.

Tourism Canada (1995) Adventure Travel in Canada: an Overview of Product, Market and BusinessPotential. Tourism Canada, Canada Directorate, Ottawa, February.

Tourism Queensland (1999) Ecotrends March, quoting a survey commissioned by the EnvironmentalTourism Department of Tourism Queensland.

Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA) (1994) Adventure Travel: Profile of a Growing Market,conducted by US Travel Data Center, Washington, DC.

Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London, UK.US Travel Data Center (1991) Tourism & The Environment Study Tables. TIAA, Washington, DC. Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1995) Extreme, extravagant and elite: a profile of ecotourists on

Earthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 29–36.Wight, P.A. (1993) Sustainable ecotourism: balancing economic, environmental and social goals

within an ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies 4(2), 54–66.

Ecotourists 61

Wight, P.A. (1995) Planning for success in sustainable tourism. Invited presentation to ‘Plan forSuccess’, National Conference of the Canadian Institute of Planners, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,2–5 June.

Wight, P.A. (1996) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Second in atwo-part series for Journal of Travel Research 34(4), 2–10.

Wight, P.A. (1997) Ecotourism accommodation spectrum: does supply match the demand? TourismManagement 18(4), 209–220.

World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1994) Global Tourism Forecasts to the Year 2000 and Beyond:East Asia and the Pacific, 4. WTO, Madrid.

WTO News (1997) Eco-tourism: a Rapidly Growing Niche Market December/January.http://www.world-tourism.org/newslett/decjan97/decjan6.htm

WTO News (1998) Ecotourism, Now One-Fifth of Market January/February. http://www.world-tourism.org/newslett/janfeb98/ecotour.htm

Wylie, J. (1994) Journey Through a Sea of Islands: a Review of Forest Tourism in Micronesia. USDAForest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Wylie, J. (1997) Tourism and the Environment. Executive Development Institute for Tourism,University of Hawaii at Manoa, 23–24 June. Quoting J. Mass (1995) Ten travel trends and whatyou can do about them. Travel Industry Association of America National Conference.

Yuan, M.S. and Moisey, N. (1992) The characteristics and economic significance of visitors attractedto Montana wildlands. Western Wildlands Fall 18(3), 20–24.

62 P.A. Wight

Chapter 4

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism

D.E. Hawkins and K. LamoureuxSchool of Business and Public Management, The George Washington University,

Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Even before Thomas Cook began theworld’s first travel agency in 1841 (Gartner,1996) or before the first group of youngEuropean men took their once in a lifetime‘Grand Tour’, humans have been inclinedto travel or participate in tourism activities.Regardless of the reasons why we travel –religious practice, social interaction,leisure activities, cultural exchange or justplain curiosity – people like to travel. Proofof this can be found in the fact that thedemand for travel and tourism services isgrowing at a faster rate than ever before.

As tourist numbers increase around theworld, so do the types of activities theychoose to undertake during their trip.While ‘traditional’ tourism still exists andcontinues to grow, ‘new’ types of tourism,or alternative tourism, such as ecotourism,cultural/heritage, educational or healthtourism have emerged, as well. Not onlydoes the market for these new types oftourism exist, but trends indicate that themarket for alternative tourism is growingfaster than could be imagined. Tourists areseeking more out of their precious vacationtime than just relaxation. Advances in bothtransportation and communication haveopened new doors, allowing us to travelfurther and experience more of the world,than ever before.

The focus of this chapter is the growthand magnitude of ecotourism. However, inorder to better understand how ecotourismis growing, it is important to look briefly atthe tourism industry in general. Just likeother forms of tourism, ecotourism isdependent upon a series of global andregional trends that dictate the ability anddesire people will have to travel in thefuture. Past trends have shown that factorssuch as available leisure time, disposableincome, and education, among others,influence the amount and type of tourisman individual or group will partake in. Byanalysing both past and projected data forthe general tourism industry, we can notonly forecast upcoming tourism trends, butalso trends in specific types of tourism.

The Tourism Industry

The World Tourism Organization (WTO)estimates that by the year 2020 there willbe 1.6 billion international tourist arrivalsworldwide, spending over US$2 trillion.This means that globally, arrivals will con-tinue to grow at an average of 4.3% andspending at 6.7% per year. This surpassesthe maximum probable expansion in theworld’s wealth estimated at a 3% increase

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 63

per year (WTO, 1988a). Regardless ofwhether these estimates are realistic or not,it is obvious that tourism, growing at anexorbitant rate, has yet to reach its fullpotential.

Travel and tourism is also one of theworld’s fastest growing economic activities.According to the World Travel and TourismCouncil (WTTC), tourism is ‘expected tocontribute 10.8% to the global grossdomestic product in 2000 (US$3.6 trillion),rising to 11.6% or US$6.6 trillion by 2010’(World Travel and Tourism Council, 2000).They also estimate that capital investmentfor tourism will reach US$701 billion or9.4% of total investment in 2000 and reachUS$1.4 trillion or 10.6% of total by 2010(WTTC, 2000). The WTTC also estimatesthat travel and tourism-related jobs in 2000will reach 192 million, accounting for over8% of global employment. Over 59 millionnew jobs will be created over the next 10years (WTTC, 2000).

Tourism arrivals and receipts

According to the WTO (1998b, 1999)between 1989 and 1998, internationaltourism arrivals grew at an average annualrate of 10% and international tourismreceipts (excluding transport) at 9% (Fig.4.1). Annual percentage increases declined

significantly in all markets during the1990–1995 period due to the Gulf War anda poor global economy. When comparing1997 with 1998, market increases occurredin all major outbound markets with theexception of the East Asia/Pacific region,primarily due to the Asian economic crisisof 1997. International arrivals are projectedto increase from 673 million in 2000 to1.05 billion in 2010, and 1.6 billion in2020. These forecasts are based on annualgrowth rates of 4.2% to the end of the1990s and between 4 and 5% during thefirst decade of the 21st century.

Regional Breakdown

Given the information above, it is difficultnot to believe, barring a huge disaster, thattourism will demonstrate continued growththroughout the world. Tourism destina-tions, however, are likely to change.According to the WTO, Europe will con-tinue to be the largest receiving region wellinto 2020 but will decline from 59% of themarket share to 49%. As Table 4.1 indi-cates, East Asia and the Pacific region willpass the Americas, as the second largestreceiving region. Africa, the Middle Eastand South Asia are projected to increase ata slower rate of 5%, 4% and 1%, respec-tively, by 2020 (WTO, 1998b).

64 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

01989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Arrivals (millions)Receipts (US$ billions)

Fig. 4.1. International tourist arrivals and receipts: 1989 to 1998 (WTO, 1999).

Speciality Market Forces

Travel motivations are major push factorsin determining what kind of tourism peo-ple will seek. Overall the tourism market isbecoming increasingly segmented withmany new tourism alternatives. ‘The newconsumers want to be involved – to dis-cover new experiences, to interact with thecommunity, and to learn about and appre-ciate the destination at more than a superfi-cial level’ (Jones, 1998). In response to thistrend, destinations are increasingly target-ing their tourism product at specific mar-kets or ‘speciality travel markets’. Below isa list (International Institute of TourismStudies, 1999) of some of these specifictypes of tourism; however, in many cases adestination is able to develop its tourismproduct in such a way as to satisfy variousdifferent markets simultaneously.

• Ecotourism. Increasingly, parks, naturereserves and natural settings are becom-ing popular tourist destinations. Thedevelopment of environmentally sensi-tive hotels and resorts responds to thefast growing ecotourism markets and thegeneral public’s awareness of environ-mental preservation and sustainability.Sustainability is to improve the qualityof life today without destroying it forfuture generations.

• Cultural and heritage tourism. Cultureand history are the most popular oftourist activities. Experiencing differentcustoms and lifestyles, learning abouthistorical cultures, visiting historic

sites, folklore and theatre characterizesthis type of tourism.

• Adventure tourism can range from highto soft adventure and, in that order,includes activities such as mountainclimbing, scuba-diving or walking alongpark trails.

• Health tourism. Natural hot springs,weight reduction.

• Sports tourism. Tennis, golfing, WorldCup football, Olympic events.

• Cruise ship. 81% sail from NorthAmerican ports. US$18 billion in 1997,205 ships. 8.5% growth since 1990 inNorth America, Europe growing rapidly.

In 1997, WTO Secretary GeneralFrancesco Franigialli confirmed that evenas tourism in general continues to growdramatically, the area of greatest expansionis that of speciality travel. Specifically, hestated that ‘trends show a higher than aver-age increase in new types of tourismincluding ecotourism and all nature-relatedforms of tourism, which today account forapproximately 20% of total internationaltravel’ (WTO, 1998c). This is not to say thattraditional tourism, such as mass tourismto amusement parks or beaches will ceaseto exist. The fact remains that there willalways be a market for traditional tourism;however, consumer preferences are expand-ing to alternative forms of vacationing,often as an ‘add-on’ to more ‘traditional’tourism activities.

According to the Adventure TravelSociety, ‘Special interest travel is now thefastest growing segment of the travel

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 65

Table 4.1. Forecast of international tourist arrivals 1995–2020 (World Tourism Organization, 1998b).

Tourist arrivals (millions)

Regions 1995 2000 2010 2020

Europe 335 390 527 717East Asia/Pacific 80 116 231 438Americas 110 134 195 284Africa 20 27 46 75Middle East 14 19 37 69South Asia 4 6 11 19Total 563 692 1047 1602

market. It has grown 12% annually overthe past 5 years. The last decade broughtincreased levels of physical fitness and agrowing respect and concern for the envi-ronment’ (Adventure Travel Society, 1998).It has been largely acknowledged thattourists are looking for more out of theirvacation. Just as people’s tastes vary, sodoes their willingness to experiment,whether that is by trekking through anAmazon jungle, taking a class aboutAustralian aboriginal culture or observingsea turtles in Costa Rica.

Ecotourism and Nature-basedTourism

Many have said that ecotourism is one of thefastest growing, if not ‘the’ fastest growingtype of ‘new tourism’. Trends indicate thatthe growth of ecotourism coupled with thelarger market segment of nature tourism farsurpasses that of tourism in general. Whilethe lack of clear differentiation between eco-tourism and other forms of nature tourismmakes tracking ecotourism development dif-ficult, it is obvious that travel to naturalareas is increasing at a tremendous rate. In1996, the WTO predicted that there wouldbe an 86% increase in tourism receipts, ofwhich the majority would come from ‘active,adventurous, nature and culture-relatedtravel’ (Honey, 1999).

In economic terms, the WTO announcedin 1997 that ‘ecotourism is worth US$20billion a year’ at the World EcotourConference. Although this amount pales incomparison to tourism’s estimated US$3.6trillion contribution to the global grossdomestic product, it still represents a sub-stantial portion of total tourism receipts(WTO, 1998c). Some examples (mainly inNorth America) of the magnitude of eco-tourism or nature tourism follow.

At the same time, travellers seem to bewilling to pay for an ‘eco’ experience. In arecent study, Travel Industries of America(TIA) found that ‘83% of all American trav-ellers are inclined to support ‘‘green’’ com-panies and are willing to spend, onaverage, 6.2% more in travel services and

products provided by environmentallyresponsible travel suppliers’ (TIA, 2000).Another study of North American travelconsumers in 1994 showed that ‘77% hadalready taken a vacation involving activi-ties related to nature, outdoor adventure, orlearning about another culture in the coun-tryside or wilderness. Of the 23% remain-ing who had not, all but one respondentstated that they were interested in doingso’ (Wight, 1996).

Ecotourism Indicators

As previously mentioned, ecotourism isoften ‘clumped’ together with other formsof nature tourism making it difficult tograsp its real magnitude and growth rate. Inthe absence of some of the traditional mea-surement tools often used to calculate gen-eral tourism expansion, those wishing tomeasure ecotourism growth must employother indicators, which do provide insightinto the current and future magnitude ofthe sub-industry. The following indicatorsinclude growth in ecotourism education,international recognition and regional sup-port, international funding opportunities,and growth in tourism eco-certification andeco-labelling programmes. Each of theseindicators provides a glimpse beyond thetraditional statistical analysis, into the cur-rent position of ecotourism and itsexpected future growth.

Increase in ‘nature-motivated’ tourismvisitation worldwide

Visitation to ecotourism or nature tourismdestinations is on the increase worldwide.More and more destinations are trying to‘jump’ on the nature tourism ‘bandwagon’.Many destinations are experiencing anincreased number of visitors looking toinclude eco-activities in their vacation.Demand for destinations that include nat-ural elements such as national parks andlocal parks, forests, waterways and otherscontinues to increase. For example, accord-ing to a 1998 Travel Poll by TIA, ‘National

66 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

parks are one of America’s biggest attrac-tions. Nearly 30 million US adults (20% oftravellers or 15% of all US adults) took atrip of 100 miles or more, one-way, to visita national park during 1997–1998.Residents of the Rocky Mountain region ofthe US were the most likely to visit anational park with 37% saying theyincluded a park visit while travelling (dur-ing 1997–1998)’ (TIA, 2000). Although notall of the activities undertaken at theseparks can be considered ecotourism,according to TIA ‘a large share of thesetravellers (70%) participated in outdooractivities while visiting the national parks.Among these outdoor activities, hiking(53%) was the most popular, followed bycamping (33%) and fishing (19%)’ (TIA,2000). TIA also found that ‘one-half of USadults, or 98 million people, have taken anadventure trip in the past 5 years. Thisincludes 31 million adults who engaged inhard adventure activities like white-waterrafting, scuba-diving and mountain biking.Adventure travellers are more likely to beyoung, single and employed compared toall US adults’ (TIA, 2000).

As visitation to natural areas increases,including ecotourism visitation, so doesthe demand for travel professionals toaccommodate these tourists. Over the lastfew years there has also been an increase intourism professionals, such as travelagents, tour operators, tour guides, etc.,that focus either on the ecotourism or atleast, the nature tourism markets. Today, itis not difficult to find a tour operator thatspecializes in an ‘eco-niche’ such as bird-watching or hiking, among others.

At the same time, travel industry organi-zations have also developed around thistrend. Some of these groups includePartners in Responsible Tourism (PIRT),The Ecotourism Society (TES), BusinessEnterprises for Sustainable Travel (BEST),along with other regional ecotourism soci-eties, such as in Australia, Pakistan, etc.These are just examples of the growingnumber of travel industry affiliated organi-zations developed to address differentaspects and issues related to this growingtrend for tourism to natural areas.

Growth in ecotourism education

Tourism, in general, is a relatively newfield of study. Only in the last half a cen-tury or so, has tourism studies gainedrecognition as a social science. Twenty-five years ago, the George WashingtonUniversity was one of the first colleges inthe world to offer a graduate level degree intourism administration. Today, there arenumerous institutions around the world,offering everything from undergraduateand graduate degrees to tourism certificateor diploma programmes. In addition togeneral tourism education, training specificto speciality tourism such as ecotourism isalso expanding. In 1999, the EcotourismSociety put together a sample list of uni-versities in the US, Canada and the UK thatoffer programmes or courses in ecotourism.In these three countries alone, there areover 25 institutions of higher learninginvolved in ecotourism training (Eco-tourism Society, 1999) Of course, eco-tourism training is not limited to these fewcountries. Ecotourism-specific education isgaining recognition throughout the worldin both developed and developing coun-tries. The Commonwealth Department ofTourism in Australia also offers a list ofprogrammes in Australia. In addition, uni-versities in Costa Rica, Ecuador and Ghanaare just some of the many institutionsworldwide delivering post-secondary eco-tourism education.

International recognition and regional support

Internationally and regionally, naturetourism and ecotourism are gaining publicawareness. Internationally, one of the great-est ‘achievements’ of the ecotourism indus-try is to have 2002 declared the‘International Year of Ecotourism’ by theUnited Nations (UN). The UN also declared1999 to be the ‘Year of SustainableTourism, Small Island States and theOcean’. The choice of ecotourism specifi-cally only 3 years later, is not only a great success for industry, but it also

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 67

signifies the gradually accepted distinctionbetween sustainable tourism and eco-tourism on the international developmentlevel.

Regionally, many governments haveadopted either ecotourism strategies withintheir national tourism plan or implementedecotourism-specific development projects.The Vietnamese government planned toadopt a ‘National Ecotourism Strategy’ in1999, designed to highlight ecotourism as anational development priority. The govern-ment of Nepal implemented a 5-yearManaslu Ecotourism Project designed tobuild infrastructure, help local communi-ties benefit from tourism and at the sametime help to conserve the environment(Shrestha, 1997). In the US, the Environ-mental Protection Agency has begun atourism industry-wide discussion on sus-tainable tourism development. The inten-tion of this project is to create a workingdialogue aimed at promoting sustainabletourism development and management byidentifying what impediments and oppor-tunities for sustainability the tourismindustry is currently faced with.

According to the WTO, Brazil ‘launcheda US$200 million program to develop eco-logical tourism in the Amazon’ in 1997.The programme was funded by the Inter-American Development Bank, with a focuson private sector investment in Amazonecotourism, and the expansion andimprovement of conditions for ecotourismwithin this area (WTO, 1998c). Ecotourisminvestment made by the Brazilian govern-ment in 1996 totalled US$3 billion.However, in terms of gross domestic prod-uct, this was less than Costa Rica, theDominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Chileand Argentina, for example. Brazil expectsthat investment levels in ecotourism willreach US$12 billion in 1999 (WTO, 1998c).

In addition to international agreementsand discussions, such as the UN’s Councilfor Sustainable Development, there are agreat number of smaller strategies takingplace on a national or regional level tostimulate tourism at the micro-enterpriselevel and promote business linkagesintended upon developing alternative

tourism, such as ecotourism, that isplanned from the beginning with the localcommunity and the sustainability of theindustry, as the prime benefactors. Some of the strategies that are already being implemented include the following (DFID,1999):

• The Fiji Tourism Development Plan hasbegun a programme of removal of redtape and regulations that suppress theinformal sector.

• Some South African national andprovincial parks have facilitated accessto markets for local entrepreneurs byproviding opportunities to initiate suit-able lodging outside the park or smallbusiness endeavours or advertisinginside the park. The South African gov-ernment asks potential investors to sub-mit their plans for boosting localdevelopment when they bid for atourism lease.

• Enhanced community participation inareas where tourism is being used as atool for economic development, such asthe north coast of Honduras.

At the same time, strategies currently beingemployed throughout the world at the non-governmental level include the following(DFID, 1999):

• Provide credit and non-financial ser-vices for micro-enterprise.

• Build the capacity of poor people toassess tourism options.

• Facilitate communication and negotia-tion between the tourism industry andlocal people.

• Understand tourism businesses so theyare well positioned so that all stakehold-ers are satisfied.

Some examples of the initiatives beingtaken by business to enhance linkagesinclude (DFID, 1999):

• out-source contracting (e.g. laundry,transportation, food service, watersports concessions);

• support local enterprise;• encourage tourists to visit local sellers;• develop partnerships with communities;

68 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

• enhance partnerships with donors,NGOs and governments.

International funding or aid

One of the strongest indicators that eco-tourism, and more generally, sustainabletourism, are gaining worldwide recogni-tion, is the increasing amount of fundingavailable for these endeavours. Officialdevelopment financing or aid is usuallymobilized through multilateral (representa-tive of several governments) institutions,bilateral (one government) agencies, orregional development banks. Many of theseinstitutions have begun to incorporate sus-tainable tourism development into largerregional or national sustainable develop-ment projects. Some of the organizationsthat have accepted sustainable tourism as aviable economic device for developmentinclude the World Bank, UN, USAID, andthe European Union.

In the past, tourism has received ‘mixedreviews’ from various development organi-zations, largely due to the bad reputationthe industry has acquired from poorlyplanned, non-sustainable tourism develop-ment. This problem occurs when tourismis developed without stakeholder partici-pation and planning. Often, tourism pro-jects that are deemed ‘economicallybeneficial’ are not necessarily socially orenvironmentally beneficial, nor do the eco-nomic benefits fall to those most closelyaffected by the development. While it istrue that this type of non-sustainabletourism development still occurs through-out the world, the popularization of alter-native tourism development such asecotourism or cultural heritage tourism, isonce again allowing tourism to be acceptedas an economic tool for sustainable devel-opment (International Institute of TourismStudies, 1999).

Increased participation in tourismdevelopment on the part of internationalfunding is particularly important to theworld’s poorest countries. According to theUK’s Department for International Develop-ment (DFID), ‘while poor countries com-

mand a minority share of the internationaltourism market, tourism can still make asignificant contribution to their economy’.Of the earth’s poor ‘80% live in 12 coun-tries (under $1 per day). In 11 of these,tourism is significant and/or growing’.Furthermore, for the world’s 100 poorestcountries, ‘tourism is significant in almosthalf the low income countries and virtuallyall the lower-middle income countries(accounting for over 2% of GDP or 5% ofexports)’ (DFID, 1999).

Some of the key projects developed orbeing developed by major multi-lateral ornational funding organizations are explainedbelow. It is important to note that the mostsignificant aspect of this particular indica-tor is the recent acceptance and continuedgrowth of tourism as a means for stimulat-ing economic growth, reducing poverty,and in the case of ecotourism, protectingthe environment.

In 1995, the World Bank boasted thatsince the 1992 Earth Summit, they hadbecome the ‘world’s leading financier ofenvironmental projects in the developingworld’ (Honey, 1999). Recently, the WorldBank Group, which includes theInternational Finance Corporation (IFC)and the Multilateral Investment GuaranteeAgency (MIGA), has begun to formallyreintroduce sustainable tourism as a toolfor economic, social and environmentaldevelopment. It is important to note thatthe IFC never stopped funding tourism pro-jects, as did the World Bank, although eco-tourism does not account for a largeportion of their agenda (Honey, 1999). TheIFC has devoted a special unit to generaltourism development, which has investedover US$600 million in loans and equityinvestments for general tourism develop-ment projects (Honey, 1999). MIGA onlybegan its involvement with ecotourism in1994 with the Rain Forest Aerial Tram inCosta Rica (Honey, 1999). Below is a list ofsome examples of World Bank projects thatinclude ecotourism development:

• Lesotho-Maloti-Drakensberg TransfrontierConservation and Development AreaProject

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 69

• Uganda-Protected Areas Managementand Sustainable Use Project

• Madagascar-Second Environment ProgramSupport Project

• Panama Atlantic Biological Corridor• Costa Rica Development of Ecomarkets• Georgia-Integrated Black Sea Environ-

mental Project• Indonesia-Maluku Conservation & Natural

Resources Management Project.

The UN has also become involved withtourism projects through the UnitedNations Development Program (UNDP),which is the world’s largest multilateralsource for development cooperation(UNDP, 1999) and the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF). GEF was established as ajoint international effort to help solveglobal environmental problems. The GEFTrust Fund was established by a WorldBank resolution as a joint programmebetween the United Nations DevelopmentProgram, UNEP and the World Bank(UNDP, 1999).

In 1992, UNDP launched the GEF SmallGrants Program (GEF/SGP). The GEF/SGPprovides grants of up to US$50,000 andother support to community-based groups(CBOs) and non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) for activities that addresslocal problems related to the GEF areas ofconcern. Since its inception, the GEF/SGPhas funded over 750 projects in Africa,North America and the Middle East, Asiaand the Pacific, Europe and Latin Americaand the Caribbean. Today, the programmeis operational in 46 countries (ChristopherHoltz, Washington 1999, personal commu-nication). Here are a few tourism projectsfrom their small-grants portfolio:

• Belize: Red Band Scarlet MacawConservation and Tourism DevelopmentProject. Project dates: June 1997–May1998

• Brazil: Training Program for IncomeGeneration and Environmental Educationfor Communities near the Chapada dosVeadeiros National Park. Project dates:September 1997–February 1998

• Chile: Training and Capacity Building inTourism

• Costa Rica: Community-Based Eco-tourism for Conservation of the MarineTurtle and Marine Resources inGandoca. Project dates: February 1997–February 1998

• Dominican Republic: Ecotouristic Pro-motion with Gender Participation onEcological Transept Los Calabozos-LaGuazara in High Watershed Yaque delNorte River. Project dates: September1997–February 1998

• Dominican Republic: SustainableEcotourism and Environmental Educa-tion in the Surrounding of Los HaitisesNational Park. Project dates: September1997–September 1998

• Zimbabwe: Umzingwane EcotourismProject. Project dates: October 1997–October 1998.

The two groups discussed above, the WorldBank and the UN, are arguably the largestinternational funding organizations onEarth. However, there are a number ofnational or governmental aid organizationssuch as USAID in the US, JICA in Japan,DFID in the UK and many others. Each ofthese programmes also provides develop-mental funding to other countries aroundthe world, including the funding of sus-tainable tourism projects.

In addition to multilateral or govern-mental aid, many not-for-profit organiza-tions, particularly those involved inconservation and wildlife protection, havealso begun to incorporate tourism and eco-tourism into their strategic planning. Laterin this book the role of not-for-profit orga-nizations will be discussed at length, there-fore it is not necessary to go into too muchdetail here on the efforts of the NGO com-munity. However, it is worth mentioningthat many governmental or internationallyfunded tourism projects are generallydeveloped in conjunction with or at leastunder the guidance of a not-for-profit orga-nization, either locally or internationally.

70 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

Green certification and eco-labels for tourism

In general, the tourism industry is depen-dent on the environment for its sustainabil-ity and makes extensive use of the naturaland cultural resources in its area of opera-tion. The industry’s prosperity is thussomewhat dependent on the conservationand responsible use of the environment.Several organizations including govern-ment organizations, not-for-profit industryorganizations and NGOs have addressedthe issue pertaining to environmental con-servation and best practices within thetourism industry by introducing ecola-belling and green certification schemes.Each certification programme defines crite-ria and standards that enhance efficiencyand reduce overuse and wastage. Eachscheme is unique in that the certificationperiod varies and may range from 1 to 3years. Evaluation methods also vary fromscheme to scheme. Although there is abun-dant information on the criteria required toparticipate in these schemes, there is ashortage of information on the evaluationmechanisms and duration period of eachscheme. The individual certification pro-grammes are discussed in greater detailbelow (United Nations EnvironmentProgram, 1998).

• PATA Green Leaf (Asia-Pacific). This is agreen certification scheme developed bythe Pacific Asia Travel Association,which is an industry association.

• Tyrolean Environmental Seal of Quality(Austria and Italy). This scheme is pro-moted by Tirol Werbung and SudtirolWerbung, which are public authoritiesoperating in the area of accommodationand catering.

• Green Globe (International). This pro-gramme was developed by the WTTC,which is an industry association andfocuses on all industries within thetourism sector.

• The Audubon Cooperative SanctuarySystem (International). This scheme ispromoted by Audubon International,which is a non-governmental associa-tion.

• Blue Flag (Europe). This certificationscheme is promoted by the FoundationFor Environmental Education in Europe,which is a non-governmental organiza-tion and is aimed primarily at thepreservation and responsible use ofbeaches in Europe.

• We Are an Environmentally-friendlyOperation (Germany). This certificationscheme is promoted by the DeutscherHotel and Gaststatten Verbans DEHOGA(Hotel and Restaurant Association ofGermany), which is an industry associa-tion operating in the field of lodging andcatering.

• Committed to Green (Europe). This cer-tification scheme has been developed bythe European Golf Association’s EcologyUnit.

• Ecotel (International). This scheme hasbeen developed by HVS Eco Services,the environmental consulting divisionof HVS dedicated exclusively to the hos-pitality industry.

• British Airways Tourism for TomorrowAwards (International). These awardshave been developed by British Airwaysand are directed at tour operators, indi-vidual hotels and chains, national parksand heritage sites and other activitiesassociated with tourism in order to pro-mote the responsible use of the environ-ment by these agencies.

• Code of Practice for EcotourismOperators (Regional). This code wasdeveloped in 1991 by the EcotourismAssociation of Australia, a not-for-profitorganization, to develop ethics and stan-dards for ecotourism and to facilitateunderstanding and interaction betweenthe tourist, host communities, thetourism industries and government andconservation groups.

Conclusion

In its early stage of development, eco-tourism was regarded as a completely newconcept. However, today, as we can seefrom the indicators highlighted here, theareas of both ecotourism and nature

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 71

tourism have become a significant portionof the tourism industry in general. Growingenvironmental awareness worldwide, pairedwith advances in transportation and com-munication, will only help to foster futureecotourism growth. The markets for thesetypes of sustainable tourism are likely toexpand as more people in the worldachieve the financial resources needed totravel. In addition, ecotourism develop-ment will continue to expand and increasein importance as more communitiesaround the world begin to accept it as anessential strategy for their overall sustain-able development plan.

Thirty years ago, the term ‘ecotourism’did not exist. In 2000, ecotourism was

practised on every one of the Earth’s conti-nents. There is no doubt that the industrymade tremendous strides in the last part ofthe 20th century. However, there is stillmuch to be done. ‘Green cloaking’, mis-managed or poorly planned projects andlack of education, are just some of theobstacles ‘real’ ecotourism must overcomein order to continue to serve its purpose.Strong leadership, solid foundations andidealistic principles have brought eco-tourism to where it is today. We need torecommit to the promise of ecotourism sothat future generations can enjoy sustain-able tourism experiences which producesound economic, social and environmentaloutcomes.

72 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

References

Adventure Travel Society, Inc. (1998) Adventure Travel Society Information Packet. The AdventureTravel Society, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) Tourism and Poverty Elimination:Untapped Potential. DFID, London.

The Ecotourism Society (1999) Ecotourism Education University and College Fact Sheet.Bennington, Vermont, pp. 2–6.

Gartner, W.C. (1996) Tourism Development: Principles, Processes and Policies. Van NostrandReinhold, New York.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

International Institute of Tourism Studies (1999) Tourism Investment Promotion and Facilitation.Draft. The George Washington University, Washington.

Jones, C.B. (1998) The new tourism and leisure environment: a discussion paper. EconomicsResearch Associates, San Francisco.

Shrestha, M. (1997) Can Trekkers Help Manaslu? People and Planet 6 (4).Travel Industries of America (TIA) (1999) Fast Facts. TIA web site: http://www.tia.org/press/

fastfacts8.stm Washington.Travel Industries of America (TIA) (2000) Travel Trends. TIA web site: http://www.tia.org/Travel/

TravelTrends.asp Washington.United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (1999) About UNDP. http://www.undp.org.br/

pnudmund ING.htm?BI=UNDP New York.United Nations Environment Program (1998) Ecolabels in the Tourism Industry. United Nations

Environment Program Industry and Environment, Paris.Wight, P. (1996) North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics. Sage

Publications, California.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1998a) Global Tourism Forecasts. World Tourism Organization,

Madrid.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1998b) Tourism 2020 Vision. World Tourism Organization,

Madrid, pp. 3–11.World Tourism Organization (1998c) Ecotourism. In: WTO News Jan/Feb Issue I. World Tourism

Organization, Madrid.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999) Tourism Highlights 1999. World Tourism Organization,

Madrid.World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2000) World Travel and Tourism Council Year 2000 TSA

Research Tables. World Travel and Tourism Council, London.

Chapter 5

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types

D.B. WeaverSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia

Introduction

The term ‘ecotourism’ has been used in theliterature and by the tourism industry sincethe mid-1980s, and during this time has co-evolved along with a number of relatedterms, including ‘nature-based tourism’,‘adventure tourism’, ‘alternative tourism’,‘trekking’, ‘non-consumptive tourism’ and‘sustainable tourism’. Such terms are oftenused synonymously with ecotourism, lead-ing to a confusion in semantics that hin-ders the development of tourism as acoherent field of studies with its own logi-cal network of distinct tourism categories.At the same time, ecotourism and suchterms as ‘mass tourism’ and ‘3S’ (sea, sand,sun) tourism are typically seen as beingmutually exclusive. The purpose of thischapter is, firstly, to consider the variousperspectives on the relationship betweenecotourism and the other terms cited abovethat have emerged since the 1980s.Secondly, as a basis for future discussion,Venn diagrams are used to suggest appro-priate relationships between ecotourismand each of these terms.

The chapter begins with the terms thatare essentially descriptive, in that theyindicate the relevant resource base, attrac-tions and activities used by that sector (i.e.

‘nature-based tourism’, ‘adventure tourism’,‘trekking’ and ‘3S tourism’). These are fol-lowed by the terms that connote certainvalues or end results (i.e. ‘alternative’ or‘mass’ tourism, ‘sustainable tourism’, and ‘non-consumptive’ or ‘consumptivetourism’). ‘Mass tourism’ has both adescriptive and a value component, but isconsidered under the second categorybecause of its status as a counterpoint toalternative tourism. The net result of sucha structure is to clarify both the descriptiveand evaluative dimensions of ecotourismwithin the context of this constellation oftourism categories.

Nature-based Tourism

Ecotourism was often portrayed in theearly literature (e.g. Boo, 1990; Shermanand Dixon, 1991; Whelan, 1991; WTTERC,1993) as being indistinguishable from‘nature-based’, ‘nature-oriented’ or ‘nature’tourism. This tendency was no doubt fos-tered by the equation of ‘nature’ with a rel-atively unspoiled natural environment, andwith the close association between eco-tourism and that same sort of environment.However, even at that early stage, someanalysts such as Ziffer (1989) argued for

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 73

the differentiation between ecotourism andnature-based tourism on the grounds thatthe former implied adherence to a particu-lar set of sustainability values. In contrast,nature-based tourism according to Ingramand Durst (1987) is simply leisure travelthat involves utilization of the naturalresources of an area.

This early recognition of a distinctionbetween ecotourism and nature-basedtourism is now more normative in the liter-ature and among practitioners (e.g.Goodwin, 1996; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1998).Fennell (1999) suggests a growing consen-sus around the view that ecotourism is butone component within the latter broad cat-egory. The breadth of options that isaccommodated within the ‘nature-basedtourism’ category is apparent in Goodwin(1996), who includes 3S-type masstourism, adventure tourism and trekking,as well as ecotourism. To this array couldbe added hunting and fishing, which areseldom described as forms of ecotourism.More open to debate is the specification ofecotourism’s ‘territory’ within the nature-based tourism realm, which depends uponthe extent to which one accepts interac-tions with nature that are ‘soft’ and high-volume as a legitimate component ofecotourism (see discussion on masstourism below). Beyond this question ofscale and intensity of interaction, eco-tourism is differentiated from other formsof nature-based tourism by such factors assustainability (that is, nature-based tourismis not necessarily sustainable) and thenature of the interaction between thetourist and the attraction, as discussedbelow.

The Venn diagram depicted in Fig. 5.1puts forward the view, with one majorqualification, that ecotourism is a subset ofnature-based tourism. The fact that eco-tourism is not subsumed entirely underthis category recognizes that certain pastand present cultural attractions may consti-tute a secondary component of ecotourism.Such a view, for example, is contained inthe original definition of ecotourism pro-vided by Ceballos-Lascuráin (in Boo, 1990).The logic of incorporating this cultural

component is best demonstrated withrespect to the influence and presence ofindigenous cultures, wherein the boundarybetween culture and nature may be per-ceived as cloudy at best, and arguably evenas an entirely artificial construct.

Adventure Tourism

As with nature-based tourism, the term‘adventure tourism’ has sometimes beenused interchangeably with ecotourism (e.g.Kutay, 1989). Others, such as the CanadianTourism Commission, have included‘nature observation’ and ‘wildlife viewing’under the adventure tourism umbrella(Fennell, 1999). However, more usually,adventure tourism is differentiated by itsemphasis on three factors:

• an element of risk in the tourism experi-ence (Ewart, 1989; Hall, 1992; Fennell,1999);

• higher levels of physical exertion by theparticipant (Ewart, 1989); and

• the need for specialized skills to facili-tate successful participation.

Although there is a tendency in the litera-ture to associate adventure tourism withnatural settings (Sung et al., 1996/97), thisform of tourism also has a connection with

74 D.B. Weaver

Nature-based tourism

Ecotourism

Fig. 5.1. Nature-based tourism and ecotourism.

non-nature-based venues. This is demon-strated by tourist activities that involveinteraction with remote cultures, or withsituations involving conflict (as inFielding’s the World’s Most DangerousPlaces guidebook – Pelton, 1999).

On the nature side, activities typicallyassociated with adventure tourism includewhite-water rafting, wilderness hiking, sky-diving, sea-kayaking, caving, orienteering,mountain climbing, diving and hang-gliding (Sung et al., 1996/97). Aside fromthe characteristics listed above, the essen-tial factor that tends to place such activitieswithin adventure tourism, and not eco-tourism, is the nature of interaction withthe surrounding natural environment.Whereas ecotourism places the stress on aneducative or appreciative interaction withthat environment or some element thereof,adventure tourists are primarily interestedin accessing settings that facilitate thedesired level of risk and physical exertion.Steep mountain slopes, wilderness settingsand white-water rapids, in this view, arevalued primarily for the personal thrillsand challenges that they offer, not for theirscientific interest or associated species ofwildlife.

However, there are of course many situ-ations where the ‘adventure tourist’ isequally interested in the above qualities.Similarly, there are many ‘ecotourists’ whoare willing to incur an element of risk inorder to access or experience a particularnatural attraction. Examples include thewilderness hiker who seeks to find someundisturbed habitat, or the birdwatcherwho takes physical risks in order toobserve a rare bird of prey in its highmountain habitat. Accordingly, the rela-tionship between ecotourism and adven-ture tourism is one of partial overlap, asdepicted in Fig. 5.2. The reason for provid-ing only a limited scope for overlap is theprobability that only the ‘harder’ and morededicated forms of ecotourism, whichaccount for only a very small proportion ofall ecotourism activity (see Chapter 2), willentail a significant element of risk. If mini-mal-risk ‘soft adventure’ activities areallowed, which encompasses just about

any interaction with the natural environ-ment, then the overlap will of course be much greater (Canadian TourismCommission, 1997).

Trekking

‘Trekking’ is a form of tourism activity usu-ally associated with mountainous venuessuch as the Himalayas and northernThailand (Cohen, 1989; Rai and Sundriyal,1997; Weaver, 1998). A trek typicallyentails some combination of distance hik-ing, visits to local villages, adventure expe-riences (such as using rope bridges to crossstreams) and nature/scenery appreciation(Dearden and Harron, 1994). Hence, trekkingcan legitimately be portrayed as an amal-gam that incorporates, in varying degrees,elements of cultural tourism, ecotourismand adventure tourism (see Fig. 5.3). Whileadvocating that ecotourism should main-tain its focus as a distinct tourism type,Fennell (1999) acknowledges that suchcombinations, which he describes as ACEtourism (adventure, cultural, ecotourism),are preferred by some practitioners andmarketers over terms such as ecotourism.At least two related factors account for thispopularity. Firstly, there are many circum-stances where it is virtually impossible todifferentiate in any meaningful way amongthe three components; the distinctions, forexample, are not likely to be made by thetourists themselves as they simultaneouslyengage in cultural, nature-based andadventurous activities. Secondly, such a

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 75

Adventure tourismEcotourism

Fig. 5.2. Adventure tourism and ecotourism.

synthesized tourism product may be popu-lar among consumers seeking a diversifiedand more holistic tourism experience, asopposed to one that is perceived to bemono-directional and overly specialized.Another example of such an acronym,coined as a result of similar concerns, andalso applicable to trekking, is the conceptof NEAT tourism (nature, ecotourism andadventure tourism) (Ralf Buckley, 1999,personal communication).

3S Tourism

With its resource base of ‘sea, sand andsun’, 3S tourism clearly fits within the cat-egory of nature-based tourism. However,given its affiliation with mass tourism andits emphasis on hedonism, a link is rarelymade with ecotourism, which is usuallypositioned at the opposite end of thetourism spectrum in terms of motivation,impact and scale (see below). Despite thisapparent incompatibility, there is onemajor cluster of activities that account foran area of overlap. This group includesscuba-diving, skin diving, snorkelling, sub-marine tours and other types of marineobservation. Such activities are commonlyassociated with 3S-oriented vacations, yetcan be entirely consistent with widely

accepted definitions of ecotourism if theyfocus on the observation of the marineenvironment and are pursued in a sustain-able manner. This is not to say that marineobservation is necessarily a form of eco-tourism, but rather that there is no inherentgrounds for exclusion on the basis of aclose association with 3S tourism. The casefor a linkage is strengthened by historicaltrends in the diving sector that have seen amovement away from consumptive activi-ties such as spear-fishing (which is nowillegal in many recreational diving venues)toward the passive viewing of marinefauna. As well, marine protected areas aregrowing in importance as a preferred non-consumptive diving venue (Tabata, 1991;Davis et al., 1996).

The amount of overlap provided in Fig.5.4 attests to the importance of diving as arapidly growing component of tourism,and hence of ecotourism (Tabata, 1991).This linkage between the two sectors is notmerely a matter of incidental interest, sinceit leads to the need for a major reassess-ment of the overall magnitude of eco-tourism, its composition, and of itsimportance within destinations that are notusually associated with the sector. The lat-ter include stereotypical 3S locales such asthe Cayman Islands, the British VirginIslands and the Bahamas (Weaver, 1998), aswell as the Egyptian coastal resort ofSharm-el-Sheikh, where divers in the mid-1990s accounted for about 50,000 of200,000 visitors in total (Hawkins and

76 D.B. Weaver

Cultural tourism

Ecotourism

Adventure tourism

Trekking

Fig. 5.3. Trekking and ecotourism.

3S Tourism

Ecotourism

Fig. 5.4. 3S Tourism and ecotourism.

Roberts, 1994). In addition, specializeddiving venues such as Saba (NetherlandsAntilles) and Palau would need to be morefirmly repositioned as specialized eco-tourism destinations if the diving thatoccurs there is recognized as a form of eco-tourism.

Alternative Tourism and Mass Tourism

The discussion of ecotourism within thecontext of alternative tourism cannot bedivorced from the context of mass tourism,and hence the two are discussed togetherin this section. Within the tourism litera-ture, ecotourism is commonly regarded as aform of ‘alternative tourism’ that places itsemphasis on natural rather than culturalattractions (e.g. Goodwin, 1996; Weaver,1998). To appreciate this value-based link-age, it is necessary to review some of themajor conceptual developments that haveoccurred in the field of tourism studiessince the 1960s. In brief, the post-warperiod was dominated by an ‘advocacyplatform’ that tended to view tourismuncritically as an economic benefit to mostdestinations. This perspective both con-doned and encouraged the emergence ofthe mass tourism sector (Jafari, 1989).During the 1970s, the advocacy platformwas challenged by a ‘cautionary platform’that regarded mass tourism in a far morecritical light because of its purported nega-tive impacts.

The next logical step in this evolutionwas the emergence in the early 1980s of the‘adaptancy platform’, which introduced theconcept of ‘alternative tourism’ as a morebenign alternative to mass tourism (Dernoi,1981; Holden, 1984; Gonsalves, 1987).Typically, the relationship between the twoforms of tourism was depicted in dialecti-cal and dichotomous terms, with alterna-tive tourism clearly being the ‘good’option, and mass tourism the ‘bad’ option(Lanfant and Graburn, 1992; Clarke, 1997)(Table 5.1). With the two types of tourismconceived in this way, ecotourism is logi-cally subsumed under alternative tourism,

with the remainder of the latter categorybeing accounted for by mainly socio-cul-tural forms of alternative tourism such asvacation farms, homestays, feminist travel,etc. Mass tourism stands in relationship tothis model as a mutually exclusive cate-gory of tourism, separated by what Clarke(1997) describes as a conceptual barrier.

As stated above, this structure, depictedin Fig. 5.5, is the one that has been preva-lent in the literature. However, this per-spective is now being increasinglychallenged in conjunction with changingviews about the nature of the relationshipbetween alternative tourism and masstourism. In effect, this view suggests thatthe alternative tourism and mass tourismideal types are merely the poles of a con-tinuum, and that the movement from oneto the other is therefore a matter of subtletransition rather than abrupt boundary.This rethinking, which also entails areassessment of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ valuesassigned to each of the ideal types (see thesection on sustainable tourism below), iscoherent with yet another shift in philoso-phy within tourism studies, to what Jafari(1989) describes as a more objective‘knowledge-based platform’.

As the line between alternative andmass tourism becomes increasingly vague,so too does the boundary between eco-tourism and mass tourism. For many acad-emics and practitioners, the concept of‘mass’ or ‘large-scale ecotourism’ is an oxy-moron or a betrayal of principle. Yet, whileit is logical to assume that a small-scaleecotourism enterprise is more likely tomeet the requirements of sustainability inmost circumstances, there is no inherentreason why a large-scale product cannot besustainable, while simultaneously meetingthe other criteria assigned to ecotourism.Upon closer examination, one can identifyadditional grounds for including some por-tion of ecotourism activity under the cate-gory of mass or large-scale tourism:

• ‘Soft’ ecotourism activity in some desti-nations is in practice already largeenough in volume to warrant the labelof mass tourism (without its negative

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 77

value connotations), while remainingcoherent with the principles of sustain-ability. This situation is evident in manypopular protected areas, where stringentzoning regulations and site-hardeningtactics facilitate a high but apparentlysustainable volume of visitation (seeChapter 18). The argument has evenbeen made that higher volumes of visita-tion create the economies of scale andrevenue flow that justify the implemen-tation of sophisticated managementtechniques that facilitate sustainableoutcomes. In addition, they help to posi-tion ecotourism as a resource stake-

holder capable of lobbying governmenton a more equal foothold with tradi-tional resource users such as agricul-ture, mining and logging.

• Many if not most ‘soft’ ecotourism par-ticipants are mass tourists engaged insuch activities as part of a broader,multi-purpose vacation that often placesthe emphasis in the 3S realm. Most eco-tourism activity in the high profile eco-tourism destinations of Costa Rica andKenya, for example, fits into this cate-gory (Weaver, 1999). Moreover, itappears that the possibility of accessingboth the well-serviced beach-based

78 D.B. Weaver

Table 5.1. Mass tourism and alternative tourism: ideal types as portrayed by the advocacy platform (Weaver, 1998).

Characteristic Mass tourism Alternative tourism

MarketsSegment Psychocentric–midcentric Allocentric–midcentricVolume and mode High; package tours Low; individual arrangementsSeasonality Distinct high and low seasons No distinct seasonalityOrigins A few dominant markets No dominant markets

AttractionsEmphasis Highly commercialized Moderately commercializedCharacter Generic, ‘contrived’ Area specific, ‘authentic’Orientation Tourists only or mainly Tourists and locals

AccommodationSize Large scale Small scaleSpatial pattern Concentrated in ‘tourist areas’ Dispersed throughout areaDensity High density Low densityArchitecture ‘International’ style; obtrusive, Vernacular style, unobtrusive,

non-sympathetic complementaryOwnership Non-local, large corporations Local, small businesses

Economic statusRole of tourism Dominates local economy Complements existing activityLinkages Mainly external Mainly internalLeakages Extensive MinimalMultiplier effect Low High

RegulationControl Non-local private sector Local ‘community’Amount Minimal; to facilitate private Extensive; to minimize local

sector negative impactsIdeology Free market forces Public interventionEmphasis Economic growth, profits; Community stability and well-

sector-specific being; integrated, holisticTimeframe Short term Long term

resorts and the natural attractions ofwell-known protected areas is a primarymotivation for these tourists to visitthose two countries, rather than coun-tries that are wildlife-rich but service-poor.

This evidence suggests that the emergingrelationship between mass tourism andecotourism may be moving in the directionof synthesis, convergence and symbiosis.As shown in Fig. 5.6, ecotourism can serveto strengthen the mass tourism product byoffering opportunities for diversificationthat are especially attractive in the light ofthe increased ‘greening’ of the tourist mar-ket. As well, ecotourism, with its roots inthe cautionary and adaptancy platforms,can help to impart an ethos of sustainabil-ity and environmental awareness to themainstream sector, thus assisting its move-ment in the direction of sustainability

(Ayala, 1996; Clarke, 1997). In turn, masstourism supplies a large market of soft eco-tourists that helps to position ecotourismas an important stakeholder capable of lob-bying on an equal footing with stakehold-ers in other sectors such as agriculture andlogging. Furthermore, as mentioned above,the mass tourism industry can introducesophisticated environmental managementstrategies to ecotourism that Clarke (1997)suggests are beyond the capability of mosttraditional small-scale ecotourism opera-tions.

The relationships fostered by this lessconventional perspective are depicted inFig. 5.7. All tourism is depicted by a singlecircle, within which smaller-scale, alterna-tive tourism-type products constitute onerelatively small component that graduallygives way to large-scale tourism (the dottedline represents the presence of a transitionzone rather than a sharp boundary).Ecotourism is positioned as a diverse activ-ity that overlaps both the alternative andmass tourism components of the circle,thereby encompassing all options from thelone wilderness hiker (hard ecotourism) tothe busload of resort patrons engaged in ahalf-day excursion to a local wildlife inter-pretation centre (soft ecotourism).

Without doubt, this association betweenmass tourism and ecotourism is controver-sial, and is a linkage not likely to beuniversally embraced by ecotourism stake-holders. One counter-argument holds thatthe disparity in power between the twosectors will mean that the influence ofmass tourism over ecotourism is likely to

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 79

Mass tourism

Ecotourism

Alternative tourism

Fig. 5.5. Alternative tourism and ecotourism:conventional approach.

• Imparts sustainability/environmental ethos to mainstream• Provides diversification opportunities for mass tourism

• Attractive to an increasingly ‘green’ tourist market

Ecotourism Mass tourism

• Provides sufficient market and revenue flows to position ecotourism as a major resource stakeholder, with significant lobbying clout

• Introduction of effective environmental management systems

Fig. 5.6. Converging and symbiotic relationship between ecotourism and mass tourism.

be much greater than the reverse situation,and that mass tourism will therefore effec-tively appropriate ecotourism for its ownpurposes. This, however, assumes a cau-tionary platform model of large-scaletourism as a sector guided by sinisterintentions and essentially unaffected bythe positive dimensions of the sustainabil-ity paradigm. It would follow from thisassumption that the outcomes of such anannexation would be unsustainable, andtherefore ecotourism could not becomeestablished on the mass tourism side of thetourism spectrum.

Sustainable Tourism

The concept of ‘sustainable tourism’ hasproven to be just as or even more con-tentious than ecotourism or alternativetourism since its introduction in the late1980s. While the idea of sustainability hadbeen alluded to much earlier in the tourismliterature, the appearance of the term ‘sus-tainable tourism’ itself followed the releaseof the so-called ‘Brundtland Report’ in1987, which popularized the concept of‘sustainable development’ (WCED, 1987).In emulation of its namesake, sustainable

tourism was and still is broadly conceivedas tourism that does not threaten the eco-nomic, social, cultural or environmentalintegrity of the tourist destination over thelong term (Butler, 1993). Since no one islikely to disagree in principle with thisgoal, it is not surprising that sustainabletourism has emerged as the ‘great impera-tive’ of the global tourism sector.

In its initial conception, sustainabletourism was commonly perceived as beingsynonymous with alternative tourism, inkeeping with the philosophy of the cau-tionary and adaptancy platforms (Clarke,1997). Accordingly, ecotourism, as a subsetof alternative tourism, was also regarded asa subset of sustainable tourism. However,how is this set of relationships affectedonce ecotourism is extended into the realmof large-scale or mass tourism, as depictedin Fig. 5.7? Under the cautionary and adap-tancy perspectives, such an extension is acontradiction, as such activity would ceaseto meet the criterion of sustainability. Theknowledge-based platform, in contrast, de-emphasizes the relationship between scaleand sustainability; small-scale operationscan be bad or good, depending on the waythat they are managed, while the same canbe said for large-scale operations (Weaverand Lawton, 1999). The core criterion ofsustainability can therefore be retainedwhen ecotourism is extended into the masstourism arena, and ecotourism remains asubset of sustainable tourism (Fig. 5.8),since sustainability is one of the core eco-tourism criteria. The actual positioning ofthe sustainable tourism circle in this figure,however, concedes that alternative tourismis at present more likely than mass tourismto be sustainable, with the qualificationthat the entire issue of sustainability isfraught with uncertainty.

Consumptive and Non-consumptiveTourism

The distinction between ‘consumptive’ and‘non-consumptive’ activity has long beenrecognized in the tourism and outdoorrecreation literature. Non-consumptive activi-

80 D.B. Weaver

Mass tourismEcotourism

Alternative tourism

Fig. 5.7. Alternative tourism, mass tourism andecotourism: emergent approach.

ties are commonly perceived as those thatoffer experiences to the market, while con-sumptive activities offer tangible products(Applegate and Clark, 1987). Activitiessuch as hunting and fishing (except per-haps for ‘catch and release’ fishing) arecommonly identified as being consump-tive, while ecotourism-related activitiessuch as birdwatching are usually perceivedas experiential, and hence non-consump-tive.

Vaske et al. (1982), among others, havequestioned the merit of this dichotomousapproach, and have suggested instead thatactivities fall along a consumptive–non-consumptive continuum, and that all activ-ities actually incorporate elements of both.This is illustrated by the observation thatmost hunting excursions actually end with-out any kills being achieved, and that theaesthetic experiences of being in a rural orsemi-wild environment are rated just ashighly by many hunters as the hunting/killing element itself. Conversely, eco-tourism ‘experiences’ potentially involveseveral forms of ‘consumption’, as follows:

• the consumption of fossil fuels in theprocess of transit, and when using vehi-cles or boats in the process of wildlifeobservation; also the consumption of

food and other products for the durationof the ecotourism experience;

• the purchase of material souvenirs,which require at least some degree ofresource consumption;

• the gradual and imperceptible deteriora-tion of the environment through ero-sion, trampling of vegetation and otherstresses incurred during the process ofwildlife observation or in the establish-ment of facilities; these can be describedas a form of unintended resource con-sumption;

• the keeping of checklists of wildlifespecies as a type of score-keeping orconsumption; that is, once a species hasbeen sighted, it is checked off and is nolonger sought, and is thus ‘consumed’.

On the other hand, Duffus and Dearden(1990) suggest that the consumptive–non-consumptive distinction is useful, sincethere is a fundamental difference betweenactivities that deliberately seek to destroyand remove an organism and those that donot. In this view, it would still be legiti-mate to describe ecotourism as an essen-tially non-consumptive activity, despite thefour facets of ‘consumption’ bulletedabove. Figure 5.9 positions ecotourism in a

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 81

Masstourism

Ecotourism

Alternative tourism

Sustainabletourism

Fig. 5.8. Sustainable tourism and ecotourism.

Ecotourism

Consumptive Non-consumptive

Fig. 5.9. Consumptive/non-consumptive tourismand ecotourism.

way that takes into account both of theseperspectives. The larger circle representsall tourism, and incorporates the contin-uum by positioning consumptive and non-consumptive tourism at either side.Ecotourism, which is only a relativelysmall proportion of all tourism, is primar-ily non-consumptive, but is extended overinto the consumptive side to recognizethese consumptive aspects as well.However, it does not extend as far into thisside as the same territory occupied byhunting or fishing.

Conclusions

This chapter has attempted to clarify therelationship between ecotourism and othertypes of tourism that are commonly associ-ated or disassociated with ecotourism. Insumming up these relationships, two dis-tinct patterns are apparent. With all of thedescriptive terms (i.e. ‘nature-based’,‘adventure’, ‘trekking’ and ‘3S’), the associ-ation with ecotourism as depicted in theVenn diagrams is one of overlap. The over-laps allowed for in this chapter dependupon the specific way in which each term,including ecotourism, is defined. Obviously,

a different conception of ecotourism, suchas more of an emphasis on its ‘hard’ com-ponent or more accommodation of culturalattractions, would yield a different mea-sure of overlap in the relevant case.

For the value-based terms, the relation-ships are more complex. During the erawhen the cautionary and adaptancy plat-forms were dominant, ecotourism wasunambiguously affiliated with alternativeand non-consumptive tourism. These affili-ations survive under the knowledge-basedplatform. However, it is argued here thatecotourism can now also straddle theboundary with mass tourism and consump-tive tourism, respectively, while stillretaining its core defining characteristics.This is because of the new platform’s ten-dency to position tourism activities alongcontinuums rather than into dichotomies,and to remove the negative connotationsfrom mass tourism in particular. The onlysituation in which ecotourism is still con-sidered to be subsumed entirely underanother term is with respect to sustainabletourism. Coherent with the disassociationbetween scale and value, both the alterna-tive and mass tourism components of eco-tourism fall under the sustainable tourismumbrella.

82 D.B. Weaver

References

Applegate, J. and Clark, K. (1987) Satisfaction levels of birdwatchers: an observation on the con-sumptive–nonconsumptive continuum. Leisure Sciences 9, 129–134.

Ayala, H. (1996) Resort ecotourism: a paradigm for the 21st century. Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly 37(5), 46–51.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol. 1. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Butler, R.W. (1993) Tourism – an evolutionary perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R.W. and Wall, G.

(eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Department ofGeography Publication Series 37, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, pp. 29–43.

Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) Adventure Travel and Ecotourism: the Challenge Ahead.Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa, Canada.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1998) Introduction. In: Lindberg, K., Epler Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds)Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. Ecotourism Society, North Bennington,Vermont, pp. 7–10.

Cohen, E. (1989) ‘Primitive and remote’ hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research16, 30–61.

Clarke, J. (1997) A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism5, 224–233.

Davis, D., Banks, S. and Davey, G. (1996) Aspects of recreational scuba diving in Australia. In:Prosser, G. (ed.) Tourism and Hospitality Research: Australian and International Perspectives.

Proceedings from the Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, 1996. Bureau ofTourism Research, Canberra, pp. 455–465.

Dearden, P. and Harron, S. (1994) Alternative tourism and adaptive change. Annals of TourismResearch 21, 81–102.

Dernoi, L. (1981) Alternative tourism: towards a new style in North–South relations. InternationalJournal of Tourism Management 2, 253–264.

Duffus, D. and Dearden, P. (1990) Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual frame-work. Biological Conservation 53, 213–231.

Ewart, A. (1989) Outdoor Adventure Pursuits: Foundations, Models, and Theories. PublishingHorizons, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Gonsalves, P. (1987) Alternative tourism – the evolution of a concept and establishment of a network.

Tourism Recreation Review 12(2), 9–12.Goodwin, H. (1996) In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 277–291.Hall, C.M. (1992) Adventure, sport and health tourism. In: Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (eds) Special

Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 141–158.Hawkins, J. and Roberts, C. (1994) The growth of coastal tourism in the Red Sea: present and future

effects on coral reefs. Ambio 23, 503–508.Holden, P. (ed.) (1984) Alternative Tourism With a Focus on Asia. Ecumenical Council on Third

World Tourism, Bangkok.Ingram, D. and Durst, P. (1987) Nature Oriented Travel to Developing Countries. FPEI Working Paper

No. 28. Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research, Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina, USA.

Jafari, J. (1989) An English language literature review. In: Bystrzanowski, J. (ed.) Tourism as a Factorof Change: a Sociocultural Study. Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences,Vienna, pp. 17–60.

Kutay, K. (1989) The new ethic in adventure travel. Buzzworm: the Environmental Journal 1(4),31–36.

Lanfant, M.-F. and Graburn, N. (1992) International tourism reconsidered: the principle of the alter-native. In: Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems inthe Development of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 88–112.

Pelton, R. (1999) Fielding’s the World’s Most Dangerous Places, 4th edn. Fielding Worldwide,Redondo Beach, California, USA.

Rai, S. and Sundriyal, R. (1997) Tourism and biodiversity conservation: the Sikkim Himalaya. Ambio26, 235–242.

Sherman, P. and Dixon, J. (1991) The economics of nature tourism: determining if it pays. In:Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC,pp. 89–131.

Sung, H., Morrison, A. and O’Leary, J. (1996/97) Definition of adventure travel: conceptual frame-work for empirical application from the providers’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of TourismResearch 1(2), 47–67.

Tabata, R. (1991) Dive travel: implications for resource management and tourism development. In:Kusler, J. (ed.) Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: a Collection of Papers. Omnipress,Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 677–693.

Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., Heberlein, T. and Shelby, B. (1982) Differences in reported satisfaction ratingsby consumptive and nonconsumptive recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research 14, 195–206.

WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Weaver, D. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D. (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 26,

792–816.Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (1999) Sustainable Tourism: a Critical Analysis. Research Report 1. CRC

for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast, Australia. Whelan, T. (ed.) (1991) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington,

DC.WTTERC (1993) World Travel and Tourism Environment Review 1993. World Travel and Tourism

Environment Research Centre, Oxford.Ziffer, K. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 83

Section 2

A Regional Survey by Continent

E. CaterDepartment of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, UK

Scale and Circumstance

A global overview of the state of the artwith regard to ecotourism in the world’sregions could not only result in over-generalization, but also prove to be acounter-productive exercise. This is becausethe regions, as can be seen from the follow-ing chapters, are both products of, andproduce, considerable difference anddiversity. This is evident at varying spatiallevels.

First, there are marked differences inapproaches to ecotourism between conti-nents. With relatively high populationdensities, a prevalence of humanized land-scapes and high tourist visitation levels inEurope, described by Blangy and Vautier inChapter 10, the focus on sustainabletourism rather than on ecotourism isunderstandable. In contrast, Dowling, inChapter 9, describes the solid emphasis onecotourism per se in Australia, where astrong market demand, based on rich anddiverse natural landscapes, is coupled withconsiderable impetus from the FederalGovernment. There is also a solid founda-tion of demand and supply for ecotourismin North America, as described by Fennellin Chapter 7. Lew describes, in Chapter 8, astrong emphasis on ecotourism develop-

ment in Southeast Asia, where countriescapitalize on their comparative advantageof natural ecosystems in a markedly differ-ent way from those of temperate latitudesto attract Western ecotourists.

Second, within individual continents,significant differences exist between coun-tries and regions. Witness the dividebetween the north and south of SouthAmerica, described by Weaver andSchlüter in Chapter 11; in insularSoutheast Asia compared with central Asia(Chapter 8); and the relative paucity of eco-tourism in North and West Africa in con-trast to the eastern and southern part of thecontinent, as described by Dieke in Chapter6. This last scenario occurs despite the factthat one of the first sustainable ventures on the African continent, the LowerCasamance ‘Tourism for Discovery’ projectis in Senegal, West Africa (Eber, 1992).

Third, significant differences also occurwithin individual countries. In coastallocations and near international gateways,soft ecotourism frequently acts as anadjunct to conventional mass tourism. Atthe opposite end of the spectrum, interiormountains and other peripheral locationsoften give rise to a harder form ofecotourism product, as illustrated byDominica in Chapter 11.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 85

Thus, it is important to avoid general-ization, and to consider the specific attrib-utes of a locality. As Dowling suggests inthe case of Oceania, circumstances dictatethat not all natural sites lend themselves toecotourism. The reasons for this can beascribed to contingencies of place(Williams and Shaw, 1998). These contin-gencies are shaped by economic, socio-cultural, political, ecological, institutional,and technical forces that are exogenousand endogenous, as well as dynamic. Aconsideration of the various macro-regionscovered in this section under these cate-gories provides a useful framework forhighlighting similarities and differenceswith regard to ecotourism experienceacross the globe.

Economic Forces

It is vital that ecotourism is set into contextwith regard to different levels, sectors andinterests that will condition sustainability.With respect to the spatial hierarchy, it isinteresting to note how the internationalcommunity has become increasinglyengaged with ecotourism, not only as aform of sustainable tourism, but also for itsrole in contributing towards sustainabledevelopment in general. The InternationalResources Group, for example, prepared areport for USAID on the potential role ofecotourism as a viable alternative for thesustainable management of naturalresources in Africa. They suggest that,while it is probably not appropriate foroverseas development assistance to sup-port tourism in general, ecotourism is dif-ferent (IRG, 1992). The UK Department forInternational Development (DFID) alsoadopts this train of thought, and developedan agenda for action in 1999, Changing theNature of Tourism (DFID, 1999). Similarly,Chapter 10 describes how LEADER fundsfor economic restructuring in Central andEastern Europe are targeted at rural tourismdevelopment in a strategy to restore bal-ance between different levels of develop-ment among the regions of Europe.

At the national level, most tourism

authorities continue to attach a high prior-ity to conventional tourism development.As outlined in Chapter 11, Costa Rica per-sists in giving incentives to mass tourismdespite its high profile as an ecotourismdestination. However, an emerging andcontrasting tendency sees some 3S destina-tions, such as Turkey, Spain and Cyprus,attempting to devolve tourism away fromthe coastal magnets to more remote, rural,locations.

Ecotourism’s contribution to rural liveli-hoods is an important consideration at thelocal level. Dowling describes the integra-tion of ecotourism and village-based com-munity tourism in Fiji, but stresses thatecotourism can only complement, notreplace, other forms of tourism. Equally, itis imperative that it should be regarded asa complementary and supplementary, notalternative, activity to agriculture.

Sectoral conflicts may compromise thesuccess, if not the very existence of eco-tourism. The impact of the oil and fishingindustries on whale-watching in Patagoniaand destructive logging practices inIndonesia, Haiti and the DominicanRepublic are all illustrative examples. Inaddition, the inclusion of various stake-holders’ interests is a much-vaunted prin-ciple of sustainable ecotourism, butFennell suggests that even this has prob-lems, since interests frequently diverge. InSaskatchewan, for example, the inclusionof several stakeholder groups has createdfriction between economic and environ-mental interests.

Socio-cultural Factors

The following Chapters point to socio-cultural resources as an important com-ponent of ecotourism. In many locationsso-called natural landscapes are often cul-tural: the product of many generations oftraditional land management. Much ofEurope, the terraces of the Himalayanfoothills and the rice terraces of Luzon,Philippines all substantiate this fact. Theindivisibility of nature and culture is alsoillustrated by the principle of free access to

86 E. Cater

nature enshrined in northern Europeancultures. Blangy and Vautier describe howthe Danish government buys up landexpressly for that purpose.

Ecotourism, by definition, should besocio-culturally responsible, but there is avexed issue of ethnocentricity. Not only doviews of the environment differ betweenhosts and guests (Dowling cites the Maoriof New Zealand), but also between domes-tic and foreign tourists. As the developingworld modernizes, intraregional anddomestic tourism proliferates. The agendaof these tourists, as Lew describes in thecase of Southeast Asia, may be markedlydifferent from those of visiting ecotourists.Wherever these two groups converge innatural areas, the needs of one may preju-dice those of the other.

Political Forces

While stable political regimes, such as thatof Belize, are undoubted assets for eco-tourism development, the corollary is thatinstability militates against tourism in gen-eral, and ecotourism in particular. This isbecause attractions are often in remote, rel-atively unpoliced locations where foreigntourists become pawns in the power strug-gles of factional groups headquarteredaway from the seat of government.Examples of this ilk are the threats posedby the Sendero Luminoso in Peru and,more recently, by the massacre of foreigntourists in 1999 at Bwindi ImpenetrableForest gorilla reserve in western Uganda.Another important political criterion isthat of will. Unless protected areas receiveappropriate legislative backing, committedenforcement, and adequate funding, theyremain little more than ‘paper parks’, asdescribed by Weaver and Schlüter in thecontext of Latin America, and by Lew inthe context of Asia.

Ecological Considerations

The consideration of protected areas raisesthe issue of environmental protection and

conservation. Throughout the world’sregions there is a diversity of natural andcultural resource conservation policies. InAsia, Lew describes how these range fromeconomic to environmental priorities. InChina conservation efforts often have sig-nificant economic goals, local governmentsbeing involved in resource development asmuch as resource protection. India, how-ever, has a long history of conservation forthe sake of the environment. Where pro-tected areas do exist, the chapters describea considerable range first in their percent-age of a country’s surface area, and second,in the level of protection afforded. Blangyand Vautier discuss this with regard toEurope. In the UK, for example, most pro-tected areas fall in IUCN Category V.

Another debate raised is that of con-sumptive versus non-consumptive use.Fennell describes the inclusion of fishingas a form of ecotourism in Canada as eco-opportunism, while Dieke suggests that,although the licensed hunting of wildlifeunder the CAMPFIRE initiative inZimbabwe benefits local communities, itcan only be partially related to ecotourism.The financing of conservation also continuesto be of concern, particularly in countrieswith beleagered, developing economies.The need for enhanced environmentalstewardship, illustrated through under-funding of conservation, is described inseveral of the chapters. Not only is eco-tourism an alternative to environmentallydestructive activities such as logging ormining in Southeast Asia, Fiji, and Centraland South America, but it can also providerevenue for conservation.

The relationship between ecotourismand the environment is two-way. Weaverand Schlüter point to the impact of envi-ronmental disasters in the Caribbean, andDowling describes their omnipresent threatin the Pacific islands. The damage done toMozambique’s fledgling tourism industryby the massive flooding during 2000,although trivial compared with humanitar-ian concerns, must be considerable.

Regional Survey by Continent 87

Institutional Factors

The myriad of institutions concerned withecotourism at different levels, representingvaried interests, are described in thechapters. A related factor of interest isexpatriate involvement in ecotourism, par-ticularly in the developing countries.Critics might point to eco-imperialism, butprivate capital fills a gap in capital-scarcesituations. There are an increasing numberof private ecotourism initiatives, describedin Central America by Weaver and Schlüterand in southern and East Africa by Dieke.Furthermore, it is not simply a Westerncore versus under-developed peripheryscenario. The South African basedConservation Corporation, for example,now has ecotourism partnerships through-out east and southern Africa (Christ, 1998).

Technical Forces

Eco-architecture and more environmentallysound infrastructure, described in Chapters20 and 23, should be a feature of eco-tourism. However, in many parts of theworld ecolodges are few and far between,even in the much lauded ecotourism desti-nation of Costa Rica. Ecotourism is theideal candidate for appropriate technology.Unfortunately, this does not always comecheap. Dowling describes the upmarket

ecolodge on Vanua Levu as one example ofelite or luxury ecotourism.

Accessibility is another technical factorto consider. It is no accident that primeecotourism sites develop close to existingurban nodes, such as Belém and Manaus inBrazil, and in countries readily accessibleto the main tourist generating countries,such as Belize and Costa Rica relative tothe USA. Other popular ecotourism desti-nations are accessed from popular stopoverpoints such as the natural areas ofThailand and Malaysia. Conversely, a chal-lenge is posed by the remoteness of thePacific islands and the high cost of access-ing these destinations.

Conclusion

It is evident from this discussion, moreamply illustrated in the following chapters,that ecotourism must be set into context,and that the context is regional as well assite-specific. As well as common interests,there are likely to be conflicts. A betterunderstanding of areas of discord, as wellas concord, is essential, so that negativelinks can be broken, and positive linksbuilt upon (World Bank, 1992; Cater, 1995).Only then will ecotourism across the globebegin to live up to the reputation of sus-tainability that precedes it.

88 E. Cater

References

Cater, E. (1995) Environmental contradictions in sustainable tourism. The Geographical Journal161(1), 21–28.

Christ, C. (1998) Taking ecotourism to the next level: a look at private sector involvement with localcommunities. In: Lindberg, K., Epler-Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide forPlanners and Managers, Vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 183–195.

DFID (1999) Changing the Nature of Tourism. DFID, London.Eber, S. (ed.) (1992) Beyond the Green Horizon: Principles for sustainable tourism. Godalming, WWF,

UK. IRG (1992) Ecotourism: a Viable Alternative for Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in

Africa. Submitted to Agency for International Development Bureau for Africa, Washington, DC.Williams, A. and Shaw, G. (1994) Critical Issues in Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Blackwell,

Oxford.Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (1998) Tourism and the environment: sustainability and economic

restructuring. In: Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism. Addison WesleyLongman, Harlow.

World Bank (1992) World Development Report. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide acomparative analysis of ecotourism as aform of sustainable development in thecontext of Kenya and South Africa. Thesetwo African countries exemplify character-istics of well-established tourism destina-tions generally but they are also probablythe highest profile ecotourism destinationcountries in the region. The chapter firstbriefly reviews Africa’s place in the broadertourism perspective, then considers the sit-uation in the two main case studies. Aninsight into wider continental ecotourismdevelopment experiences is then provided,by examining, in less detail, other Africancountries, and especially those in the samesub-region as Kenya and South Africa. Thischapter also considers various managementand policy-related issues that affect the sta-tus of ecotourism in the region.

Africa and International Tourism

Africa comprises 53 countries categorizedinto five geographical sub-regions: central,eastern, northern, southern and western.Like other developing regions, Africa is acontinent of considerable cultural, eco-nomic, geographic, political and social

diversity. Perhaps part of the variation hasto do with differences in their colonialexperience, following the balkanization ofthe continent into arbitrary nation-states tomeet the needs of the European governingpowers (see Afigbo et al., 1992).

A recent study (Dieke, 2000) has shownthat there is clearly a wide variety of differ-ent types of tourism available in the region:from safari tourism (e.g. wildlife, desert),beach tourism and ‘roots’ tourism tomarine tourism. Some others include cul-tural/heritage and archaeological tourism,ethnic tourism, ‘overland’ tourism (ordesert, as noted) and, perhaps to a lesserdegree, sex tourism. In terms of global con-text, Africa received about 3.6% of allinternational stayover arrivals in 1998(WTO, 1999). Within Africa, the northernsub-region had the highest share of traffic(34.6%) and revenue (33%), followed indescending order by southern Africa, east-ern Africa, western Africa, and middleAfrica (Table 6.1). Almost 40% of all visitsto Africa originate in the region, withEurope accounting for more than one-thirdof total arrivals.

Table 6.2a indicates the most visiteddestinations in Africa in 1998. Of the 20countries profiled here, South Africa wasthe most favoured destination, taking 24%of total traffic, followed by two northern

Chapter 6

Kenya and South Africa

P.U.C. DiekeUniversity of Strathclyde, The Scottish Hotel School, Glasgow, UK

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 89

90P.U

.C. D

ieke

Table 6.1. Tourism trends by sub-regions, 1995–1998 (WTO, 1999, pp. 4–29).

Market share ofTourist receipts

Market share of

Sub- Tourist arrivals % change-total Africa (%)

(US$ million) % change-total Africa (%)

regions (000s) 1998 over 1997 1995 1998 1998 over 1997 1995 1998

Eastern 5,761 7.70 21.7 23.1 2,426 5.75 23.4 25.4Middle 483 7.81 1.4 1.9 82 5.13 1.7 0.9Northern 8,623 7.79 38.7 34.6 3,176 9.90 38.1 33.3Southern 7,671 7.94 29.9 30.8 2,950 2.54 28.1 30.9Western 2,365 4.97 8.3 9.5 917 4.23 8.5 9.6

Total Africa 24,903 7.50 100.0 100.0 9,551 5.90 100.0 100.0

Countries of the sub-regions:Eastern: Burundi, The Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Réunion, Seychelles, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania,Zambia, Zimbabwe.Middle: Angola, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tomé and Principé, Democratic Republic of Congo(Kinshasa).Northern: Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia.Southern: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland.Western: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo.

Kenya and South Africa

91

Table 6.2a. Top 20 tourism destinations in Africa, 1998 (International tourist arrivals, 000s) (WTO, 1999, p. 31).

Arrivals (000)Rank

Estimated figures Figures received % change % of total1990 1995 1998 Country up to 11 Jan 1999 after 11 Jan 1999 1998/97 1998

4 1 1 South Africa 5,981 5,981 10.0 24.02 2 2 Tunisia 4,700 4,471 10.7 18.91 3 3 Morocco 3,241 3,243 5.6 13.06 4 4 Zimbabwe 1,600 1,600 7.0 6.45 5 5 Kenya 1,062 951 25.0 4.37 7 6 Botswana 740 740 0.8 3.03 8 7 Algeria 648 678 6.8 2.6

13 6 8 Nigeria 640 640 4.7 2.68 9 9 Mauritius 570 558 4.1 2.3

— 10 10 Namibia 510 560 11.6 2.015 15 11 Tanzania 447 447 28.8 1.8— 11 12 Eritrea 414 414 1.0 1.717 20 13 Zambia 382 362 6.2 1.511 12 14 Réunion 377 377 1.9 1.516 14 15 Ghana 335 335 3.1 1.39 13 16 Swaziland 325 325 0.9 1.3

10 16 17 Senegal 309 332 6.1 1.212 18 18 Côte d’Ivoire 302 301 9.9 1.230 18 19 Uganda 238 238 4.8 1.018 17 20 Malawi 215 205 5.7 0.9

Total 23,036 — 7.6 92.5

Total Africa 24,903 — 7.5 100.0

92P.U

.C. D

ieke

Table 6.2b. Top 20 tourism earners in Africa, 1998 (International tourist receipts, US$ million) (WTO, 1999, p. 33).

Receipts (US$ million)Rank

Estimated figures Figures received % change % of total1990 1995 1998 Country up to 11 Jan 1999 after 11 Jan 1999 1998/97 1998

2 1 1 South Africa 2366 2366 3.0 24.81 3 2 Morocco 1600 1600 10.9 16.83 2 3 Tunisia 1550 1550 8.9 16.25 4 4 Mauritius 502 503 3.7 5.3

11 7 5 Tanzania 431 431 9.9 4.54 5 6 Kenya 400 358 25.0 4.29 6 7 Namibia 339 339 0.9 3.5

10 8 8 Ghana 274 274 3.0 2.9— 9 9 Réunion 250 250 0.4 2.613 11 10 Zimbabwe 246 246 7.0 2.68 10 11 Botswana 185 185 0.5 1.96 12 12 Senegal 165 161 5.2 1.7

33 14 13 Uganda 142 142 5.2 1.525 19 14 Nigeria 124 124 5.1 1.37 13 15 Seychelles 120 111 29.0 1.3

16 15 16 Côte d’Ivoire 97 97 10.2 1.018 21 17 Zambia 90 75 0.0 0.9— 17 18 Eritrea 75 75 0.0 0.819 16 19 Madagascar 74 74 1.4 0.820 18 20 Sierra Leone 57 57 0.0 0.6

Total 9087 — 5.9 95.1

Total Africa 9551 — 5.9 100.1

countries, Tunisia (18%) and Morocco(13%), and two eastern countries, Zim-babwe (6.4%) and Kenya (4.3%). The pat-tern of receipts is similar (as shown inTable 6.2b), with South Africa the leadingearner (24.8%), followed by Tunisia andMorocco. However, although Zimbabweand Kenya attracted considerable numbersof tourists, Mauritius and Tanzania wereable to gain and earn more from tourism.

This brief background illustrates thenature and scope of international tourismin Africa and the significance of tourism insome countries, which is clearly influencedby the wider nature of economic develop-ment. For the purposes of this chapter, thisprofile provides a framework within whichto examine the ecotourism activity in theregion.

General Tourism in Kenya and South Africa

The regional perspective on tourism hasbeen summarized above. In this section weconsider the case of Kenya and SouthAfrica, as a prelude to the consideration ofecotourism. This section begins by present-ing a general background to the countries,and then examines the current situationwith regard to their overall tourism sectors.

Kenya

Kenya occupies a mainly arid to semiaridarea of 560,367 km2, and has an estimatedpopulation in excess of 29 million (ECA,1999; Kenya, 1999). Between 1979 and1989, Kenya experienced an annual netpopulation increase of 4% (Kenya, 1995, p.19). Although the indigenous peopleaccount for the vast majority of the popula-tion, other non-Africans, especially thosefrom Asia, exercise a considerable influenceover the economy. The economy is basedon the export of agricultural productsmainly related to coffee (7% of GDP) andtea (6%), with tourism (10%) also playing aleading role. GDP at factor cost in real termsdeclined at an annual average rate of 2%

between 1996 and 1998, itself the result ofmany factors including poor infrastructure,depressed investments, labour unrest, etc.(Kenya, 1999, p. 17). Given this context,three broad conclusions may be drawn.First, there is a need to enhance and diver-sify export earnings. Second, there is a needto increase contribution to government rev-enues and the balance of payments. Third,there is a need to increase employmentopportunity. Ecotourism can play a majorrole in all of these areas.

South Africa

South Africa is the most complex countryin sub-Saharan Africa. First, the countryhas the most diversified natural resourcebase, from oceans to snow-capped moun-tains (in winter), from subtropical desertsto montane forests. Its landscape is varied,mainly related not only to the great moun-tains, as noted, but also to the plateaux ofthe high veld, or low veld steppe lands.Although the plateaux extend from east towest and from south to north, there are twodistinct climatic features that can be dis-cerned. The country is wet and green onthe east coast, in the eastern mountains,and on the high plateaux, but dry andhighly desertified on the lower plateauxand western dry lands. The country alsohas the most diverse wildlife sanctuaries inAfrica. All these factors together indicate ahigh potential for ecotourism development.

The country of 44 million inhabitants hasalso had a complex history of human rela-tions in the last 400 years. Its state of devel-opment and real economic power has forhistorical reasons been deliberatelydesigned and implemented to favour white-dominated areas. The black African reserva-tions are poor and over-populated anddominated by poverty-related crimes. Butthe elections of 1994 that ushered in theuniversal adult suffrage and democratic gov-ernment opened the door for revolutionarychanges since then. The economy is diversi-fied; agriculture, industry, manufacturing ormining, and services (including tourism) arethe main sectors.

Kenya and South Africa 93

As noted in the introduction, Kenya andSouth Africa are both considered wellestablished and ‘successful’ as tourism des-tinations. Table 6.2 shows their relativevolume and value significance comparativeto selected main tourism players in theregion. Both countries accord tourism ahigh priority in their national developmentplans. Their success in this field hasdemonstrated how other countries in theregion should be able to use tourism as partof their economic development strategies.The importance of tourism in the processof national development is reflected in thecurrent national development plan of Kenya:

A sustained flow of tourists will contribute toindustrial development through generation offoreign exchange, creation of incomeearnings opportunities … The constraints togrowth for the tourism industry includeinadequate tourism promotion and marketingefforts … weak institutional and regulatorysupport framework. The strategies that willbe used to address the above issues with aview to improving the tourism sector includestrengthening the Kenya Tourism Board(KTB) to become fully operational … In thisregard, the National Tourism Master Planwill be implemented fully to establish asustainable tourism base.

(Kenya, 1997a, pp. 201–202)

In South Africa, the government recentlypublished a White Paper on Tourism(SATOUR, 1996) that was later approvedby the Cabinet in June 1996. The main pur-pose was to set out the necessary develop-ment parameters and how these might berealized. In particular, emphasis was givento the key changes required in the organi-zational structures to permit the manage-ment of the tourism sector, including theregulatory and legislative systems.

One other important component of theWhite Paper and related initiatives (seeSATOUR, 1998, 1999a, b, c) was to stimu-late the dialogue between the private andpublic sectors in a partnership arrange-ment, thereby broadening participation inthe sector. These developments are part ofthe major economic and political reformsin the country, catalysed and actuated by

the events of 1994. They need to be seenagainst a background where South Africa,as previously noted, was regarded as aneconomic and a political pariah state as aconsequence of its apartheid policy. Nowthe country has been re-incorporated intothe international community. The policynow is for development of ‘responsibletourism’ with its emphasis on:

The right and appropriate vision, structureand texture of the industry to facilitatesustainable tourism; the evolution of aneconomically active and integrated blackmajority into tourism; optimisation of thesocio-economic benefits to the widestpossible spectrum of society in all provinces;and evolution, therefore, of a long-term basefor growth through vision, promotion andintegration of environmental managementinto the different phases of projectmanagement.

(SATOUR, 1996, p. 19)

Indeed, these are difficult objectives toachieve in a country where the apartheidpolicy of the government had been thefocal point of police statism. But the coun-try is anxious to make up for lost opportu-nities of the apartheid era, researching andplanning for unique packages such asecotourism, ‘afro-tourism’ and culturaltourism.

Features of tourism in Kenya and South Africa

Three characteristics define the currenttourism sector: seasonality; concentrationof generating countries; and the tourismproduct. In relation to seasonality, in 19981,062,000 tourists arrived in Kenya,5,981,000 in South Africa (Table 6.2a). Inthe focus period, over 70% of the visitorsarriving in Kenya (see Kenya, 1999) and50% in South Africa (see South Africa,1999a) came during the months ofNovember 1998 to March 1999. These fig-ures indicate a very high concentration ofarrivals, a pattern that has consequent eco-nomic implications.

Europe was the major ‘trigger’ marketfor Kenya in 1998, with Germany and the

94 P.U.C. Dieke

UK between them accounting for over 60%of all bed-nights occupied by European vis-itors. The next most important source oftourists came from regional countries, e.g.Tanzania and Uganda with 216,800 bed-nights in 1998. For South Africa 60% ofarrivals in 1998 were from neighbouringcountries. There was relative dependenceon charter markets from the UK, Germany,US and France during the period in focus.

Finally, the countries’ tourism productis defined here as all those facilities,amenities, and services, including the nat-ural environment, which attract visitors. Inparticular the product has a number of dis-tinct features: game viewing, beach, confer-ences and seminars, activity/adventurepursuits, shopping, cultural events and, forSouth Africa especially, hotel-based gam-bling and sports events (see Kenya, 1999;SATOUR, n.d., p. 11). In the context of thischapter, prime emphasis will be on the nat-ural endowments of the countries and, inparticular, those that are based on wildlifeand its natural habitat. These are mainlyavailable within the national parks andreserves. As will be discussed below, Kenyahas 60 such parks and reserves and SouthAfrica 212, out of which 17 are major ones,such as the 2 M ha Kruger National Park.

But the key question is whether thesefeatures are in themselves unique to justifythe countries’ successes, given that the fea-tures are also available in many destina-tions in neighbouring countries in botheastern and southern sub-regions. It shouldbe noted, as tourism marketers always do,that no one activity is adequately attractiveto motivate visitors. However, takentogether, they provide a basket of optionsavailable to tourists (see Jefferson andLickorish, 1988; Richards, 1997). Inessence, the implication must be that veryfew countries have attractions that consti-tute unique selling propositions (USP). Inthe case of Kenya and South Africa onewould have to look therefore at other fac-tors, e.g. marketing, image and others, allconsiderations that can be found in ‘suc-cessful’ tourism destinations.

In specific terms, the World TourismOrganization (WTO) has identified a num-

ber of factors that shaped tourism develop-ment in Kenya and South Africa in 1998,and especially tourist product, transport,and marketing and promotion activities(WTO, 1999, p. 100). Each area has bothpositive and negative aspects. On Kenya’stourist product, there were positive devel-opments in the liberalization of foreignexchange regimes, divestiture of govern-ment’s interests in the sector and diversifi-cation of the product. Of course, whatevergains were made as a consequence of thesemeasures, were off-set by adverse publicityin the international media labelling Kenyaas an unsafe and insecure destination.Similar observations could be made ofSouth Africa. On the positive side, thecountry upgraded its international airports,awarded mega-casino licences, and estab-lished provincial tourism and marketingdevelopment agencies. However, there wasa lack of investment incentives and, in par-ticular, local banks were unwilling to pro-vide loans for tourism developmentprojects.

On the transport front, Kenya widenedits charter market networks to allowHungary and France to increase their char-ters. Kenya Airways, the national carrier,struck strategic alliances with KLM andNorth West Airlines that gave it moreroutes for the benefit of internationaltourists. The down side was in the area ofhigher fuel prices, which led to some air-lines having to over-fly Kenya and to cutdown on frequencies. South Africa alsoallowed more air charter operators to enterthe market. For instance, the airline Iberiare-established links with South Africa,even though South African Airways werestill running at a loss.

In relation to the marketing and promo-tion activities, the formation of the KenyaTourist Board to handle these tasks, thecompletion of a Tourism Master Plan andthe relaunching of the East Africa Com-munity were seen as positive developments.Negative factors included a lack of diversi-fication of the source markets, relyingheavily on the traditional markets; inade-quate funding; and increasing competitionby rival destinations (e.g. Zimbabwe).

Kenya and South Africa 95

South Africa transformed the institutionalstructures for tourism, e.g. SATOUR, butextensive media coverage of South Africa’scrime was unhelpful.

Ecotourism in Kenya and South Africa

In considering ecotourism activity inKenya and South Africa, there are threeareas that will be emphasized: its earlygrowth and magnitude; spatial distribution;and a number of development issues, albeitin a comparative setting.

Growth and magnitude

To consider the early growth and magni-tude of ecotourism in Kenya and SouthAfrica, it is helpful, even briefly, to distin-guish between ‘consumptive’ and ‘non-con-sumptive’ tourist attractions and holidayopportunities (Gibson, 1999; Honey, 1999).This is because both concepts always recurin any discussion of wildlife-based tourismdevelopment in these countries, given thecomparative use of the resource relative toother development sectors (see Olindo,1991; ECA, 1997).

Simply put, consumptive uses ofwildlife such as big game sport huntingexpeditions, bird shooting, etc., mirror amaster–servant relationship situation inwhich white settlers were the masters andindigenous Africans the servants. Colonialwildlife policy sought to advance the needsof the settlers at the expense of the nativepopulation relating to ownership, use andeven the conservation of resources thatsubsequently followed (Anderson andGrove, 1987; Gibson, 1999; Honey, 1999).This may be tantamount, in the words ofAkama (1996, p. 572), to ‘the taking awayof wildlife resource user rights from therural peasants’. Post-colonial policy, withits emphasis on non-consumptive or eco-tourism use of wildlife resources sought,conversely, to redress the injustice seenduring the consumptive era. It has soughtto empower the locals by giving them a

voice in decisions regarding benefits-sharingarising from, and therefore ownership of,wildlife resources. Thus in essence it canbe suggested that the consumptive activityis a necessary precursor to understandingecotourism developments that were tofollow.

The development of ecotourism inKenya dates back to 1977 and 1978 whenthe country’s government imposed a totalban on sport hunting and on the trade ingame trophies. This apparent U-turn inwildlife policy was prompted by severalconsiderations, not least being how toensure that best use was made of wildliferesources (Dieke, 1991). This measure hadan effect at three levels. First, it helped toconcentrate people’s minds on alternativeuses of wildlife; second, it had a disastrouseffect on earnings and employment in thecountry; and third, it ensured the adapta-tion of existing hunting structures (e.g.lodges, game parks, national reserves, etc.)to the cause of non-consumptive eco-tourism (Olindo, 1991). The response tothe new dispensation was swift: shootingwildlife with the camera took centre-stage;promotional activities highlighted the nat-ural landscapes of the country, its biodiver-sity, unique ecosystems, beautiful scenery(e.g. the Rift Valley) and volcanic moun-tains (see The Ecotourism Society, 1998).Tour organizers developed ornithologicaltrips and botanical study tours.

The extent of ecotourism in Kenyaraises definitional and motivational issues.The first is a continuing example of thedearth of reliable tourism statistics in thecountry and of the fact that those which areavailable need to be interpreted with cau-tion. This is not an unusual situation in acountry where, as was observed some 10years ago (Dieke, 1991), tourism statisticsare generally under- or overestimated. Theproblems stem from variations in collec-tion methods, processing of data, and defi-nitions – problems which can be found inother developing countries. As the role ofecotourism increases, so too does the needfor more reliable time series tourism data,as a basis for policy formulation.

Table 6.2a indicates that there were

96 P.U.C. Dieke

about 1 million international visitors arriv-ing in Kenya in 1998. However, on thebasis of provisional figures from govern-ment sources of park- and reserve-visitations between 1995 and 1998 (Table6.3a, b), it seems that many of these visitorswere ecotourists, as they were engaged insafaris within parks and reserves. In 1998,1,079,400 protected area visitors werereported (Table 6.3a), a figure that exceedsthe 1 million tourists noted above. Not allof these visitors were international tourists,as indicated in Table 6.3c with respect tolodge bed-occupancy rates.

It should be stressed that the continuedcontraction in the number of visitors toparks and game reserves contributed to lowbed-occupancy rates in game lodges. Thenumber of bed-nights fell dramaticallyfrom 351,200 in 1997 to 167,000 in 1998,

while the proportion accounted for by EastAfrican visitors increased from 9% of thetotal to 17%. This decline mirrored trendsin other sectors of Kenyan tourism such asNairobi and the coast (Kenya, 1999).

In the field of ecotourism, South Africahas been described as having ‘a reputationas one of the world’s leading countries,with its well-managed system of publicprotected areas, extensive private sectorinvolvement and conservation-linked com-munity development initiatives’ (‘t Sas-Rolfes, 1996). In this respect the country issimilar to Kenya, becoming well knownand ‘successful’ in this sector. But in con-trast to Kenya, ecotourism in South Africahas a chequered history and has been con-troversial. It is worth examining, albeitbriefly, a short historical context withinwhich ecotourism activity exists in this

Kenya and South Africa 97

Table 6.3a. Number of visitors to parks and game reserves, 1995–1998 (000s) (Kenya, 1999, p. 164; Kenya,1997b, p. 184).

Area 1995 1996 1997 1998

Nairobi 113.5 158.3 149.6 122.3Animal Orphanage 212.1 210.6 193.7 164.8Amboseli 114.8 109.1 117.2 62.9Tsavo (West) 93.1 93.6 88.6 54.9Tsavo (East) 228.8 137.5 123.2 66.9Aberdare 70.1 60.2 59.0 47.9Lake Nakuru 166.8 156.9 132.1 111.0Maasai Mara 133.2 130.3 118.3 100.4Bamburi Nature Park 109.2 107.0 86.8 77.9Malindi Marine 38.8 39.3 27.0 13.7Lake Bogoria 14.2 14.2 24.5 20.6Meru 7.3 7.8 4.1 1.8Shimba Hills 20.0 23.4 22.5 16.8Mount Kenya 17.2 17.1 14.8 10.2Samburu 9.1 9.1 8.3 7.0Kisite/Mpunguti 32.4 39.9 35.1 29.2Mombasa Marine 23.9 21.7 15.2 16.2Watamu Marine 16.1 20.2 19.4 18.3Hell’s Gate 50.1 52.1 47.2 57.1Impala Sanctuary (Kisumu) 3.5 65.6 62.4 65.6Othera 18.9 14.8 15.5 13.9

Total 1493.1 1488.7 1364.5 1079.4

a Other includes Mount Elgon, Ol-Donyo Sabuk, Marsabit, Saiwa Swamp, Sibiloi, Ruma National Park,Mwea National Reserve, Central Island National Park, Nasolot National Reserve and Kakamega NationalReserve.

country and considering current changes ofthinking in and extent of the sector.

Early utilization of wildlife centred onhunting involving three different groups ofpeople: sport hunters (mostly English-speaking), commercial hunters (mostlyAfrikaners) and subsistence hunters (nativeAfricans). As wildlife became scarce, thesegroups started to compete for the rights tohunt. The first people to lose their rightswere the subsistence hunters. There was aphilosophical divide between the othertwo groups over the justification for hunt-ing. Commercial hunters earned a livingfrom wildlife, and could not understandthe rationale for sport hunting, which theyregarded as wasteful. Conversely, sport

hunters, mostly from wealthy landowners’and urban dwellers’ backgrounds, saw noneed to gain commercially from wildlife.They justified hunting as a glamorousrecreational outlet and an indicator ofsocial status, and regarded the killing ofwildlife for commercial and subsistencepurposes as cruel and unnecessary. Thesecontrasting positions between people wholive off the land and a more wealthy elitepersist today in this country, although in asomewhat different way, thanks to theevolution of new forms of internationaltourism, and especially ecotourism. Thus,given the revolutionary reforms within thenational, political, philosophical, economicand social attitudes, relationships and par-

98 P.U.C. Dieke

Table 6.3b. Visitors to museums, snake park and sites, 1995–1998 (Kenya, 1999, p. 165; Kenya, 1997b,p. 184).

1995 1996 1997 1998

National Museum (Main Gate) 215.4 218.0 184.5 173.4National Museum (Snake Park) 181.6 170.6 148.6 75.9Forth Jesus 245.3 180.2 124.4 88.9Kisumu Museum 36.1 49.5 18.2 34.7Kitale Museum 27.5 29.0 16.1 27.3Gedi 43.7 29.6 29.7 14.8Meru Museum 21.0 12.4 9.4 15.8Lamu 10.7 12.2 8.6 6.2Jumba la Mtwala 11.3 8.5 4.9 4.0Ologesailie — — 2.2 1.9Kariandusi 3.0 2.3 0.7 4.5Hyrax Hills — 1.9 1.5 2.8Karen Blixen 46.1 43.7 38.6 41.1Kilifi Mwarani 0.8 0.9 0.7 2.9

Total 842.5 758.8 588.1 494.2

Table 6.3c. Game lodges occupancy, 1995–1998 (000s) (Kenya, 1999, p. 163; Kenya, 1997b, p. 184).

Bed-nights occupied

Foreign residents East African residents

Lodge locality/type 1995 1996 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 1998

Game reserves 218.6 255.5 178.9 77.7 21.0 20.9 18.0 16.2National parks 172.5 201.7 141.2 61.3 15.1 15.1 13.1 11.8

Total 391.1 457.2 320.1 139.0 36.1 36.0 31.1 28.0Of which full catering 341.2 398.9 279.3 121.3 28.3 28.2 24.1 22.0Self-service 49.9 58.3 40.8 17.7 7.8 7.8 7.0 6.0

ticipatory integration of the black majority,the South African ecotourism is entering aphase of revolutionary growth.

The current South African tourismdevelopment strategy, Tourism in Gear, forthe period 1998–2000 identified eco-tourism – including safari, game-watchingand birdwatching – as one of the sevencore activities (SATOUR, 1998). Othersinclude culture, adventure, sport, business,special interest and, finally, the MICE(meetings, incentives, conventions andexhibitions) sector. Clearly, scenic interestand wildlife (in the widest sense of eco-tourism) emerge as the prime focus ofattention. The importance of ecotourismand others is understandable considering:

the slowly diminishing importance of SouthAfrica’s cities as tourist attractions … Thereare signs that city dwellers are choosing rurallocations for holidays in preference to cities… At the same time, locations in the interiorwhich are attractive either for their scenery,wildlife, or just for their rustic setting, arebecoming popular among visitors, not onlyfrom South Africa but also from abroad.

(TTI, 1999, p. 89)

It could be argued that this shift away fromcities has in large part been caused by theperceived deterioration in the condition ofmany, if not most, of South Africa’s urbancentres over the past decade. By implica-tion, the ending of apartheid has inevitablybrought about an invasion of places thatwere in effect previously forbidden, withconsequences for accommodation andoccupancy.

The evidence shows that annual roomoccupancy in Johannesburg, for example,fell from around 45% in the mid-1990s to41% in 1997 – and probably to below 40%in 1998 – and the Durban area registered afall from 66% to well below 60% (TTI,1999). Furthermore the estimates indicatethat in 1996 the 8500 registered propertiesoffered the equivalent of 600,000 beds, thebulk of which were in campsites (or‘ecolodge’ type accommodation outlets).These figures may be underestimatesbecause precise statistics are unavailable,particularly in relation to unregistered self-

catering accommodation that may be bettersuited to the low-income levels of mostSouth Africans, and also the foreign budgettravellers.

Of the 212 parks in this country, the 2million ha Kruger National Park is an iconin the South African ecotourism develop-ment experience. The Park is the largest inthe country and offers an unrivalled varietyof game animals: amphibians, reptiles,birds and 147 mammal species includingthe Big Five (buffalo, cheetah, elephant,giraffe and leopard). It also offers game ornature reserve type accommodation, cover-ing the full spectrum from camping to lux-ury cottages. There are numerous camps tocater for every taste and budget rangingfrom rest-camps and bush-camps to bush-lodges. Latest estimates (TTI, 1999) put thevisitation level at about 1 million a year(almost exactly half of the visitors stay atleast one night), despite mounting criticismover the standard of service in its camps.Kruger is particularly popular with foreignvisitors who, it is claimed, now numberalmost 200,000 a year, accounting foralmost 50% of all foreign overnights ingame/nature parks (SATOUR, 1999a).

The other parks operated by SouthAfrican National Parks do not fare well invisitation terms, probably because theytend to lie off the foreigners’ beaten track,and partly because they are not wellknown. As a consequence of tax incentivesgiven in recent times, there is now a con-siderable increase in private game lodges,currently estimated at around 300, withtotal bed capacity of 18,000 (TTI, 1999).Some of them do not score well, perhapsbecause they are considered expensive, butthey reflect a trend of over-supply.

Spatial distribution

From a spatial framework, the wildliferesource and the activity associated with itare largely confined within parks andreserves, although the activity is carriedout in adjacent areas as well. In the case ofKenya, the distinction between the parksand reserves is important for two reasons.

Kenya and South Africa 99

The first is to clarify the issue of their own-ership, management and financial arrange-ments, and the second to determine therelationship of local people and the pro-tected areas vis-à-vis benefits sharing(Sindiga, 2000). In particular (see Yeagerand Miller, 1986; KWS, 1990), the ‘parks’refer to parcels of land belonging to, andfully administered and financed by, thecentral government. ‘Reserves’, in contrast,are areas set aside by local authorities(counties) for conservation of wildlife butwhich are managed and partly financed bythe central government. County councilsoperate game reserves on trust lands forwhich they are responsible, and also par-ticipate in safari lodges or self-cateringaccommodations.

At present there are 60 such protectedareas in Kenya. Estimates of the proportionof the country’s land area occupied by theparks and reserves are imprecise, but rangebetween 6 and 12% (Yeager and Miller,1986; Akama, 1996; Sindiga, 2000). Theimprecision is understandable, especially asmore areas are usually incorporated into the‘protected’ network as and when the needarises, given that there is no set numericallimit. However, as evident in Table 6.3a, vis-itation is spatially concentrated within orskewed towards small core ‘protected’ areas,partly because of easy access, and partlybecause of their proximity to internationalgateways. It may also be that these areas arepopular with ecotourists. It is therefore notsurprising that Nairobi is significant as bothcapital city and international gateway, as acentre for incoming tours, and as a base forgame viewing tours. In addition, its proxim-ity to the beach area provides the ancillaryopportunities to combine beach and safariholidays.

In South Africa, as in Kenya, the extentof area occupied by the parks is unclear, butone source (Weaver, 1998), quoting WorldResources Institute 1994, gives a figure of6.1%. However, one member of a SouthAfrican NGO adds a perspective to thedebate by declaring that ‘there are alsosomething like 17 million ha of privatelyowned land that have been converted togame farming’ (personal communication,

April 2000). This statement is significant inthree respects. First, it underscores the newopening-up of South Africa’s developmentlandscape to accommodate all shades ofopinion on enterprise culture. Second,implicitly there are basic differencesbetween government-owned and privatelyowned parks in respect to their relativeroles in ecotourism. As noted above, it isnot surprising that private parks, encour-aged by generous incentives, are numeri-cally significant. For government parks,they highlight the process that gives provin-cial governments responsibility for tourismpromotion and development, leaving thecentral government with a restrictedresponsibility (see SATOUR, 1999a). Third,whether the parks/game farms fall withinthe jurisdiction of national or provincialgovernment, or whether they are ownedand managed by the government or privatesector, it is pertinent that the parks areattractive to both foreign and domestictourists. The Strategy document (SATOUR,1998) proves the point: R15 billion weregenerated by domestic tourism, and R12billion by inbound visitors.

Development issues

Various development issues, such as carry-ing capacity, marketing and image, pertainspecifically to the ecotourism sector inKenya and South Africa. Articulating thecarrying capacity problems in Kenya (seealso Table 6.3a, b, c), Weaver has suc-cinctly described the situation thus:

In Kenya, much attention has been focusedon Amboseli National Park and Maasai MaraNational Reserve. Visitor crowding andmismanagement in the former has long beenassociated with disruption of sensitivespecies such as cheetahs. Commonly, largenumbers of safari vehicles would concentratearound a single predator group, as nearbysafari vehicles would be alerted to thepresence of their activity. Other problemshave included scavenging by local wildlife ingarbage dumps, and landscape degenerationas a result of extensive off-road vehiculartraffic.

(Weaver, 1999, p. 806)

100 P.U.C. Dieke

Ecotourism in Other African Countries

In this section a small selection of somecountries in the sub-regions of Africa arepresented, in essence, to provide a broadercontinental context. Perhaps these areastudies will also emphasize or demonstratewhy there is relatively little ecotourism insome countries and more in others. Thecountries selected are not only significantbecause they exhibit in relatively varyingdegrees some of the features of ecotourismas discussed, but they also highlight prob-lems that can be found in much of theregion, considerations that might poten-tially threaten or enhance ecotourism activ-ities. Emphasis is placed on other ‘SafariCorridor’ countries located between Kenyaand South Africa (see Chapter 16).

Tanzania

Tanzania, once a tourism rival of Kenya,has the potential to re-launch itself as anecotourism destination following therepeal of socialist policies that were inau-gurated during the 1970s. Private enter-prise in tourism is now encouraged andgrowing, leading to the rapid growth oftourist arrivals and receipts since the mid-1990s. In terms of its competitive eco-tourism advantage, Tanzania has a widevariety of environmental resources, and itswildlife resources are unmatched in Africabeyond South Africa. Included in thisinventory are ecotourism icons such asKilimanjaro, the Ngorongoro, and Serengeti,the last two located within the so-calledNorthern Circuit wildlife area. Historically,ecotourism in Tanzania has focused on thisarea, though considerable potential isfound along the coast and within the unde-veloped southern wildlife sanctuaries.Such extensions would be logical fromboth a managerial and marketing perspec-tive, given that 80% of all tourist bed-nights are concentrated in the NorthernCircuit: a skewed pattern that has resultedin local pressures on environmentalresources during the peak season, and

a stereotypical ‘safari’ image of theTanzanian tourism product.

Zambia

Zambian ecotourism potential is based onlargely intact wildlife resources and thesingular Victoria Falls. However, at the pre-sent time, this potential is not being real-ized due to the poor quality of its lodges,food, infrastructure, vehicles and guides(Zambia, 1995a). This situation does notbode well for Zambia, which appears tohave no discernable competitive advantageagainst emerging sub-regional ecotourismdestinations such as Tanzania, Zimbabweand South Africa, despite the quality of itswildlife. Weaver also shares some of theabove concerns as well as offering someperspectives, maintaining that:

If the situation in Zimbabwe suggestsoverdevelopment, its Zambian counterpartreveals underutilization, with visitationaveraging only 50 visitors each day. A similarsituation pertains to Zambia’s protectedareas, which accommodate modest touristnumbers, despite outstanding naturalqualities. Without associated revenues, thereis little justification for maintaining suchareas in a state conducive to the fulfilment oftheir conservation mandate. Because ofinadequate funding, infrastructure forreaching the parks is poor (thus discouragingtourist traffic) and the number of rangers (600as of the late 1980s) has been far less than4000–5000 required to address seriouspoaching-related wildlife depletion.

(Weaver, 1998, p. 132)

In response, Zambia has taken a numberof sustainable development measures.Notable among these is the AdministrativeManagement Design for Game Management(ADMADE), introduced in the LupandeGame Management Area of the SouthLuangwa National Park, and including theLuangwa Integrated Rural DevelopmentProject (LIRDP) (Inskeep, 1991). Both ini-tiatives are intended to advance the causeof ecotourism, as broadly defined, but maybe only superficial. More recently, the

Kenya and South Africa 101

Medium-Term Strategy for Tourism (seeZambia, 1995a) and the White Paper onTourism (see Zambia, 1995b) haveattempted to address the problems oftourism in the country, though neither con-stitutes a comprehensive tourism develop-ment plan. Basically the strategy identifiesthe principal problems and constraints tofurther tourism development in Zambiaand prescribes the direction for futuredevelopment as well as identifiying thenecessary policy, legislative and develop-ment issues that need to be attended to inthe short-to-medium term.

In terms of ecotourism, to implementthe strategies will require investment inphysical plant, facilities and associated ser-vices. The government has recently putaccommodation facilities in the nationalparks out to tender, and this should resultin an immediate inflow of both investmentand expertise to revitalize the existingfacilities through upgrading and develop-ment. This in turn should have a positiveeffect on the inflow of tourists. Revenuegenerated will benefit the National Parksand Wildlife Service (NPWS) through con-tributions to its Wildlife and ConservationRevolving Fund (WCRF) and to communi-ties through the ADMADE programme.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe is endowed with considerablenatural landscapes, having 29 wildlife pro-tected areas that account for between 8%(Weaver, 1998) and 12% (ECA, 1997) of itsterritory. What is striking about this coun-try is the quality of its infrastructure andsupport services that, by any comparativeAfrican standards, might be consideredgood. It has managed to maintain relativepeace since independence in 1980,although current social unrest in the coun-try might undermine future prospects.

Zimbabwe suffers from two interrelatedproblems, one of which is an upsurge invisitation levels, and the other a dramaticreduction in some key animal species onwhich ecotourism depends. It has been sug-gested that, although ‘most protected areas

have yet to experience intensive levels ofvisitation, an impact is being made on cer-tain areas, by what resembles a form ofincipient mass tourism’ (Weaver, 1998,p. 131). Part of the problem is that preferredholiday areas outside Harare, the capital,are concentrated in the northern region ofthe country, notably Lake Kariba, HwangeNational Park and the geographically proxi-mate Victoria Falls.

Given, therefore, the huge popularity ofthe Victoria Falls (a World Heritageresource), with about 20% of totalovernight stays in 1995, it is not surprisingthat this poses an increasing threat to theenvironmental sustainability of the coun-try’s most important tourist attractions(ECA, 1997). The second, and related,problem concerns the actual wildlife, andthe problem is twofold. First there is theclaim that over-crowding and over-utiliza-tion of the Kariba and Zambezi havechanged some wildlife habits (ECA, 1997).For example, the water-skinner, which nor-mally nests on the riverbank, has been dis-turbed to the extent that it has had tochange its nesting habits. There is a likeli-hood of other birds and animals beingaffected in one way or another. The secondproblem is the decimation of wildlife, e.g.rhinoceros, by poaching, which was said tobe serious before the introduction of theCommunal Areas Management Programmefor Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in1989. The latter movement integrates localcommunities in tourism development byproviding these communities with tangiblebenefits from the use of wildlife resourcesfor hunting and other forms of tourism,hence the initiative is only partially relatedto ecotourism. However, this does notmean that it is unsustainable, since themovement has brought about a fundamen-tal and positive change in community atti-tudes towards wildlife management.

The Gambia

Some mention should be made of Africanecotourism beyond its East and SouthAfrican strongholds. Ecotourism in The

102 P.U.C. Dieke

Gambia is perhaps representative of thegeneral trend in West Africa. Here, the sec-tor is embryonic and small scale. In addi-tion, the product is different due to, interalia, limited land provision, harsh climaticconditions, desertification, destruction ofrainforest and savannahs and, arguably,civil and military conflicts. The first majoreffort to develop ecotourism in The Gambiabegan in 1977 with the Banjul Declaration(The Gambia, n.d., p. 2), which wasspawned by government’s awareness of theloss of wildlife and biodiversity. The solepurpose of the Declaration, in the words ofthe government was to ‘ensure the survivalof the wildlife still remaining with us’through taking ‘untiring efforts to conservefor now and posterity as wide a spectrum aspossible of our remaining fauna and flora’.In one sense ecotourism policy in thiscountry can therefore be seen as an out-growth of the broad environmental masterplan with its focus on arresting the degrada-tion of vegetation, forest cover, biodiversityand wildlife, much of it attributable toother forms of tourism (see Dieke, 1993).

A 1967 study listed 67 species of mam-mals known or expected to have existed inThe Gambia in the 20th century. Of thisnumber, however, 13 are now locallyextinct, and the remaining species areunder the growing threat of high popula-tion growth and ever-increasing demandson land resources. For example, the aquaticantelope or sitatunga and the African man-atee are teetering on the edge of extinction.Against this background, Gambian eco-tourism is not to be sought in recent plansto develop ecotourism sui generis. Thesewere foreshadowed by a number of govern-ment initiatives that followed in the wakeof the Banjul Declaration or even precededit. The initiatives have centred largely onattempts to bring specific areas under pro-tection. There are already a number ofnature reserves and forest parks that areproving effective in terms of preservingendangered animal species. For instance,Kiang West National Park is something of atrailblazer in that it seeks to conserve plantand animal life through close and activecollaboration with the resident population,

which derives significant economic bene-fits from the symbiotic relationship. Toprotect bird life, for which The Gambiaenjoys a good reputation, a number of areashave recently been reserved as ‘bird sanc-tuaries’.

Future development of ecotourism inThe Gambia, in summary, will undoubt-edly be hindered by the environmentalproblems of the past. Furthermore, as inmany West African destinations, the mar-keting of this product will be hindered bythe absence of ‘dramatic’ attractions suchas lions, giraffes and elephants. However,by allying ecotourism with productstrengths such as cultural tourism or evensports tourism, and by intelligently andresponsibly accessing its existing naturalattractions, The Gambia can succeed as anecotourism destination. Another possibilitywould be to establish a more diversifiedtourism product by engaging in multilat-eral product development and marketing(The Gambia, n.d., p. 5).

Conclusion

The importance of developing sustainableecotourism in Africa cannot be over-emphasized because of its potential fordiversifying the economy while protectingits still formidable environmental heritage.The case is made that its development canbe based on using the many and variedwildlife and environmental assets of theregion sensitively to stimulate economicdevelopment. This is particularly impor-tant in eastern and southern regional coun-tries where a strong ecotourism tradition isalready evident. Yet, despite this traditionand the richness and variety of the naturalassets in Africa, these natural resources arevery much under-utilized for ecotourism.Areas that appear promising for the effec-tive and sustainable development of thesector include the fostering of domesticmarkets, community initiatives along thelines of CAMPFIRE, the return of funds bythe industry into protected areas andwildlife management, and the formation ofdiversified, multilateral tourism circuits.

Kenya and South Africa 103

Regarding the last point, ecotourism shouldnot be isolated from regional Africantrends, where there has been the movetowards economic integration and coopera-tion, as advocated in the Abuja Treaty(OAU, 1991; Dieke, 1998). Cooperation indeveloping ecotourism between thoseadjoining African countries where thisactivity is meaningful is advocated, as the

cooperating countries will be able to benefitfrom economies of scale. Such moves couldbe facilitated through existing regional andsub-regional organizations such as theSouthern African Development Community(SADC), Common Market for Eastern andSouthern Africa (COMESA), RegionalTourism Organisation of Southern Africa(RETOSA) and others.

104 P.U.C. Dieke

References

Afigbo, A.E., Ayandele, E.A., Gavin, R.J., Omer-Cooper, J.D. and Palmer, R. (1992) The Making ofModern Africa: the 19th Century, Vol. 1. Longman, London.

Akama, J.S. (1996) Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya. TourismManagement 17(8), 567–574.

Anderson, D. and Grover, R. (eds) (1987) Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice,University Press. Cambridge.

Dieke, P.U.C. (1991) Policies for tourism development in Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 18(3),269–294.

Dieke, P.U.C. (1993) Tourism and development policy in The Gambia. Annals of Tourism Research20(3), 423–449.

Dieke, P.U.C. (1998) Regional tourism in Africa: scope and critical issues. In: Laws, E., Faulkner, B.and Moscardo, G. (eds) Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: International CaseStudies. Routledge, London, pp. 29–48.

Dieke, P.U.C. (ed.) (2000) The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa. Cognizant,Elmsford, New York.

ECA: Economic Commission for Africa (1997) Environmental Issues in Transport and TourismSectors in Africa, Vol. V. TRANSCOM/1067/REV. 1. ECA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ECA: Economic Commission for Africa (1999) Economic Report on Africa 1999. ECA, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia.

The Ecotourism Society (1998) Ecotourism at a Crossroads: Charting the Way Forward (A Summaryof Conference Proceedings held in Nairobi, Kenya, October 1997). The Ecotourism Society,North Bennington, Vermont.

The Gambia (n.d.) Ecotourism in The Gambia: Possible Strategies and Projections, (Unpublishedmanuscript). Ministry of Information and Tourism, Banjul, The Gambia.

Gibson, C.C. (1999) Politicians and Poachers: the Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Jefferson, A. and Lickorish, L. (1988) Marketing Tourism: a Practical Guide. Longman, Harlow, UK.Kenya, Republic of (1995) Statistical Abstract. Central Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi.Kenya, Republic of (1997a) National Development Plan 1997–2001. Government Printer, Nairobi.Kenya, Republic of (1997b) Economic Survey 1997. Central Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi.Kenya, Republic of (1999) Economic Survey 1999. Central Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi.KWS (1990) A Policy Framework and Development Programme 1991–1996. Kenya Wildlife Service,

Nairobi.Olindo, P. (1991) The old man of nature tourism in Kenya. In: Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature Tourism:

Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 23–38.OAU: Organisation of African Unity (1991) Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community.

OAU, Abuja, Nigeria.Richards, B. (1997) Tourism trades. In: Lickorish, L.J. and Jenkins, C.L. (eds) An Introduction to

Tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 98–134.

Sindiga, I. (2000) Tourism development in Kenya. In: Dieke, P.U.C. (ed.) The Political Economy ofTourism Development in Africa. Cognizant, Elmsford, New York, pp. 129–153.

South African Tourism (SATOUR) (1996) Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa(Government White Paper). Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

South African Tourism (SATOUR) (1998) Tourism in Gear: Tourism Development Strategy1998–2000. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

South African Tourism (SATOUR) (1999a) Annual Report 1997–1998. Department of EnvironmentalAffairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

South African Tourism (SATOUR) (1999b) Institutional Guidelines for Public Sector TourismDevelopment and Promotion in South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs andTourism, Pretoria.

South African Tourism (SATOUR) (1999c) Tourism Action Plan. Department of EnvironmentalAffairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

South African Tourism (SATOUR) (n.d.) Investing in Tourism: South Africa. Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

‘t Sas-Rolfes, M. (1996) The Kruger National Park: a Heritage for All South Africans? Pretoria: AfricaResources Trust. http://www.wildnetafrica.com/bushcraft/articles/article-kruger-start.html

Travel and Tourism Intelligence (TTI) (1999) South Africa, Country Reports No. 2, Travel andTourism Intelligence, London, pp. 78–100.

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D.B. (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research

26, 792–816.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999) Tourism Market Trends: Africa. WTO, Madrid.Yeager, R. and Miller, N.N. (1986) Wildlife, Wild Death: Land Use and Survival in Eastern Africa.

State University of New York, Albany, New York.Zambia, Republic of (1995a) Medium-Term National Tourism Strategy and Action Plan for Zambia.

Government of Zambia, Lusaka.Zambia, Republic of (1995b) A Tourism Policy for Zambia. Government of Zambia, Lusaka.

Kenya and South Africa 105

Chapter 7

Anglo-America

D.A. FennellDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation,

Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Introduction

In looking over the accounts given of theIvory-billed Woodpecker by the naturalists ofEurope, I find it asserted, that it inhabits fromNew Jersey to Mexico. I believe, however,that few of them are ever seen to the north ofVirginia, and very few of them even in thatstate.

Alexander Wilson (1808), see Finch andElder, 1990, pp. 79–80

In Anglo-America, particularly the US, thenatural history accounts of intrepid trav-ellers are well documented. Naturalists andexplorers the likes of William Bartram,Alexander Wilson, John James Audubon,George Catlin, John Burroughs, RobertService, Henry David Thoreau and JohnMuir, contributed greatly to the under-standing of a region’s nature and naturalresources. In an age of industrialization,such accounts were instrumental in help-ing to change the population’s perceptionthat the forests of the land were more thanjust, in the words of Michael Wigglesworth(1662), ‘A waste and howling wilderness,where none inhabited but hellish fiends,and brutish men’ (quoted in Nash, 1982,p. 36). It was their words and actions thatpaved the way for the development of the

world’s first large preserves and parks,designed for the protection of habitat andthe enjoyment of the public.

Americans and Canadians continue touse their parks systems by the millions,and governments in turn have respondedby creating more protected areas to accom-modate increasing outdoor recreationaldemands. In the USA, for example, 287million people visited the national parks(natural and cultural) in 1997, representingan increase of 4.2% from the previous year(US Department of the Interior, 1998).International visitors too are drawn to theparks and natural resources of the conti-nent. Based on research conducted byFilion et al. (1992), 69–88% of Europeansand Japanese reported that birds andwildlife were important factors in travel-ling to North America. Seventy per cent ofthese travellers visited national parks and30–64% observed birds and other wildlife.

One of the most interesting outdoorrecreational trends in Anglo-America is thechanging interest and emphasis away fromconsumptive activities like hunting, tothose which are more non-consumptive intheir orientation. In projections of annualgrowth rates on various outdoor activitiesbetween 1996 and 2011, birding wasreported to be the fastest-growing of all at

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 107

6%, compared with 3% for golf and 4.5%for fishing (Foot and Stoffman, 1996). In arecent study by Statistics Canada (1998) onthe importance of nature to Canadians,18% of Canadians in 1996 said that theyhad fished for recreational purposes com-pared with 26% 5 years earlier. The statis-tics for hunting in the survey show asimilar decline, with 5% of the populationhunting in 1996 compared to 7% in 1991.This survey also found that 85% ofCanada’s population, aged 15 years andover, participated in one or more nature-related activities in 1996 (e.g. camping,canoeing, hunting), and about one-third ofthese individuals (6.7 million) visited aprovincial park, national park, or otherprotected area. In addition, Canadiansspent an estimated CDN$11 billion(CDN$550 per person) on nature-relatedactivities, e.g. outdoor clothes, binoculars,camera gear, hotels and transportation;while 1.3 million, or just over 5% of thepopulation, joined or contributed tonature-related organizations such as natu-ralist, conservation, or sportsman’s clubs.

These results mirror many of the trendsin the USA. In the 1994–1995 US NationalSurvey on Recreation and the Environment(US Federal Government, n.d.), birdwatch-ing experienced the greatest positive per-centage change from 1982–1983 to1994–1995, of 30 outdoor recreation activi-ties reported. Birding increased by 155%over the time period, followed by hiking(93.5%) and backpacking (72.7%).Conversely, fishing declined by 3.8% andhunting declined by 12.3%. Foot andStoffman (1996) illustrate that in the USA,65 million birders are spending US$5.2 bil-lion annually on bird-related products,with a total economic output of US$15.9billion.

In the latter part of the 1980s, eco-tourism emerged to cater to a rather smallmarket of travellers primarily interested inrainforests and exotic natural attractions.Anglo-Americans felt they had to go abroadto places like Costa Rica, the GalapagosIslands and Africa in order to be eco-tourists. However, as the discussion abovedemonstrates, ecotourism in Anglo-America

– or activities that adhere to some of theprinciples of ecotourism – has been thriv-ing for some time, and rests on a solidfoundation of supply and demand (see alsoAnderson, 1996). While this may be truefrom a statistical standpoint, further analy-sis points to the fact that the ecotourismindustry in Anglo-America is rather looselydefined and encompasses a number of dif-ferent products that may or may not beclassified as ecotourism, including adven-ture and outdoor pursuits, wilderness, abo-riginal culture and wildlife viewing. In thischapter the ecotourism industries of theUSA and Canada are discussed, in additionto a number of key issues related to thedevelopment of ecotourism in theseregions, including definitions of the term,policy, and the physical characteristics ofAnglo-American regions where ecotourismis said to exist.

Ecotourism in the USA

In the USA, federal government involve-ment in ecotourism is virtually non-exis-tent. Linda Harbaugh in the tourism policyunit of the US Department of Commerce(personal communication, June 22, 1999)acknowledges that while her department isconcerned with the generation of tourismstatistics, it has no direct concern for thedevelopment of ecotourism programmeareas. The USA, therefore, has no federallaws dictating protocol for regional eco-tourism development. This responsibilitylies with the individual states which havetheir own mandates, budgets and products,and who help those working in the field,e.g. operators, with marketing and promo-tion. In a review of governmental agenciescharged with the responsibility of adminis-tering the ecotourism industry, Edwards etal. (1998) found little consistency amongstates and provinces in Anglo-America.Tourism and ecotourism are administeredby a wide variety of agencies of govern-ment, including policy, marketing, economicdevelopment, planning and environment.The implication is that tourism is not yet

108 D.A. Fennell

perceived as having enough importance tostand alone as a distinct department.

The definitions of ecotourism that arecurrently used by the US states are just asvariable as the governmental bodies thatadminister tourism and ecotourism. Theprinciple difference lies in the usage of the‘nature’, ‘nature-based’ and ‘ecotourism’labels. The examples below serve to illus-trate this point.

• In Alaska, ‘ecotourism’ is defined as‘Environmentally responsible travel toexperience the natural areas and cultureof the region while promoting conserva-tion and economically contributing tolocal communities’ (Alaska WildernessRecreation and Tourism Association,1999, p. 1).

• In South Carolina, ‘nature-basedtourism’ is defined as ‘responsible travelto natural areas that conserves the envi-ronment and improves the welfare oflocal people’ (South Carolina Nature-Based Tourism Association, 1997, p. 9).

• In Texas, ‘nature tourism’ is defined as‘discretionary travel to natural areas thatconserves the environmental, social andcultural values while generating an eco-nomic benefit to the local community’(Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,1995, p. 2).

• In Hawaii, ‘ecotourism’ is defined as‘nature-based travel to Hawaii’s naturalattractions to experience and studyHawaii’s unique flora, fauna, and cul-ture in a manner which is ecologicallyresponsible, sustains the well-being ofthe local community, and is infusedwith the spirit of aloha aina (love of theland) (Centre for Tourism PolicyStudies, 1994, p. i).

• In Florida, ‘ecotourism’ is defined as‘responsible travel to natural areaswhich conserves the environment andsustains the well-being of local peoplewhile providing a quality experiencethat connects the visitor to nature’(Florida Ecotourism/Heritage TourismAdvisory Committee, 1997, p. C-3).

South Carolina, for example, uses thenature-based tourism label to act as anumbrella for a variety of tourism activities,including backpacking and hiking, birding,boat tours, camping outfitters, canoe/kayakoutfitters, cycling tours, environmentaleducation, farms, fishing operators, gar-dens, horseback riding, hunting, lodgingpackages, retail outfitting businesses,scuba-diving, state parks, white-water raft-ing and zoos. Texas does the same, andacknowledges that although hunting andfishing are the mainstays of nature tourismin the state, other non-consumptive activi-ties are emerging with the most significantmarket growth. The activities classified asnature tourism above, however, are classi-fied as ecotourism in Alaska, Florida andHawaii. Although many states use termslike ecotourism, nature tourism and nature-based tourism interchangeably (SouthCarolina views ecotourism and nature-based as being synonymous), some theoristsargue that ecotourism and nature tourismare quite different in meaning (see Chapter 5).

In the USA a number of not-for-profitorganizations have been instrumental inhelping to support the industry from bothpolicy and programme perspectives.Although they are centred in the USA andhave been active in national ecotourismissues, these organizations (The Ecotour-ism Society, The Adventure Travel Society,and Conservation International) also havebroader international mandates.

The Ecotourism Society (TES)

TES (founded in 1990) works with the mis-sion of fostering a true sense of synergybetween tourism, research and conserva-tion (The Ecotourism Society, 1999). Thismembership-based society sponsors events,publishes ecotourism documents, under-takes research, is involved in many inter-national endeavours related to ecolodgedevelopment, and has been a resource forgovernments on a number of policy-relatedissues.

Anglo-America 109

The Adventure Travel Society

This organization, which runs an adven-ture tourism and ecotourism conferenceevery year, is strongly tied to the adventureindustry. Its Adventure Travel BusinessTrade Association (ATBTA) exclusivelyserves the business and industry-relatedneeds of adventure travel professionals andbusinesses like guides, outfitters, tour oper-ators and adventure resorts.

Conservation International (CI)

CI approaches ecotourism less from a busi-ness perspective, and more from a grass-roots vantage point. Their mission is to‘conserve the earth’s living natural her-itage, biodiversity, and to demonstrate thathuman societies are able to live harmo-niously with nature’ (Sweeting et al., 1999).Accordingly, this Washington-based organ-ization is active in a number of develop-ment issues in less developed countriesaround the world.

Ecotourism in Canada

The importance of Canada’s nature tourismproduct is underscored in the CanadianTourism Commission’s (CTC) vision state-ment, ‘Canada will be the premier four-sea-son destination to connect with nature andto experience diverse cultures and commu-nities’ (Canadian Tourism Commission,1998). The vision points to the fact thatnature and culture are central to the devel-opment of tourism in the country. Not sur-prisingly, the CTC, which is a crowncorporation of the federal government, hasspent a great deal of time positioning theadventure and ecotourism sector as a keycomponent of the overall industry. TheCTC operates on the basis of core fundingfrom the federal government, but alsothrough unique public and private sectorpartnerships. However, it also relies on ter-ritorial, provincial and First Nations gov-ernmental departments and communitygroups as stakeholders to further develop

ecotourism products. As of 1997, Canadawas ranked ninth in terms of internationaltourist arrivals, with 17.6 million interna-tional tourists visiting the country(Canadian Tourism Commission, 1998).Tourism spending by foreigners rose bymore than 8% per year during the lastdecade, reaching CDN$12.7 billion in 1997.However, the domestic visitor is still themainstay of the industry with Canadiansspending more than CDN$31 billion of theCDN$44 billion injected into the economy(Canadian Tourism Commission, 1998).

While the CTC failed to make a distinc-tion between ecotourism and adventuretourism (the nature-based tourism labeldoes not appear to be as strongly supportedin Canada) in some of their publications upto 1995, by 1997 the two types of tourismwere deemed separate. However, in Canadathe focus is still predominantly on theadventure tourism product, as evident inthe following organization of categories ofadventure tours across the country:

• air sport/activity (e.g. hang-gliding, heli-tours);

• land sport/activity (e.g. hiking, moun-tain biking);

• water sport/activity (e.g. fishing, water-skiing);

• winter sport/activity (e.g. dog sledding,snowshoeing);

• nature/wildlife (e.g. ecotourism, natural-ist tours).

Almost 60 distinct adventure activities arelisted by the CTC in the the first four cate-gories above, compared with just six activi-ties listed under the nature/wildlifecategory.

The value placed on adventure and eco-tourism in Canada is further emphasized ina recently published report entitledAdventure Travel and Ecotourism: theChallenge Ahead, by the CTC (1997). Thedocument examines the adventure tourismand ecotourism opportunities and con-straints for each province and territory onthe basis of seven criteria: product devel-opment, packaging, resource protection/sustainability, business development/management, marketing/promotion, training/

110 D.A. Fennell

human resources, and industry organiza-tion. The strategic priorities identified forOntario are outlined in Table 7.1.

Like the USA, Canadian provinces haveinitiated their own policies and definitionsof ecotourism based on their recognizedneeds. In the remote Yukon Territory, forexample, ecotourism falls under theumbrella of wilderness tourism. Accordingto the Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act(Government of Yukon, 1997), ‘wilderness’is any area of the Yukon in a largely naturalcondition in which ecosystem processesare generally unaltered by human activity,and may include areas of visible humanactivity that do not detract from wildernesstourism. Wilderness tourism includes all

types of activities occurring in the wilder-ness, including canoeing, kayaking, riverrafting, snowmobiling, photographicsafaris, and First Nation cultural interpre-tive tours. The definitions and policiesdeveloped for the wilderness tourismindustry in the Yukon are the result of aseries of meetings and interviews involvingover 70 key members of the tourism com-munity, including tourism and recreationassociations, commercial outfitters (nativeand non-native) and government person-nel. In an era of public accountability, openforum meetings and debates are needed tosatisfy the needs of industry stakeholders.

The inclusion of several stakeholdergroups, however, may often create friction

Anglo-America 111

Table 7.1. Ontario strategic priorities (CTC, 1997). Ontario offers a diverse range of adventure andecotourism activities, but competition from mass tourism has prevented it from fully developing itspotential. Ontario’s priorities should be product upgrading, resource protection/sustainability,marketing/promotion, training/organization.

Strategic thrust Highest priority strategies

1 Product development Diversify off-season productsUpgrade product qualityFacilitate access to funding

2 Packaging Establish programme to link operators with external partnersProvide ‘how-to’ adviceImprove access to distribution and markets

3 Resource protection/sustainability Coordinate resource accessImplement environmentally sensitive/sustainable practicesAdvocate and coordinate resource managementImprove local land use management

4 Business development/management Facilitate access to development financingMake management training accessibleDevelop risk management and appropriate insuranceEstablish business mentoring programmes

5 Marketing/promotion Select distribution channels and define tacticsUpgrade promotional materialsDevelop the US marketBroker cooperative marketing/promotion initiativesProvide ‘how-to’ advice

6 Training/human resources Identify training needs and prioritiesCoordinate access to training opportunitiesFacilitate the development of training programmes and

resourcesDevelop ‘how-to’ manualsFacilitate access to opportunities

7 Industry organization Communicate the benefits of organizingSupport organizational developmentEnhance the development of provincial organizations

in the development of ecotourism policy.Such is the case in Saskatchewan whererecent deliberations over ecotourismdefinition and policy have served to accentthe fundamental differences betweengroups representing the environment andthose representing economic development.Environmentalists in Saskatchewan (gov-ernment and non-government organiza-tions) are in favour of firmly structuredprinciples defining and guiding the indus-try. Conversely, those in economic devel-opment are in favour of broadeningecotourism to encompass many non-consumptive (birding) and consumptiveactivities (fishing). At present deliberationsare on hold in an attempt to reconcile thedisparate stances of those involved. One ofthe key issues being discussed is the writ-ing and interpretation of the proposedaccreditation application document (TourismSaskatchewan, 1999). Under the sectionentitled ‘Primary Activities’ are three stan-dards-based questions (operators are askedto respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’) that deal with on-site activities. These read as follows:

1. Where wild plant materials are gatheredin a sustainable fashion from the localecosystem for on-site food preparation andconsumption, are they gathered under theauthority of a permit or license whererequired?2. Where wildlife is captured in a sustain-able and culturally acceptable fashion fromthe local ecosystem for on-site food prepa-ration and consumption, is it taken underthe authority of a permit or license whererequired?3. Where the sustainable local gathering ofwild plants or animals, birds, or fish for on-site food preparation is part of a package, isthis component of the package specificallymentioned in advertising and promotionalmaterial?

The Saskatchewan case study is indica-tive of what is felt to be the main problemconstraining the industry in Anglo-America (and I suspect elsewhere): defini-tion and policy. While it is important torealize that no absolute definition exists forecotourism, there is consensus among gov-

ernments and industry (less consensusamong academics) that ecotourism shouldbe responsible, contribute to local liveli-hoods and contribute to conservation.Leadership in the development of state andprovincial definitions has no doubt comefrom TES which has defined ecotourism as‘Responsible travel to areas which con-serves the environment and improves thewelfare of local people’ (Western, 1993).Saskatchewan is no exception, and definesecotourism as: ‘an enlightened nature travelexperience that contributes to conservationof ecosystems and the cultural and economicresources of the host communities’ (TourismSaskatchewan, 1999). While the two defini-tions differ only marginally, Saskatchewan’sinterpretation of the term may or may not beconsistent with the ideals of TES. Point 2(using fishing as an example) of theSaskatchewan strategy, above, suffices toargue this position:

1. Fishing can be responsible/enlightened(e.g. the institution of regulations and catchlimits);2. It can conserve the environment (e.g. inmuch the same way that ‘Ducks Unlimited’conserves habitat for duck hunting); and 3. It can contribute to or improve the wel-fare of local people (e.g. soliciting the useof an aboriginal guide).

Using this rationale, a case may be madeto argue that fishing (the catching andkilling of fish for consumption) is indeedecotourism. This is what the manySaskatchewan operators are probably striv-ing to emphasize in protecting, or rathersubstantiating, their product under thecurrent interpretation of the term.Consequently, such middle-of-the-road def-initions of ecotourism leave much to theinterpretation of the individual or agency,and say nothing about how ecotourismrelates to the philosophy of ecocentrism,specifically in regards to sustainability,ethics, learning about nature, low impact,non-consumptiveness, and appropriatemanagement which, according to some, arehallmark principles of ecotourism (seeWallace and Pierce, 1996; Fennell, 1999).The importance of definition, therefore,

112 D.A. Fennell

cannot be underestimated as a startingpoint in the development of a provincial orstate ecotourism industry.

Issues in Anglo-American Ecotourism

Policy

Liu (1994) writes that policy is particularlyimportant for ecotourism as a means bywhich to balance economics (the viabilityof ecotour operators) and environmental

protection. Effective policy involves allstakeholders who stand to be influenced bythe development of the ecotourism indus-try. Recently Edwards et al. (1998) under-took a comprehensive overview of policyin the Americas. Their work, as it relates toAnglo-America, has been adopted and pre-sented here (Fig. 7.1). The map illustratesCanadian provinces and US states: (i)which have developed policy; (ii) whichhave not; and (iii) whose status is uncer-tain. The map shows that 7 of the 11Canadian political jurisdictions (including

Anglo-America 113

Fig. 7.1. Anglo-American ecotourism: policy and operator comparisons (adapted from Edwards et al.,1998).

the newly established Nunavut Territory)have developed ecotourism policy, whereasthis applies to only 10 of the 50 US states,most of which are located in the US south(Arizona, Texas, Louisiana and Florida).

Figure 7.1 also contains data on num-bers of ecotours that occur in each of thesepolitical jurisdictions, as listed in the STIor Specialty Travel Index (1999). The STI iswidely used as an advertisement mediumby special interest tour operators. Althoughthis list is certainly not representative ofthe numbers of ecotour operators that cur-rently exist in states and provinces, it doesprovide an objective overview of numbersof ecotour operators from the perspectiveof one publication. Moreover, the STI wasused because it lists tour operators byregion and not just by type of tour, therebyallowing the researcher to determine thetypes of tours found within each state andprovince. (In gathering information onoperators it became obvious that manystates and provinces have only recentlyendeavoured to piece together lists of eco-tour operators in their respective regions.)The methodology for identifying an eco-tour operator in the STI involved simplyscanning the special interest tours undereach state and province, and identifyingthose that were ecotourism-oriented. Thefollowing STI listings were identified asecotourism: birding, botany, butterfly tours,conservation, ecology, ecotourism, environ-mental education, marine biology, nationalparks, natural history, nature reserve,nature trips, rainforest, safari/game, whale-watching, wildflower viewing, wildlifeviewing and zoology. As some tours couldbe found listed under six or seven of thesenames, the researcher had to record andcontrol for any duplication of tours.

Figure 7.1 shows that there are very fewecotours listed in the STI in states east ofthe Rocky Mountains, with the biggestshortfall in the Midwest. Almost all of thewestern states have some degree of eco-tourism, and Alaska, by far, has the greatestnumber of ecotours (38) in the STI, fol-lowed by Wyoming (12), Montana (11) andHawaii and Arizona with 10 apiece. Thiswestern representation also holds true for

Canada, with British Columbia and Albertahaving the highest number of ecotours aslisted in the STI.

Ecotourism operators

The overlap that exists between adventureand ecotourism products in Canada is wellsummarized in a recent magazine articleentitled: ‘Risky business: Canada’s eco-tourism outfitters will give you anythingyou want – from paddling wild rivers tohiking in the arctic’ (Rapsey, 1995). In thearticle the author states that ‘While differ-ent operators take different approaches topackaging and pitching their brand ofwilderness experience – one man’s adven-ture is another man’s eco-tour – they gener-ally agree on one thing: what they providebegins and ends with wilderness’ (Rapsey,1995, p. 30). Rapsey provides a diary of atrip down the Dumoine River in Quebec,which is easily representative of the typesof adventure/ecotour trips outlined in thearticle and in certain parts of Canada as awhole. His description of the trip made ref-erence to little other than rocks, white-water and instruction in canoeing. Basedon descriptions like this, it appears asthough it is ‘open season’ on ecotourism inCanada, especially in the north. Is it reallyecotourism? To the uninitiated and thosewhose job it is to market ecotourism prod-ucts, yes. Call it what you want, if it paysthe bills it works. These days ecotourism ispaying the bills.

The apparent confusion over adventureand ecotourism is alluded to in the articleby Carolyn Wilde (cited in Rapsey), anOttawa-based ecotourism consultant. Shefeels that Canada is not doing a goodenough job of selling itself, and that no onereally knows who is offering what towhom, or how reliable the outfitters are.Even more striking are Anderson’s (1996)conclusions on the ecotourism industriesin Canada and Alaska. Based on his discus-sions with a number of key industry stake-holders, Anderson found that there was asignificant difference between the mar-keted experience and the actual product

114 D.A. Fennell

delivered. Operators had concerns aboutthe overuse of the term ecotourism, andthat they may not be able to live up to thestrict definition of the concept. Andersonconcluded by suggesting that, althoughthere is considerable potential for thedevelopment of ecotourism in Canada andAlaska, the industry is negating this poten-tial through a strong consumptive philoso-phy, anti-regulatory ideals, a lack ofconsistent standards, poorly developedecological management standards, declin-ing emphasis of private sector interpreta-tion, and operator seasonality (a narrowwindow of opportunity).

In many respects the commercial enter-prises in Alaska and Canada’s north, oftenwith government encouragement and sup-port, have been left to re-package and re-tool their product from one initially basedon consumptive activities (e.g. bear hunt-ing), to one that is more non-consumptive(catch-and-release fishing or bear viewing,with some in-season hunting). Althoughmany have not successfully made the tran-sition, they see no reason not to use theconceptually elusive ecotourism label.

The same reasoning can be used bycultural tourism and adventure pursuitsoperators who specialize in, for example,week-long cycling or canoeing excursions.These operators encourage people to viewwildlife on such trips in an effort to offertheir clients as much of an on-site experi-ence as possible, despite their lack of skillsin natural history and environmental edu-cation. The interpretation, therefore, isoften the responsibility of the client. Themerging of adventure tourism, ecotourismand culture tourism that is increasinglyapparent in Anglo-America and elsewhereis described by Fennell (1999) as ACEtourism. He suggests that this phenome-non, which has had a dilution effect onecotourism, has grown stronger in recentyears (Fig. 7.2). Depending on theactivity(ies) and setting or region in whichit occurs, ACE expands or contracts to rep-resent the different focus of the product.While many tourists are in fact looking forcombined nature, adventure and/or cul-tural experiences, the potential problem

exists for those travellers looking forunique, hard path nature or adventure orcultural experiences in their travels.

The problem of ecotourism in name, butnot necessarily content, also ventures fur-ther into the realm of environmental ethics.In conducting a content analysis of outdoorrecreation magazines, Lenton (1993) founda vast number of Canadian tripping outfit-ters using terms like ‘environmentallyaware’, ‘minimum impact travel’ and ‘eco-tourism’ in their advertising. In fact, hefound that there were enough tour opera-tors waving environmentally friendly flagsto sink the ecotourism boat. In a world thatis hungry for ecotourism products, thecompetitiveness of the industry has testedthe values of operators who are trying tostay afloat. This eco-opportunism is notsolely an Anglo-American phenomenonbut has been reported in destinationsaround the world. In some cases the prob-lem has become so bad that many legiti-mate ecotour operators are refusing to usethe label because of its poor image (Preeceet al., 1995).

While it has been necessary to highlightsome of the dysfunctions of the ecotourismindustry in Anglo-America, there are anumber of operators who practise environ-mentally and culturally sound ecotourism.In his paper, Lenton (1993) identifies tensuch Canadian ecotour operators, one of

Anglo-America 115

Ecotourism Culturaltourism

Adventuretourism

ACE tourism(adventure, cultural,

ecotourism)

Fig. 7.2. The changing face of ecotourism (adaptedfrom Fennell, 1999).

which is the Mingan Island CetaceanStudy, and Lenton’s description of thisoperator is as follows:

The Mingan Island Cetacean Study (MICS)offers marine mammal educational programs to the public ‘to help finance their research and enhance the publicawareness of marine mammals’. This is adirect example of how ecotourism dollars areinvested in conservation efforts. People payto go out and spend anywhere from one toten days on the ocean to observe the whales,dolphins, seals, and seabirds of the MinganIsland area in the Gulf of St. Lawrence …MICS is a quintessential stop for theenvironmentally minded tourist travellingeast of Quebec City. This group offers proofthat conservation and ecotourism can beblended to yield many benefits. Theseinclude: boosting the local economy,initiating research, and educating the publicabout the plight of marine mammals –probably one of the best indicators of thequality of our environment.

(Lenton, 1993, p. 13)

Ecotourism and ecoregions

In the 1980s, a paradigm shift occurred inthe planning and management of parks andprotected areas. Ecosystem management –the integrated management of human activ-ities and the broad environments in whichthese take place – took the place of oldermodels which viewed parks as discretegeopolitical entities. This new approachwas based on the realization that in safe-guarding natural areas, one must scientifi-cally understand the human andbiophysical processes that exist withinthese dynamic settings. Geology, land-forms, soils, vegetation, climate, wildlifeand water were all elements that had to beconsidered in park planning and manage-ment (Bailey, 1998). Map makers too werechallenged with the task of trying to repre-sent these dynamic systems at variousscales. The results of the amalgamation ofthese elements, however, were importantin enabling policy makers to make deci-

sions on the basis of ecosystems (or eco-regions at various scales) instead of dis-crete sectors, and assisting in the setting ofpriorities and standards for resource man-agement (Wilken and Gauthier, 1998).

Macroclimatic data have been especiallyvaluable in the design of ecoregion maps,on the basis of the fact that climate is oneof the most significant factors affecting soilcomposition, surface topography, vegeta-tion and the distribution of life (Bailey,1998). Figure 7.3 illustrates the mainmacroclimatic ecodivisions of Anglo-America, as developed by Bailey (the levelof detail of the map represents the secondof three ecoregion levels). In addition, anumber of ecotour destinations/attractionsare identified on the map as examples ofthe types of ecotourism activities thatoccur in these ecodivisions. Each of theseregions is explained in greater detail below(climate descriptions are taken primarilyfrom Bailey, 1998).

TundraLying beyond the alpine tree line, thisregion is marked by slow-growing, low-for-mation, and mainly closed vegetation ofdwarf-shrubs, moss and lichens. NormalJanuary temperatures range from about220 to 230°C, while normal July tempera-tures range from 10 to 15°C. In Churchill,Manitoba, a thriving tourist industry hasdeveloped around polar bears, which areforced to spend 3 or 4 months ashore dueto the sea-ice melts. In Canada, there are 13populations totalling some 15,000 bears(Churchill Northern Studies Centre, 1999),which feed typically on seals, walruses,beluga whales and narwhals. Late Octoberis an excellent time to view polar bears inChurchill, as the bears congregate along theshores of Hudson Bay in anticipation of theformation of ice. Tundra buggies are usedto help tourists view the bears, in additionto arctic foxes, ptarmigan and caribou. Inthe USA, Katmai National Park, 300 milesfrom Anchorage, Alaska, is one of world’smost accessible locations from which toview brown bears. In July the Brook’s Riverin the heart of the park attracts an abun-dance of bears which feed on sockeye

116 D.A. Fennell

salmon. Although bears are the principalattraction, the surrounding lakes, forests,mountains and marshland, and marineenvironments are habitat to a diversity ofbirds, flowering plants and whales (USANational Parks Net, 1999d).

SubarcticTemperatures in the Subarctic typicallyrange from 225°C in the winter to +18°C in the summer, with moderate amounts

(approximately 300 mm) of precipitationthroughout the year. This vast region isdominated by boreal forests and theCanadian Shield (dominated by graniterocks with sedimentary and volcanicrocks), and contains a myriad of lakes andrivers which are ideal settings for thoseinterested in water-based recreation (e.g.canoeing and white-water rafting).Consequently a number of adventure-ecotourism operations have developed in

Anglo-America 117

Fig. 7.3. Ecoregion divisions in Anglo-America (adapted from Bailey, 1998).

the region, and these tend to emphasizeoutdoor pursuits over wildlife viewing andenvironmental education (see above).

Warm continentalTemperatures in the Warm Continentalzone typically average 25 to 210°C in thewinter and +20 to 25°C in the summer,with moderate amounts of precipitation(600–1000 mm). Point Pelee National Park,despite its small size (20 km2), is wellnoted for its diverse marsh, beaches, fieldsand forest habitats. As Canada’s mostsoutherly land mass, Point Pelee lies at thenorthern end of the broad belt that extendsfrom the coastal zone of the Carolinasknown as the eastern deciduous forest.Temperatures, which are moderated by theGreat Lakes, are a major factor in limitingthe northern expansion of this region. Thepark contains an amazing variety of plantand animal species, including 70 treespecies, 47 species of reptiles and amphib-ians, and 50 species of spiders and insectsfound nowhere else in Canada (ParksCanada, 1999). However, the main attrac-tion is the abundance of birds which fre-quent the park, especially in May, as astopover on their annual migrations.

Hot continentalThis region of broadleaved forests (mixedforest and meadow at higher elevations)contains Great Smoky Mountains NationalPark, which is located on the border ofTennessee and North Carolina. It is both aWorld Heritage Site and an InternationalBiosphere Reserve, and hosts over 9 millionvisits per year. Five different forest typesdominate the Great Smoky Mountains, andtogether they support 130 species of treesand 4000 other plant species (US NationalParks Net, 1999c). Wildlife is also abundantin the park, including black bear, the rein-troduced red wolf, coyote, bobcat, bats,European boar, the river otter, timber rattle-snake, copperhead, juncos, cardinals, bluejays, pileated woodpecker and wild turkeys.

SubtropicalThe Subtropical realm is defined bybroadleaved coniferous evergreen forests,

significant amounts of rain (about 1300 mmper year) and mean temperatures that typi-cally range from 8°C to 26°C. The easternleg of the recently developed Great TexasCoastal Birding Trail is located in thesouth-western corner of the Subtropicalregion. This trail is an excellent example ofhow organizations and agencies in Texas(private citizens and landholders, conser-vation groups, businesses, government andcommunities) have come together with thecommon goal of enabling birders to gainaccess to the great diversity of avianresources found in the state. Over 450 ofthe state’s 600 bird species are found alongthe coast, and the trail contains three sec-tions spanning over 600 miles of coastline.In addition, the trail maintains 300 birdviewing areas in nine wildlife refuges, 11state parks, one national seashore, andnumerous city and county preserves(DiStefano and Raimi, n.d.).

MarineAverage annual temperatures in the Marineregion typically range from 0°C to 18°Cover the course of the year, with an abun-dance of precipitation (1000–2000 mm).This ecologically rich ecodivision is char-acterized by mixed forest, coniferousforests and meadow. Tour companies fromAlaska down to Oregon offer a variety ofecotourism packages, including trips toview ice formations and glaciers, sea otters,Dall’s porpoise, harbour seals, killerwhales, grey whales, blue whales, moun-tain goats, Steller’s sea lions, hornedpuffins, cormorants, black-legged kitti-wakes, common murres, bald eagles, arcticterns and black oystercatchers (WildlifeQuest, 1999).

PrairieThe Prairies are characterized by tallgrasses, most exceeding 1 m in height, andother broad-leaved herbs. Given the rangeof this region throughout Canada and theUSA, temperatures vary significantly fromthe coastal areas of Texas to the interior ofSaskatchewan. One of the cornerstones of aemerging ecotourism industry in Texas andSaskatchewan is birding. In fact many

118 D.A. Fennell

birds have Texas and Saskatchewan astheir southern and northern ranges. Inother areas through the Midwest, however,ecotourism is not well developed, as illus-trated in Fig. 7.1.

MediterraneanThe Mediterranean region includes a com-bination of dry steppe, hard-leaved ever-green forests, open woodlands and scrub,and redwood forests. Yosemite NationalPark (mixed forest, coniferous forest andalpine meadows), in the mountainous partof this region is one of the most frequentlyvisited parks in the USA, hosting upwardsof 4 million visits per year. The popularityof the park is one of its chief concerns,however, as increasing numbers of vehiclesin the summer months clog its roadways(Lovejoy, 1992). The park is home to 80mammal species (e.g. coyote, mule deer,California bighorn sheep), 247 bird species(e.g. peregrine falcon, golden eagle, greatgrey owl), 40 reptile species, and hundredsof tree and wildflowers species, includingthe ponderosa pine and giant sequoias,which are the largest and oldest trees onearth (Delaware North Companies, 1999).

Tropical/subtropical steppeThis ecodivision is marked by steppes,shortgrass steppes and shrubs, and conifer-ous open woodland and semideserts. Meantemperatures range from approximately10°C in the winter months to about 30°C inthe summer, with ample precipitationthroughout the year (600–700 mm). One ofthe main attractions in the north-west ofthis region is Grand Canyon National Park,and in the south-east the Great TexasCoastal Birding Trail (shortgrass steppes),which is home to a tremendous variety ofbirds (see Subtropical ecodivision, above).

Tropical/subtropical desertCharacterized by semideserts and desertson sand, temperatures in this region typi-cally range from about 12°C to 33°C, withvery little rainfall (about 50 mm per year).The ecodivision contains Death ValleyNational Park, the Mojave Desert, JoshuaTree National Park, and a number of Native

American settlements. The ecotours offeredby the Indians of the region combine myth,archaeology and natural history. The desertis home to a tremendous diversity of life,including wild burros, roadrunners, turkeyvultures, sidewinders, black-collared lizards,black widow spiders, scorpions, tarantulas,desert tortoises and desert iguanas (USNational Parks Net, 1999a). Death Valleyattracts scientists and nature enthusiastsfrom around the world and the increaseddemands placed upon this environment areof concern for organizations like The DeathValley Natural History Association, whichis involved in preservation and interpreta-tion of the natural and cultural history ofthe area.

Temperate steppe and desertThese two divisions, Temperate steppe andTemperate desert, have moderate tempera-tures, collectively ranging from 0°C to20°C, with precipitation ranging fromabout 200 to 400 mm per year. TheTemperate steppe is marked by steppes anddry steppes at lower elevations, and conif-erous forests, open woodland and alpinemeadows at higher elevations. The Tem-perate desert region consists of semidesertsand deserts. The famed geothermal activityand fossil forests of Yellowstone NationalPark (the world’s first national park, whichcontains open woodland, coniferous forestand alpine meadows), make this a princi-pal attraction in the ecodivision. Yellow-stone supports one of the continent’slargest mammal populations, includinggrizzly bears, wolves, bison, elk, bighornsheep, moose, pronghorn antelope andmule deer. Other animals include the mar-mot, bald eagles, osprey, sandhill cranesand trumpeter swans (US National ParksNet, 1999d).

SavannahThe Savannah ecodivision comprises openwoodlands, and shrubs and savannahs(herbaceous vegetation with scatteredwoody plants, including low trees), withuniform temperatures averaging about 22°Cthroughout the year. In Everglades NationalPark, freshwater meets saltwater and the

Anglo-America 119

associated edge effect creates an area richin biodiversity. Wildlife viewing (alligators,manatees, a variety of reptile species,roseate spoonbills, herons, egrets, eaglesand osprey) is one of the principal activi-ties of visitors. Other activities include bik-ing, camping, diving, fishing, hiking,photography, ranger-led activities, snorkel-ling and swimming (US National ParksNet, 1999b). There is an abundance oftrails, visitor centres and accommodationboth inside and outside the park. In recentyears a number of private ecotour operatorshave emerged to accommodate the needs ofthe area’s growing tourist industry.

Conclusion

This chapter has examined the ecotourismindustry in Anglo-America chiefly fromdefinitional, policy, operator and ecore-gional perspectives. Although it appears asthough the industry will continue to growinto the 21st century, at least some of this potential will be compromised by the strong consumptive philosophy, anti-regulatory ideals, and a lack of focus andconsistent standards (Anderson, 1996) sup-ported by those working in the field. Thelack of consensus in defining ecotourism ispartly to blame, especially in relation towhat qualifies as ecotourism along the con-sumptive/non-consumptive continuum. Assuch, Anglo-America would benefit fromfuture research which examines the regionas one spatial unit, rather than 63 individ-ual political jurisdictions.

The policy, operator and ecoregion dataused in the maps of this chapter provedeffective, as a starting point, in examiningAnglo-American ecotourism from a broadercontinental and ecological perspective.While an attempt was made to compareregions on the basis of policy and numbers

of operators, it soon became clear thatmuch more work needs to be done in thesetwo areas. The link between ecotourismand ecoregions was found to be a naturalone. However, although ecotourism isreported to be an ecologically consciousform of tourism, there is little informationavailable which documents its successes inpreserving habitat and biodiversity in theecoregions of Anglo-America (e.g. how canecotourism in the prairie ecodivision bedeveloped as an effective mechanism topreserve species like the black-footed fer-ret, whooping crane or burrowing owl?). Assuch, the union of ecoregions and eco-tourism may prove to be a fruitful meansby which to identify ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spotsof ecotourism development across the con-tinent.

Anglo-America is often characterized asbeing economically and socially welldeveloped. Although not a central theme inthe chapter, there are often core–peripheryrelationships that exist between urban andremote communities in both Canada andthe USA. To what extent ecotourism is ableto help alleviate some of the economic andsocial disparities that exist in these remoteregions is open to debate. Accordingly,future research should endeavour to exam-ine if ecotourism contributes to local com-munities, and how such benefits aredistributed. This information has not beenadequately addressed in the research onecotourism in Anglo-America, or else-where. Finally, a related concern surroundsthe notion of estimating the economicworth of ecotourism in Anglo-America. Ifecotourism is to subsume adventure andcultural tourism, in their various forms,economic impact studies will understand-ably be optimistic. Studies should be spe-cific and cautious in how they defineecotourism, therefore, and the implicationsof over-visitation.

120 D.A. Fennell

References

Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association (1999) http://www.alaska.net/~awrta/Anderson, M. (1996) From Sea to Sea: Ecotourism Trends in Alaska and Canada. Winston Churchill

Memorial Trust Board, Wellington, New Zealand.Bailey, R.G. (1998) Ecoregions Map of North America. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) Adventure Travel and Ecotourism: the Challenge Ahead.

Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa.Canadian Tourism Commission (1998) Annual Report: Achieving Critical Mass, 1997–1998. Canadian

Tourism Commission, Ottawa.Centre for Tourism Policy Studies (1994) Ecotourism Opportunities for Hawaii’s Visitor Industry.

University of Hawaii, Manoa.Churchill Northern Studies Centre (1999) http://www.brandonu.ca/CNSC/polar.htm Delaware North Companies (1999) Yosemite National Park. http://www.yosemite.ca.us/cgi-bin/

mirrory?www.yosemitepark.com/overview/index.htmDiStefano and Raimi (n.d.) Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail. In: Five Years of Progress: 110

Communities Where ISTEA is Making a Difference. Texas Department of Transportation’sSurface Transportation Policy Project.

The Ecotourism Society (1999) Information About TES. http://www.ecotourism.org/tesinfo.htmlEdwards, S.N., McLaughlin, W.J. and Ham, S.H. (1998) Comparative Study of Ecotourism Policy in

the Americas – 1998: USA and Canada. Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism,University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Filion, F.L., Foley, J.P. and Jacquemot, A.J. (1992) The economics of global ecotourism. Paper pre-

sented at the Fourth World Congress on Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela,10–21 February.

Finch, R. and Elder, J. (eds) (1990) The Norton Book of Nature Writing. W.W. Norton, New York.Florida Ecotourism/Heritage Tourism Advisory Committee (1997) Planning for the Florida of the

Future. Government Document, Tallahassee, Florida.Foot, D.K. and Stoffman, D. (1996) Boom, Bust & Echo. Macfarlane Walter & Ross, Toronto.Government of Yukon (1997) Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act (Draft). Government Policy

Document, Whitehorse, Yukon.Lenton, P. (1993) Ecotourism: Canadian destinations for the conscientious tripper. Explore 58, 11–15.Liu, J.C. (1994) Pacific Island Ecotourism: a Public Policy and Planning Guide. Office of Territorial

and International Affairs, Hawaii.Lovejoy, T.E. (1992) Looking to the next millennium. National Parks January/February, 41–44.Nash, R. (1982) Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven.Parks Canada (1999) Point Pelee National Park. http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/ontario/

point_pelee.htmPreece, N., van Oosterzee, P. and James, D. (1995) Biodiversity Conservation and Ecotourism: an

Investigation of Linkages, Mutual Benefits and Future Opportunities. Department of theEnvironment, Sport, and Territories, Canberra.

Rapsey, M. (1995) Risky business: Canada’s ecotourism outfitters will give you anything you want –from paddling wild rivers to hiking in the arctic. Outdoor Canada April, 28–34.

South Carolina Nature-Based Tourism Association (1997) The South Carolina Nature-Based TourismDirectory and Listing of the South Carolina Nature-Based Tourism Association Members.SCNBTA, Greenville, South Carolina.

Specialty Travel Index (1999) Specialty Travel Index: the Adventure Travel Directory, Issue 38.Alpine Hansen Publishers, San Anselmo, California.

Statistics Canada (1998) The Importance of Nature to Canadians. Minister of Supply and Services,Ottawa.

Sweeting, J.E.N., Bruner, A.G. and Rosenfeld, A.B. (1999) The Green Host Effect: an IntegratedApproach to Sustainable Tourism and Resort Development. Conservation International,Washington, DC.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1995) Nature tourism in the Lone Star State: EconomicOpportunities in Nature. State Task Force on Texas Nature Tourism, Austin, Texas.

Anglo-America 121

Tourism Saskatchewan (1999) Application Document to Accredit an Ecotourism Package (Draft).Tourism Saskatchewan Publication, Regina, Saskatchewan.

US Department of the Interior (1998) National Park Service Statistical Abstract. Public Use StatisticsOffice, Denver, Colorado.

US Federal Government (n.d.) The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. US FederalGovernment, Washington, DC.

US National Parks Net (1999a) Death Valley National Park. http://www.nps.gov/deva/ US National Parks Net (1999b) Everglades National Park. http://www.everglades.national-park.com/

location.htm US National Parks Net (1999c) Great Smoky Mountains National Park. http://www.great.smoky.

mountains.national-park.com/info.htm US National Parks Net (1999d) Katmai National Park. http://www.katmai.national-park.com/

sights.htm Wallace, G.N. and Pierce, S.M. (1996) An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of

Tourism Research 23(4), 843–873.Western, D. (1993) Defining ecotourism. In: Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: a

Guide for Planners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.Wildlife Quest (1999) The Wildlife. http://wildlifequest.com/wildlife.htmWilken, E. and Gauthier, D. (1998) Ecological regions of North America. In: Munroe, N. and Willison,

J.H. (eds) Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity. Scienceand Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

122 D.A. Fennell

Chapter 8

Asia

A.A. LewDepartment of Geography and Public Planning, Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Introduction

Asia is, by far, the world’s largest conti-nent. It ranges in elevation from MountEverest (8848 m; 29,028 ft) and the TibetanPlateau (average 4500 m; 15,000 ft), to theearth’s lowest point on the surface of theDead Sea (over 400 m or 1312 ft below sealevel). Not far away is the world’s largestsand desert, the Rub’ al Khali, on theArabian Peninsula. In the south-east of thecontinent lies a large tropical archipelagospanning the Equator over an area largerthan the USA, while in Siberia the largestforest in the world (the taiga) gives waynorthward to a landscape of desolate tun-dra and permafrost. Not surprisingly, eachof these environments has its own poten-tial for ecotourism development, and mosthave been used for this purpose as thetourism industry seeks ever more remoteand different destinations.

Asia is also the world’s most populouscontinent, with some 3.64 billion people(Table 8.1). East Asia, South Asia andSoutheast Asia together are home to overhalf of the world’s human inhabitants.With such a large population, Asia’s ethnicdiversity, often associated with ecotourism,is also great. Using language as a simpleand conservative measure of ethnicity, Asiais home to 2165 living languages, about a

third of an estimated world total of 6703language (Grimes, 1999). However, this canbe an unfair comparison, as Asia reallyconsists of five subcontinents (listed inTable 8.1), in addition to Europe – the sixthsubcontinent on the Eurasian landmass.Each of these subcontinents has its owninternal wealth of environmental and cul-tural diversity and uniqueness. For exam-ple, some 500 languages and local dialectshave been identified in Indonesia inSoutheast Asia, and 300 different lan-guages are spoken daily in India on theSouth Asian subcontinent, along with morethan 1000 local dialects. Today, even themost remote of these cultures has beentouched by organized groups of ecotouristsand adventure tourists.

According to the World TourismOrganization (WTO), tourism in the Asia(East and Southeast Asia) and Pacific regiongrew in 1996 by 9.3% (arrivals) and 9.8%(receipts) over 1995 (WTO, 1997). Theserates of growth were nearly twice that forthe world overall (4.5% arrivals, 7.6%receipts in 1996). Arrival growth rates forSouth Asia (4.3%) and Southwest Asia(10.5%) were also significant in 1996,though South Asia was affected by internalpolitical problems that year. Unfortunately,the 1997–1998 Asian economic crisisresulted in a 1.2% decline in international

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 123

arrivals for East and Southeast Asia(including the Pacific) for the second yearin a row in 1998, and a 3.8% decline inreceipts (WTO, 1999b) (Table 8.2). Somecountries were hurt far more than others,with Indonesia down 5.5% while Thailandwas up 6.9%. Furthermore, South andSouthwest Asia both continued the strongpercentage growth that they experiencedthrough most of the late 1990s.

Once the East and Southeast Asianeconomies recover, however, tourismgrowth will probably rebound, bringingwith it both good and bad impacts. Whilewelcome economic news to many, Asia’srobust growth in tourism has not beenwithout its social and environmental costs.A survey of member countries of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group foundthat environmental pollution, air trafficcongestion, and overcrowding at majorattractions were the three leading con-straints to the expansion of tourism in theregion (Muqbil, 1996). Private sectorrespondents to the same survey, however,identified excessive governmental controlsover the use of sensitive natural areas andconflicts between tour operators and nat-

ural resource managers as their major diffi-culties. The issue of exploitation versus theconservation of tourism resources has beena major concern throughout the Asia-Pacific region since the 1980s, when eco-tourism (which as ‘nature tourism’ hasbeen an important part of Asian tourism fordecades) emerged as a visible and poten-tially major segment of the region’s tourismindustry.

A survey of mostly North American tourcompanies that offered ecotours to theAsia-Pacific region found that, as an eco-nomic activity, ecotourism to Asia has beengrowing at about 20% a year through mostof the 1990s, at least prior to the Asian eco-nomic crisis (Lew, 1998). In this study,Indonesia was the most cited destination,followed by South Asian countries border-ing the Himalayas (Table 8.3). Many sec-ondary ecotour destinations are also shownin Table 8.3. Some of these, like China andThailand are already major tourist destina-tions, although their role as ecotourist des-tinations may still be developing (Studley,1999). Other countries, such as those inIndochina and Central Asia, are emergingdestinations where all forms of tourism,

124 A.A. Lew

Table 8.1. World regional populations, mid-1999 estimate and World Heritage Sites (PRB, 1999; UNESCO,1999).

Population World Heritage Sites

Region (1,000,000) % Total Endangered

World 5981 100.0 582 23Asia total 3637 60.8 125 4East Asia 1481 24.8 35 0South Asia 1301 21.8 41 1Southeast Asia 520 8.7 16 1Southwest Asia 252 4.2 31 2Central Asia 87 1.5 2 0Africa 771 12.9 79 10Europe 728 12.2 241 3Central and South America 512 8.6 76 4North America (US and Canada) 303 5.1 31 2Pacific 30 0.5 18 0

Notes: Figures are adjusted from PRB (1999), which originally combined Central Asia with South Asia.Other differences in this table from the original data are: Central Asia includes Afghanistan and excludesMongolia and Siberian Russia, both of which are in East Asia in the table above, and Iran and the Caucasusare included in Southwest Asia above.

not just ecotourism, are as yet poorlydeveloped. (Note that for the study cited inTable 8.3, Southwest Asia was excludedand the Pacific was included.)

A 1992 study by the Pacific Asia TravelAssociation (PATA), also of NorthAmerican ecotour providers, reported thatclients were primarily interested in rainfor-est destinations (62%), followed by islands(17%) and mountains (17%) (Yee, 1992).These are all features with which Asia isstrongly endowed. In Lew’s 1998 study,ecotour providers to the Asia-Pacific simi-larly focused on nature, although cultureand educational activities were also signifi-cant elements (Table 8.4).

Ecotourism opportunities clearly aboundin every corner of the Asian continent(About.com, 1999). The range of naturaland cultural attractions in each of themajor subregions (East Asia, SoutheastAsia, South Asia, and Southwest andCentral Asia) of this continent are dis-cussed below.

East Asia

East Asia consists of Japan, North andSouth Korea, China, Taiwan, Mongolia andthe Siberia region of Russia. Along the east-ern edge of the continent the Pacific Oceanfloor is colliding with the Eurasian plate tocreate a string of mostly offshore islands,from Japan to the Philippines. TheKamchatka Peninsula is also part of this‘Pacific Ring of Fire’. Volcanic activity inmany of these coastal mountain areas pro-

vides opportunities for scientific explo-ration and mineral bathing from the ‘Valleyof the Geysers’ on the KamchatkaPeninsula, through the islands of Japan andTaiwan and into Southeast Asia. Furtherinland the East Asian landscape graduallyrises to the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayanmountain range.

East Asia is the most populated regionof Asia and the most culturally homoge-neous. The most heavily inhabited areasare in eastern China, on the KoreanPeninsula and in Japan, where humanityhas often overwhelmed the natural envi-ronment. The opposite is true of Siberia,Mongolia and western China (includingChinese occupied Tibet) which have verylow population densities and expanses ofrelatively unexploited deserts, plains andforests.

Mountain peaks have been among themost cherished natural environments forthe cultures of East Asia; monasteries areone of the few proper forms of develop-ment allowed. Pristine wilderness, how-ever, is rare, though backcountry trekkingareas do exist in Taiwan’s high mountains.Following the Second World War, growingpopulations and an expanding middleclass made the high mountain areas ofcoastal East Asia more accessible to themasses and starting in the 1950s nationaland local park systems were introduced toprotect these resources. Management andenforcement, however, have been laxacross the region and the excessive tram-pling of mountain soil and vegetation is awidespread problem.

Asia 125

Table 8.2. 1998 tourist arrivals (estimates) (WTO, 1999b).

Total arrivals % Change Arrivals as(1,000,000) 1997–1998 % of world

World 625.2 2.4 100.0East Asia/Pacific 86.9 21.2 13.9Middle East 15.6 5.3 2.5South Asia 5.1 5.0 0.8

Europe 372.5 3.0 59.6Americas 120.2 1.4 19.2Africa 24.9 7.5 4.0

Lowland areas, on the other hand, havebeen intensely settled, cultivated, andindustrialized. The close relationshipbetween human agricultural activity andthe land has created distinctive ecosystemsthat have been of interest to alternativetour groups since the 1970s. Rice paddiesthat combine the growing of wet rice withthe cultivation of bottom-feeding fish,mostly carp, are an example.

Away from the more densely settledportions of East Asia are areas that containsome of the greatest potential for eco-tourism on the continent. Starting in thenorth, Siberia holds considerable opportu-nity for ecotourism development, althoughthe costs of these experiences tend to behigh due to the region’s remoteness andlimited infrastructure. Lake Baikal,Eurasia’s largest freshwater lake and theworld’s deepest lake, is located in southernSiberia, and serves as a focus for the

region’s ecotourism, due both to its wildlifeand accessible location near the Trans-Siberia railway. Wilderness (hiking andwildlife viewing), sporting activities (fish-ing and hunting) and arctic activities (dogand reindeer sledding and skiing) are themainstay of the fledgling tourism industryin interior Siberia. Whale and other seamammals, birds, and volcanoes are attrac-tions along coastal and island areas, andespecially on the Kamchatka Peninsula.Inuit and other nomadic peoples of thenorth compose the cultural attraction of thearea. Unfortunately, it is estimated that10% of the wildlife in northern Eurasia(including Central Asia) is seriously indanger of extinction (SEN, 1997). Similarto Central Asia (see below), Siberia is inneed of more concerted conservationefforts, which ecotourism might be able tofacilitate.

Moving further south, the steppes of

126 A.A. Lew

Table 8.3. Asia-Pacific countries and regions in which North Americanecotours operated (Lew, 1998).

Country No. tour % of all touror region companies companies

Indonesia 16 40.0India 13 32.5Australia 12 30.0Nepal 12 30.0Bhutan 10 25.0New Zealand 8 20.0Tibet (region of China) 8 20.0China 7 17.5Thailand 7 17.5Myanmar (Burma) 5 12.5Cambodia 5 12.5Laos 5 12.5Pakistan 5 12.5Malaysia 4 10.0Papua New Guinea 4 10.0Russian Far East 4 10.0Vietnam 4 10.0Central Asiaa 3 7.5 Japan 3 7.5Mongolia 3 7.5Sikkim (State of India) 3 7.5Philippines 2 5.0

a Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Mongolia and north-west China became anincreasingly recognized ecotour destina-tion in the late 1990s. Ecotours haveemphasized visiting and living among thecountry’s traditionally nomadic ethnicgroups. Activities include camel treks,horse and yak riding, trekking, fishing, andwildlife viewing. This was also the path ofthe Silk Route from China to Europe,which has become a major theme for pro-moting tourism in north-west China. Manyof north-west China’s deserts are sur-rounded by high mountains, which are alsoemerging ecotour destinations, in additionto the cultural and archaeological historyof oasis settlements. The Muslim Uyghurpeople in China’s Xinjiang AutonomousRegion are a major cultural attraction,although Buddhist archaeological sites(often found in caves) are more frequentedby tour groups. Most tours are organizeddue to the political sensitivity of thisregion, where terrorist attacks by Uyghurseparatists occasionally occur.

Even more politically sensitive for theChinese government is Tibet (XizangAutonomous Region). The Tibetan Plateauis a largely arid region with a base eleva-tion of 3000 to over 4500 m (10,000 to15,000 ft), bordered on the south by the

Himalayan mountain range. Tibetan cul-ture is largely pastoral and deeply reli-gious, following the Lamaism branch ofBuddhism. China forcibly reasserted itsdomination over Tibet in 1950, after whichTibetan Lamaism was severely suppressed.Many of the harsher measures were liftedin the 1980s and 1990s, but the politicalsituation remains tense. Travel to Tibet hasbeen expensive, mostly limited to groups,and rarely extended beyond the capitalLhasa and nearby mountains that haverestored monasteries and mountaintrekking opportunities. However, as part ofChina’s officially designated ‘Year ofEcotourism’ in 1999, several new areas ofTibet have been opened to internationaltourism for the first time (Studley, 1999).

To the north-east and east of the TibetanPlateau are areas of China that hold consid-erable opportunity for ecotourism develop-ment, both for nature and culture. As yet,these areas are not developed and many areenvironmentally quite sensitive, such asthe panda regions below the Plateau’s east-ern slopes. South-east of the TibetanPlateau, however, is the location of what ispossibly China’s premier ecotourismregion. Yunnan Province, with an averageelevation of about 2000 m (6500 ft), is

Asia 127

Table 8.4. Ecotour types and activities in the Asia-Pacific region (Lew, 1998).

% Tour descriptors

Tour typeNature 71 Wildlife, natural history, jungles/rainforests, science-based nature

tours, fossil expeditions, national parks, nature reserves, orang-utans,ornithology, village wildlife conservation, zoos

Culture 45 Ethnic culture, agriculture, anthropology, countryside tours, cultureexchanges, ethnic area lodge, food, local guides, sustainabletechnology

Adventure 13 Soft adventure, adventure, hard adventure, outdoor adventure

Tour activitiesLand 48 Trekking, walking, cycling/mountain biking, backpacking,

bushwalking, day hiking, physical activityEducation 35 Educational, guest scholar/teachers/experts, animal riding safaris,

birdwatching, local educational programmes, photo-taking safaris,study tours

Water 19 Boat rides, diving, rafting, sailing, sea kayaking, white-water

N = 31 respondents.

famous for its year-round temperate-tropi-cal climate, its biological diversity and forthe cultural diversity of its many ethnicgroups, which are related to the hill peopleof northern Southeast Asia. With theTibetan Plateau on its western border,Yunnan has a wide variety of ecosystemsgiving it over half of China’s plant diver-sity, 64% of its bird species, 42% of thecountry’s reptiles, and many rare andendangered animals. The NatureConservancy is working with the Chinesegovernment to create the Yunnan GreatRivers National Parks System, whichwould encompass a region of 3000 m(10,000 ft)-deep gorges through whichthree of the world’s great rivers pass. Thegoals of this project include biodiversityand cultural heritage protection, and sus-tainable economic development.

Ecotourism is an important part of thetourism industry in many parts of EastAsia. However, the areas where ecotourismhas the greatest potential tend to be veryremote, making the cost and experience ofgetting there difficult. Because of this, eco-tourism plays a smaller part in the overalltourism industry of East Asia than it doesin most of the other parts of the Asian con-tinent. In most people’s minds, travel toEast Asia remains an urban experience.

Southeast Asia

In contrast to East Asia, ecotourism is apervasive aspect of the rapidly growingtourism industry in Southeast Asia.Geographically, Southeast Asia can bedivided into two parts: Peninsular, consist-ing of Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Laos,Cambodia and Vietnam; and Insular, con-sisting of Malaysia (including its mainlandcomponent), Singapore, Brunei, Indonesiaand the Philippines. Peninsular SoutheastAsia comprises a series of mountain rangesand rivers extending out of the TibetanPlateau and south-west China. Trekking tovisit the hill tribe people of northernThailand is the most popular eco-adventureexperience in the northernmost portion ofSoutheast Asia. Similar rainforest experi-

ences may be possible in Myanmar oncethe political situation in that countrybecomes more stable, and in Laos as thatcountry gradually becomes more open toforeigners. Further south, cultural andarchaeological treasures, such asCambodia’s Angkor Wat, become moreimportant. Much of Vietnam’s environmen-tal beauty lies in the rich diversity along itslong coastline, although remote rainforestsand hill villages are also of potential inter-est. Still further south, the tropical beachesof this region offer a wide variety of eco-tour opportunities, including sea kayakingthrough limestone caves, underwater coraldiving and coastal wildlife viewing. Mostof the people of Peninsular Southeast Asiafollow Theravadin Buddhism, with strongundercurrents of Hinduism and local ani-mist beliefs that make for a very colourfulethnic landscape.

Thailand has had a well-developed tourindustry for many years and Bangkok isone of the most internationally accessiblecities in Southeast Asia. A larger propor-tion of the country’s land area is undernational park and conservation area statusthan any other country in Asia, outside ofBhutan, though management resources area continuing problem (Weaver, 1998). Theother countries of Peninsular SoutheastAsia have only been opening to tourismsince the 1990s and none has a well-devel-oped travel sector, let alone an ecotourismindustry. National parks are being created,but are not adequately financed, and majorcultural heritage sites continue to belooted. Vietnam and Cambodia experi-enced rapid increases in tourist arrivals atthe end of the 1990s, and the more insu-lated Laos and Myanmar are hoping to dothe same. Their longer period of isolation,great environmental and cultural richness,and international accessibility via Bangkok,give these emerging countries the potentialto be among the great ecotourism destina-tions in the next century, rivallingIndonesia before its economic and socialturmoil (Lilley, 1998).

Insular Southeast Asia is rich in its vari-ety of landscapes and biology due to itstropical location (astride the Equator), the

128 A.A. Lew

diverse size and shape of its many thou-sands of islands (many of which are vol-canic in origin), and the region’s ethnicdiversity. Malaysia is one of the more eco-nomically developed of the Southeast Asiancountries and has many well-developedand protected nature areas. Mountainpeaks, including traditional ‘hill station’resorts and the highest peak in SoutheastAsia, Mount Kinabalu (4101 m; 13,455 ft)on Malaysia’s portion of Borneo, offer dis-tinctive ecological transition zones. TamanNegara National Park, a highland rainforestin West Malaysia, has been a case study inefforts to balance ecosystem conservationwith ecotourism development.

More than anything else, orang-utanshave come to symbolize ecotourism inMalaysia and Indonesia. The natural habi-tat of these highly endangered animals isthe dwindling rainforests of Sumatra andBorneo, both of which are popular ecotourtrekking destinations, but they are mostoften seen at centres that specialize in rein-troducing former pet orang-utans to thewild. While hiking the rainforest interiorsof Borneo, ecotrekkers also come into con-tact with the culture of the traditionalDayak headhunters of the island and someof the 450 species of birds found there. TheWest Papua (formerly Irian Jaya) provinceof Indonesia, located on the island of NewGuinea, also offers contact with pre-modern tribal groups in dense rainforests,while rare animals such as the Sumatrantiger, Javan rhinoceros and the sun bear,the world’s smallest bear, are also found inthe Indonesian archipelago. KomodoIsland, in south-eastern Indonesia is hometo the Komodo dragon, the world’s largestland lizard, the protection of which hasbeen described as another model of eco-tourism development (Hitchcock, 1993).

The 17,000-plus islands of Indonesiahave coastlines that stretch over 80,000 km(50,000 miles) and contain 15% of theworld’s coral reefs, making the country oneof the greatest scuba-diving destinations onEarth (DTPT, 1997). The Philippines doesnot have as many volcanic attractions asIndonesia, but does have similar coastalcoral diving opportunities. Another major

ecotour attraction of the Philippines is therice-terraced mountain slopes of northernLuzon Island.

Indonesia has benefited from its closeproximity to Australia, for which it servesas an inexpensive and exotic vacation des-tination. In addition to significant touristarrivals from their former colonial rulers –for example the Dutch are frequent trav-ellers in Indonesia and the British inMalaysia – there has been a rapid increasein intra-regional and domestic ecotourismthroughout Southeast Asia, especially inThailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Forexample, before the Asian economic crisisof 1997, increasing numbers of ecotouristsfrom Jakarta and other major cities on Javawere trekking into interior Sumatra andBorneo to see the wildlife and traditionalcultures. Similarly, Thai nationals comprisethe great majority of visitors to Thailand’snational parks (Weaver, 1998).

The population densities of SoutheastAsia have historically been well belowthose of East and South Asia, allowing for agreater expression of the region’s naturalenvironment. As such, Southeast Asia hasbecome the Asian continent’s premier eco-tourism destination. With its tropical cli-mate, rainforests, coastal coral reefs,mountain trekking, great variety of flora,fauna and ethnic cultures, developed andemerging destinations, and easy interna-tional access through the major interna-tional air hubs of Bangkok and Singapore,Southeast Asia has all the ingredients tokeep it at the forefront of world ecotourismdestinations.

South Asia

South Asia, often referred to as the ‘IndianSubcontinent’, is separated from the rest ofAsia by an arc of mountains, including theHimalayas. Most of these mountain rangesare active earthquake areas, although vol-canic activity is rare. The land within con-sists of a less mountainous peninsuladominated by India, with Pakistan to thewest and Bangladesh to the east. India islarge and diverse, with 14 official languages,

Asia 129

each associated with a major province, andwell over 1000 smaller ethnic groups.Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, along withIndia, share portions of the great mountainranges to the north, while Sri Lanka andthe Maldives are tropical island countriesat the southern tip of India. The summermonsoon (winds from the south-west)bring some relief to the otherwise year-round hot and humid weather of lowlandSouth Asia. Drier shrub and grasslands arefound in much of Pakistan and adjacentareas of India, as well as on the DeccanPlateau in central India.

Next to Southeast Asia, South Asia isthe most popular ecotour destination onthe Asian continent (Table 8.3). Most ofthis interest lies in the Himalaya region;mountain trekking in this area is among theultimate ecotour experiences. Large num-bers of foreign mountain trekkers have hadmajor impacts on the local culture andenvironment in the largely impoverishedHimalayan region, particularly in Nepaland Kashmir (Weaver, 1998). Nepal’sAnnapurna Conservation Area Project hasbeen a major conservation effort to addresssome of these impacts in one of the mostpopular trekking regions, although severalother smaller efforts are also under way(Pobocik and Butalla, 1998). All, however,are seriously underfunded and under-staffed.

Bhutan has created a particularlyunique experience designed to sustainablymaintain its strong traditional culture andreligion. Long closed to the rest of theworld, Bhutan limits its arrivals by requir-ing a fully planned itinerary supplied byBhutanese tour operators and a minimumexpenditure of US$200 per day, wellbeyond the means of a typical budget trav-eller. This has helped to keep Bhutan lesscommercialized than Nepal, and among themost traditional cultures on the planet.Kashmir (in the Himalayas) and Assam(south and east of Bhutan, and borderingMyanmar) are two corners of India thatcontain a diversity of cultural (non-Hindu)and natural attractions, but have been dis-rupted by separatist movements that havekept tourism to a minimum. Pakistan’s

Kashmir region is similar to that of India,both in its trekking opportunities and polit-ical sensitivity. The Karakoram Highwaypasses through this region, allowing abackdoor entry into China for tourists.Periodic military tensions with India onone side and Afghanistan on the other canmake this journey through the Himalayas arisky prospect. More severe, however, hasbeen ethnic and political conflict amongPakistan’s major ethnic groups (Baluchis,Pushtun and Sindhi), which has limited allforms of tourism to Pakistan in the 1990s.

Below the northern mountains are thedensely settled agricultural lands of theIndo-Gangetic Plain (Indus River inPakistan and Ganges River in India andBangladesh). Like East Asia, the many peo-ple in this region have caused considerableenvironmental degradation. Native ecosys-tems have been replaced with agriculturalecosystems that may have functioned wellin earlier times, but are often environmen-tally dysfunctional under current popula-tion pressures. Volunteer tourism thatsupports efforts to make traditional agricul-ture more sustainable is one form of eco-tourism experience that is potentiallyavailable in most South Asian countries,though the market is rather modest.Slightly lower populations reside in drierareas to the south of the Indo-GangeticPlain, where several ecotour destinationshave been developed in national parks andwildlife refuges, as well as on the TharDesert with its popular camel treks.

Much of the ecotourism in India is cen-tred on the country’s many national parksand wildlife refuges. Jim Corbett NationalPark, for example, was created in 1936from a popular hunting ground for theBritish (Rao, 1998). Ranthambor NationalPark’s (390 km2; 150 mile2) dry forests insouth-western Rajasthan preserve 300 treespecies and 50 aquatic plant species. Theseforests, and many others on the DeccanPlateau, are havens for the Indian tiger,although poaching is a constant problem.Three hundred species of birds are pro-tected in Keoladeo Ghana National Park,and Bandipur National Park, in south-west-ern India, is a habitat for wild Asian ele-

130 A.A. Lew

phants. Outside Kashmir in the north,Pakistan has far fewer floral and faunalresources, although its Arabian Sea coast isrich in shellfish and sea turtles, as well assharks.

The two Indian Ocean countries of SriLanka and the Maldives are both significantecotour destinations, although politicalunrest in northern Sri Lanka has seriouslyreduced the country’s tourist arrivals.Scuba-diving and snorkelling are majoractivities in both countries, with dive safarisand reef tours a speciality on the coral atollsof the Maldives. Sri Lanka also has variedand lush jungle vegetation extending into itscooler highland areas where animal andbirdwatching and trekking are popularactivities. The island’s diverse wildliferesources are complemented by ancient andcontemporary Buddhist sites.

South Asia accommodates many people,cultures, landscapes and ecotour opportu-nities into a relatively confined area.Human impacts are significant throughoutand efforts to protect sensitive environ-ments present major challenges. Trampledearth and litter are common in remotetrekking areas, while poaching and loss ofhabitat are problems in nature preserves.The competition for survival betweenhumans and the environment is greaterhere than in any other region of Asia, mak-ing it perhaps the most in need of a vibrantand influential ecotourism industry.

Southwest Asia and Central Asia

Southwest Asia and Central Asia togethercover a diverse land area second in sizeonly to East Asia among Asia’s subconti-nental regions. They are combined herebecause of a high degree of shared culturaland environmental characteristics, includ-ing an overall low population density,mostly arid grassland and desert climates,mostly Islamic religious beliefs, and histor-ical ties that involve the Arab and Ottomanempires. The major differences betweenSouthwest Asia and Central Asia are colderwinter temperatures and a history of Sovietcontrol in the north.

The cultural and geological diversity ofSouthwest Asia and Central Asia has cre-ated more countries in this region than inany other part of Asia. Asia Minor and theCaucasus include: Turkey, Georgia,Armenia, Azerbaijan, and sometimesCyprus. The Arabian Peninsula includes:Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait,Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United ArabEmirates, Oman and Yemen. Iran andAfghanistan comprise most of the highlandareas just south of the Caspian Sea and thecountries of Central Asia. Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan cover theinternal drainage basins of Central Asia,while Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are situ-ated in the high mountains of the PamirRange and Tian Shan, respectively.

The arid conditions throughout theregion create highly sensitive and endan-gered aquatic ecosystems, the largest ofwhich are the Red Sea and the Persian Gulfin Southwest Asia, and the Black Sea, theCaspian Sea and the Aral Sea in CentralAsia. These water bodies concentratedrainage from their surrounding watershedand serve as sensitive measures of regionalenvironmental degradation. Most areseverely polluted, though concerted inter-national efforts in the 1990s to addressthese problems have helped to somedegree. Ecotourism offers an alternative,especially in Central Asia, to the large-scale and heavy industries that havecaused environmental widespread damage.

The potential for ecotourism in themany countries that span Central andSouthwest Asia is considerable. Unfor-tunately, political and civil unrest and con-flicts in many parts of this region make itthe most dangerous of all the regions inAsia in which to travel. Yemen, Israel,Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus, Iraq, Kuwait,Iran, Afghanistan, the Caucasus andTajikstan have all experienced major civilwars, military incursions and terrorist con-flicts that have closed major portions oftheir territory to international travel forvarying periods of time during the 1980sand 1990s. The Central Asian republicshave had additional growing pains inestablishing legitimate rule and economic

Asia 131

stability following their independencefrom the Soviet Union in the early 1990s,though their remote locations and poortransportation infrastructure may be evengreater barriers for international visitors.Every country in the region has its politi-cally sensitive areas and these issues needto be kept in mind in any discussion ofecotourism resources in Central andSouthwest Asia.

Throughout Southwest Asia, naturetourism is poorly developed, with mosttours focusing on archaeology, ancientcities, churches and monasteries, tradi-tional markets, and village and urban life(Ady, 1997). On the Arabian Peninsula, dayand overnight trips to Bedouin villagesoffer the most intimate desert experiencefor most foreign visitors. Modern technol-ogy has been developed in efforts to makethe most efficient use of water in this aridland, and this has also created a type ofeducational ecotourism in the more devel-oped areas of the region. In Israel, forexample, people from other arid environ-ments come to learn new ways of address-ing shared problems.

Ecotourism opportunities are more plen-tiful on the outer edges of the ArabianPeninsula, where civilizations have existedfor thousands of years. Major ecotourismactivities include:

• diving in coral areas and viewing seaturtles, usually away from major citieswhere pollution has caused consider-able coral damage;

• desert treks, usually by four-wheeldrive, to see and photograph flora andfauna; these often focus on oases andcoastal wetlands that attract large num-bers of birds;

• hill trips to see wildflowers, wildlife,rock and cave art, and to collect fossils.

There are also areas of considerable eco-tourism potential. These include theFarasan Islands, which support the largestwild gazelle population in Saudi Arabia, inaddition to a great variety of birds, dol-phins, turtles and whales in its coral reefsand mangroves (Ady, 1997; see alsoArabian Wildlife online magazine). Israel

has some 20 nature reserves protecting adiverse array of wetland areas and theplant and animal life that depend on them.In western Jordan runs the Great RiftValley, a deep depression which includesthe Jordan Valley, the Wadi (‘oasis’) Araba,Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee) and the DeadSea, the lowest point on earth. In easternJordan there are wetland parks managed bythe Worldwide Fund for Nature in theoases of the Shaumari and Azraq.

North of the Arabian Peninsula area liesa large area of highland plateaux andmountains covering the non-Arabic speak-ing countries of Turkey, Iran, Afghanistanand those in the Caucasus. Turkey has thebest developed tourism industry in thissub-region, and while the others have con-siderable potential, political unrest hascaused most of them to be largely closed totravel for most of the 1980s and 1990s. Asin the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologicaland historic sites are the mainstay oftourism throughout highland SouthwestAsia, which has historically served as the‘crossroads’ of the world. The higher eleva-tions are considerably cooler than theArabian Peninsula, and many distinctforested regions are protected in Turkey’snature reserves and 21 national parks.Some of these parks, created as early as1958, were initially established for archae-ological and historical purposes but havesince become rich habitats of protected bio-logical diversity. Wetlands are also moreplentiful in Asia Minor and the Caucasus.Trekking in the mountains (including ski-mountaineering in Georgia), bicycletouring and sea kayaking along theMediterranean coast have become populareco-adventure travel experiences.

Further to the east, tourism returned toIran by the late 1990s, though visas forindependent travel are very difficult toobtain. Rampant urban and industrialdevelopment, combined with devastationfrom the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, havecaused widespread environmental damage,especially along coastal areas of the PersianGulf and Caspian Sea. The country hasestablished a few national parks, mostly inforested areas of the Alborz mountain

132 A.A. Lew

range where the rare black-bearded andspiral-horned Alborz sheep reside. How-ever, these parks are almost entirelyunmanaged and unprotected. The situationis even worse in civil war-torn Afghanistan.

Central Asia’s northern location deepwithin the continent of Asia results inextremes of summer heat and winter cold.Arid conditions are most prominent in thesouthern lowland areas, with higher pre-cipitation in the mountains in northernKazakhstan, which borders Siberia. Desert-based ecotourism resources are quite simi-lar in these drier, sand-covered areas tothose of the Arabian Peninsula; migratorybirdwatching on wetland areas is the prin-cipal attraction. However, the greater dif-ference between summer and wintertemperatures in Central Asia results inlarge numbers of summer insects, whichbecome a major distraction. Because oftheir location on the former edge of a largeJurassic sea, the south-eastern mountainsof Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan havesome outstanding dinosaur sites, includingthe Kugitang Reserve, located on theTurkmen side of their shared border. Thesemountains are also rich in mineralresources. The intersection of desert, grass-lands and mountains make for a rich diver-sity of ecosystems that have alreadyattracted hunters and fishermen fromaround the world who are starting tothreaten some of the region’s endangeredlarge game (Sievers, 1998).

Kazakhstan is the ninth largest countryin the world in land area and, in additionto its southern sand dune areas, consistsmostly of rolling plains rising to oldermountain areas in its eastern portions. It isalso one of six countries that border theCaspian and Aral Seas. Despite seriousenvironmental degradation due to thediversion of tributaries and fertilizerrunoff, there is still considerable wildlife tobe seen along the shores of these land-locked seas, and they have become thefocus of major international ecologicalrestoration efforts.

Highland Central Asia consists of themuch smaller countries of Takjikistan andKyrgyzstan, each of which has lowland

plains in its western portions and highmountains in the eastern parts. For most ofthe 1990s, Tajikistan has suffered throughcivil war, resulting in the deaths of tens ofthousands and in hundreds of thousands ofrefugees. Such circumstances make travelclose to impossible to Central Asia’s high-est mountain peaks (over 7000 m or 23,000ft high) where intense winter blizzards canlast for several days. Kyrgyzstan, on theother hand, is possibly the most democra-tic and stable of the Central Asian coun-tries. Most of the country is located in theTian Shan mountain range, which is amajor potential ecotourism area for China,as well. Ala-Archa Canyon is a nationalnature park not far from the Kyrgyz capitalof Bishkek where numerous trekking trailslead visitors to glaciers on the country’shighest peaks.

Southwest Asia and Central Asia cover alarge area with many shared characteris-tics, including history, religion, politicsand sensitive environmental resources.Ecotourism, combined with archaeologicaltourism, has great potential in almost everycorner of this region. However, thereremains a great need throughout toincrease environmental awareness and toaddress major environmental problems.Political turmoil is also a major problemthat stands in the way of tourism develop-ment. Once these issues are addressed,Southwest Asia and Central Asia couldboth blossom as major international eco-tourism destinations.

Ecotourism Planning andDevelopment

Although growing in popularity, eco-tourism remains a relatively small, nichemarket. In some cases ecotourism productsare offered as a means of education, publicrelations and financial support for organi-zations whose primary interests are natureand cultural conservation. In otherinstances, ecotourism is used as a market-ing tool to entice conservation-orientedconsumers to purchase tourism productsthat support biodiversity research efforts.

Asia 133

Both of these uses of ecotourism have beenapproached through regional, national andinternational organizations, many of whichare focused on Asia. The activities of someof these major international groups are dis-cussed below.

Tourism industry organizations: Pacific AsiaTravel Association and national organizations

The PATA is a major international associa-tion of tourism industry providers, includ-ing travel agents, hoteliers, tour providersand government tourism organizations.PATA covers all of Asia, with the exceptionof Southwest Asia and Central Asia. Itsmember countries also include Oceania(Australia and the Pacific island nations)and North America, which is consideredpart of the Pacific Rim.

Even though environmental ethics werewritten into its original charter in 1952, itwas not until the 1990s that PATA becameinvolved in developing and promoting eco-tourism destinations in a major way (PATA,1992). In 1992 PATA members adopted the ‘PATA Code for EnvironmentallyResponsible Tourism’ (PATA, 1999a). A fewyears late PATA started its Green Leaf pro-gramme, through which tourism-relatedcompanies reaffirm their support of theCode by paying an annual membership feeand, in return, receive the right to promotethemselves through the PATA Green Leafsymbol. This is a membership programmeonly, not a certification programme.

PATA held its first Adventure TravelConference in 1988 in Kathmandu, Nepal.The following year, the conference wasexpanded to add a travel mart (bringingtogether ground tour providers, mostly inAsia, and tour sellers, mostly in the devel-oped world), and the year after that thetitle of the conference was expanded toinclude ‘ecotourism’. Every year attendeesat the PATA Adventure Travel andEcotourism Conference discuss how theyare promoting ecotourism and debateissues such as certifying ecotour productsand industry responsibility (annual pro-ceedings are available at PATA, 1999b).

The success of these conferences, com-bined with the growing importance of eco-tourism to most PATA member countries,has resulted in the establishment of thePATA Office of Environment and Culture,centred in PATA’s European headquartersin Monaco. This office serves as a clearinghouse for news and publication on eco-tourism and sustainable tourism, as well aspromoting these among PATA members. Itis also responsible for administeringPATA’s Green Leaf programme.

In addition to PATA, several national-level ecotourism associations have formed,primarily to promote the interests of eco-tour operators, including environmentalconservation organizations that provideecotourism services. The IndonesiaEcotourism Network (formed in 1995) andEcotourism Society Pakistan (formed in1998; ESP, 2000) are among the more activenational-level ecotourism industry groups.Efforts to establish similar groups in othercountries, including China and India, havebeen less successful.

Intergovernmental organizations: WorldTourism Organization and UNESCO

While PATA is the primary internationaltourism industry association operating inAsia, the WTO serves as an intergovern-mental association of national tourismagencies. Most of the world’s countries aremembers, in addition to several hundredaffiliated private groups. In addition togathering and standardizing tourism statis-tics among member countries, the WTOsponsors meetings that address contempo-rary tourism issues. It has focused on sus-tainable tourism issues for many years,starting with the Manila Declaration in1980 (WTO, 1999a). Several of its confer-ences (and resulting proceedings) focus ontourism in Asia. Of particular interest forthe ecotourism industry have been severalconferences in the late 1990s on develop-ing the Silk Road for tourism, affectingChina, Central Asia and Southwest Asia,and the Asia-Pacific Ministers Conferenceon Tourism and Environment (PATA,

134 A.A. Lew

1997). While such ministerial meetings canoften seem stilted and hyperbolic, they areworthwhile in identifying issues that havereached the attention of national and inter-national political bodies. Three majorpolitical barriers to the sustainable devel-opment of tourism (and ecotourism) inAsia were identified at the 1997 meeting:

1. The dilemma of balancing economicdevelopment and ecosystem management.2. Rapid population growth and its impacton the environment and travel demand.3. A lack of political and lobbying strengthin the tourism industry to promote a sus-tainable tourism agenda.

The United Nations Educational andScientific Commission (UNESCO) hascome to play a major role in ecotourismdevelopment through its World HeritageCentre and its designation of WorldHeritage Sites (UNESCO, 1999). Whilemany of these sites are cultural (includingalmost all of those in Europe), a large num-ber in Asia are nature related (Table 8.1).Their designation often leads to a consider-able increase in tourist arrivals andUNESCO works with other organizations topromote sustainable tourism in the conser-vation of designated World Heritage Sites.

Non-governmental organizations

Most non-governmental organizations (NGOs)are primarily concerned with sustainabledevelopment issues, and secondarily withtourism. Examples of NGOs that are partic-ularly active in Asia include the SacredEarth Network, the Mountain Institute andthe Hong Kong-based Ecumenical Coalitionon Third World Tourism, which focuses onthe social impacts of tourism, includingprostitution, child labour and communityempowerment. The Mountain Institute(1999) sponsors environmental and cul-tural conservation and development pro-jects in alpine regions in the developingworld, including the Himalayas. ‘Volun-teers’ are able to participate in pro-grammes, including the development of acommunity-based ecotourism programme

in the Sikkim region of India. TheEarthwatch Institute (1999) is a similarorganization offering ecotourists work oneducational and scientific tours, for exam-ple, with wolves in India and on preserv-ing Angkor Wat in Cambodia.

The Sacred Earth Network (1999a) facil-itates communications for environmentalNGOs in ‘northern Eurasia’ (defined as thestates of the former Soviet Union). A searchof their online database (SEN, 1999b) usingthe word ‘ecotourism’ resulted in 60entries, all of which are involved (or hopeto be involved) in ecotourism programmes.Some of these are:

• The Sustainable Tourism Center inGeorgia;

• Kamchatka Institute of Ecology andNature Protection;

• Dashkhovuz Ecological Club in Turk-menistan;

• Tabiat-Environmental Movement ofKyrgyzstan;

• ARMECAS/Armenian Ecotourism Associ-ation; and

• International Public Center of Study ofLocal Lore and Ecotourism, ‘Caucasus’in Azerbaijan.

Conclusions

Asia is an incredibly vast and diverse con-tinent, both in terms of human settlementsand physical attributes. Each of its largesubcontinental regions has much to offerthe ecotourism industry. Some areas arealready well developed, most notably insu-lar Southeast Asia and the Himalayas.Others are just now emerging as eco-tourism destinations, including Siberia,Mongolia, western China and parts ofpeninsular Southeast Asia. Great potentialexists elsewhere, though major barriers toimmediate development also exist.

Similarly diverse are the natural andcultural resource conservation policies inAsia, which span the entire spectrum fromeconomic to environmental priorities. InChina, for example, conservation effortsoften have significant economic goals; local

Asia 135

governments are involved in resourcedevelopment as much as resource protec-tion (Lindberg et al., 1997). India, on theother hand, has had a long history of con-servation for the sake of preserving the nat-ural environment. In Southeast Asia andCentral Asia ecotourism is being viewed asan alternative form of development to moredestructive industries, such as mining, tim-ber and large-scale agriculture.

Throughout Asia, however, there is acritical need for enhanced environmentalstewardship, a need which ecotourism canhelp to realize. This is primarily seen inthe underfunding of conservation efforts,despite the growing economic success andglobalization of Asian countries. In SouthAsia, most of the economic growth hasbeen in urban areas, while continuing ruralpoverty limits the extent of conservationefforts in India and the Himalayan coun-tries. On the other hand, in Southwest andCentral Asia, along with bordering areas inChina, cultural divisions and ethnic con-flicts have made travel difficult and, likethe economic imperative, have jeopardizedenvironmental and cultural conservationefforts and the ecotourism potential thatthese regions can offer.

A potentially positive trend in the 1990shas been a growth in domestic and intra-Asian tourism. For many years tourism todeveloping countries has been a one-wayventure, seen by some as a form ofexploitation. Ecotourism comes out of atradition of less exploitative alternativetourism and it has had some significantimpacts. With the growing Asian middleclass, there has been a significant increasein domestic and intra-Asian ecotourismacross the continent. These better educatedand travelled citizens can provide a voicefor increasing conservation efforts in theirhome countries. At the same time the vary-ing cultural behaviour and expectations ofdomestic tourists, Asian tourists, andtourists from Europe and North America insensitive ecotourism destinations furthercomplicates the form of environmentalconservation and tourism developmentthat is emerging (Lew, 1995; Lindberg etal., 1997). Ecotourism has a good future inAsia, but one that will take creativity,patience and an understanding of thesocial changes that every corner of this vastcontinent is experiencing.

136 A.A. Lew

References

About.com (1999) Asia – Ecotourism (online). http://ecotourism.about.com/msub10.htm Ady, J. (1997) Nature-oriented tourism in Saudi Arabia. Landscape Issues 3 (online).

http://www.chelt.ac.uk/cwis/pubs/landiss/vol13/page3.htm Arabian Wildlife online magazine. http://www.arabianwildlife.com/homefrm.htmlCater, E. (2000) Tourism in the Yunnan Great Rivers National Parks System Project: prospects for sus-

tainability. Tourism Geographics 2(4), 472–484.Department of Tourism, Post and Telecommunications of Indonesia (DTPT) (1997) Diving (online).

http://www.tourismindonesia.com/diving.htm Earthwatch Institute (1999) Earthwatch Institute (online). http://www.earthwatch.org/ Ecotourism Society Pakistan (ESP) (2000) Ecotourism Society Pakistan. http://www.ecotourism.org.pk/Grimes, B.F. (ed.) (1999) Geographic distribution of living languages. In: Ethnologue: Languages of

the World, 13th edn, Internet version, SLI International (online). http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/distribution.html

Hitchcock, M. (1993) Dragon tourism in Komodo, eastern Indonesia. In: Hitchcock, M., King, V.T.and Parnwell, M.L.G. (eds) Tourism in South-East Asia. Routledge, London, pp. 303–316.

Lew, A.A. (1995) Overseas Chinese and compatriots in China’s tourism development. In: Lew, A.A.and Yu, L. (eds) Tourism in China: Geographical, Political, and Economic Perspectives.Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 155–175.

Lew, A.A. (1998) The Asia-Pacific ecotourism industry: putting sustainable tourism into practice. In:Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Approach. Routledge,London, pp. 92–106.

Lilley, P. (1998) Pacific and Asia report. Travel Trade Gazette, UK & Ireland 4 March, 37.Lindberg, K., Goulding, C., Huang, Z., Mo, J., Wei, P. and Kong, G. (1997) Ecotourism in China:

selected issues and challenges. In: Oppermann, M. (ed.) Pacific Rim Tourism. CAB International,New York, pp. 128–143.

The Mountain Institute (1999) The Mountain Institute (online). http://www.mountain.org/index.html Muqbil, I. (1996) Growth highlights tourism quandary. Travel News Asia (online).

http://web3.asia1.com.sg/timesnet/data/tna/docs/tna3537.htmlPacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (1992) PATA Chapters Environment Day Resource Manual.

PATA, San Francisco.Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (1997) Tourism 2000: Building a Sustainable Future for Asia-

Pacific. Final Report of the Asia Pacific Ministers’ Conference on Tourism and the Environment,Maldives, 16–17 February 1997. World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (1999a) PATA Code for Environmentally Responsible Tourism(online). http://www.pata.org/frame3.cfm?pageid=55

Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (1999b) PATA Online Publication Catalog (online).http://www.pata.org/sub6.cfm?pageid=6

Pobocik, M. and Butalla, C. (1998) Development in Nepal: the Annapurna Conservation Area Project.In: Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Approach. Routledge,London, pp. 159–172.

Population Reference Bureau (PRB) (1999) Mid-1999 World Population (online).http://www.prb.org/pubs/wpds99/wpds99a.htm

Rao, N. (1998) India’s National Parks. Great Outdoor Recreation Pages (GORP) (online).http://www.gorp.com/gorp/location/asia/india/np_intro.htm

The Sacred Earth Network (SEN) (1997) The Sacred Earth Network Newsletter Spring 97, No. 11(online). http://www.igc.apc.org/sen/ENews11.html

SEN (1999a) The Sacred Earth Network (online). http://www.igc.org/sen/ SEN (1999b) Sacred Earth Network Eurasian E-mail Users Database. http://ecologia.org/SENdb/Sievers, E. (1998) The potential for ecotourism in Uzbekistan. Arid Lands Newsletter 43,

Spring/Summer (online). http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln43/uzbekistan.html Studley, J. (1999) Ecotourism in China: Endogenous Paradigms for SW China’s Indigenous Minority

Peoples. May 1999 (online). http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/John_Studley/Ecotours.HTM

UNESCO World Heritage Committee (UNESCO) (1999) World Heritage Sites (online).http://www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc/pages/sites/main.htm

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1997) Tourism to East Asia and the Pacific Continues to Climb.

Press release, 15 May (online). http://www.world-tourism.org/pressrel/eapclimb.htmWorld Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999a) Sustainable Tourism Development – Declarations

(online). http://www.world-tourism.org/Sustainb/SustHom.htmWorld Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999b) Tourism Grows Steadily Despite Asian Financial Crisis.

Press release, 26 January (online). http://www.world-tourism.org/pressrel/26_01_99.htm Yee, J.G. (1992) Ecotourism Market Survey: A Survey of North American Tour Operators. The

Intelligence Centre, Pacific Asia Travel Association, San Francisco.

Asia 137

Chapter 9

Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific)

R.K. DowlingSchool of Marketing, Tourism and Leisure, Faculty of Business and Public Management,

Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia

Introduction

There is a considerable divergence in styleand scale of tourism in the island nationsof the Pacific (Craig-Smith and Fagence,1992). The island microstates of Oceaniaare not a homogeneous grouping. Varia-tions in population size, resource basesand relative isolation will clearly affect theability of such nations to develop robusttourism industries (Milne, 1992a). Unliketheir Australian and New Zealand counter-parts, the Pacific island microstates have avery small domestic tourism market(Fagence, 1997).

Overviews of ecotourism in Oceaniahave been made by Hay (1992), Hall(1994), Carter and Davie (1996), Fagence(1997) and Weaver (1998a, b). Hall (1994,p. 137) asserts that ‘in few regions aroundthe world has interest in ecotourism beenas pronounced as it has been in Australia,New Zealand and the countries of theSouth Pacific’. He adds that ‘the naturalenvironment of the south-west Pacific is amajor tourist drawcard’. Ecotourism inOceania comprises an eclectic assortmentof levels of understanding, governmentcommitment, maturity of destination andapproach to business. At one end of thespectrum is Australia with its well-

established ecotourism industry, demon-strable government support, well-estab-lished infrastructure, national strategy andindustry association. At the other end lies anumber of Pacific island nations whichhave few of the above elements but haveoutstanding natural attributes and enthusi-astic communities. Boundless opportuni-ties exist for ecotourism development inthe Pacific, as recognized by the CookIslands (McSweeney, 1992) and Samoa(Tourism Resource Consultants, 1991, ascited by McSweeney, 1992). One greatadvantage of the South Pacific region isthat it has considerable natural resourcesand is still at an early enough stage oftourism development for alternativeoptions to still remain available (Weaver,1998b). Somewhere in between, and inreality probably closer to Australia than thePacific island countries, is New Zealand,which markets its ‘clean and green image’.

Common to all is their relative isolationfrom the major population centres andtourist trails of the northern hemisphere.Of course this is the very reason that theyare now viewed as opportunities for eco-tourism development given their unspoiltenvironments, diversity of cultures, rela-tive security and friendly people. Thecountries form one of the world’s rapidly

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 139

growing tourist regions. This growth isfrom a small base and hence the growth isrelative, rather than absolute, in number.However, with increasing ease of accessi-bility, cost, organizational aspects andfavourable exchange rates, many of thecountries of the region are emerging as‘new world’ destinations for the travellersof Europe and North America. Hall andMcArthur (1996, p. 131) state that ‘sincethe early 1980s the number of visits tonational parks and reserves has growndramatically in Australia and NewZealand, and will continue to grow astourist authorities increasingly marketnature-based tourism or ecotourism activi-ties’.

However, the region is not without itschallenges. Problems facing the Pacificisland countries include their relative iso-lation, rising population growth, limitedresources, lack of infrastructure and finan-cial resources, a limited pool of skilledlabour, and the reliance on the export ofraw materials (Sofield, 1994). Tourism isattractive to these countries, because itoffers a solution to these problems and inrecent years tourism has been touted as anemerging industry for the Pacific islandcountries. Yet, perhaps because most of thePacific islands are remote, difficult toaccess and expensive to visit (Craig-Smith,1994), just over a decade ago the regionalperformance in tourism attraction wasdescribed as ‘lacklustre’ (EconomistIntelligence Unit, 1989). Thus the chal-lenge for ecotourism in the Pacific region isto turn its problems into opportunities.

Sofield (1994) provides a litany of envi-ronmentally disastrous tourism develop-ments in the South Pacific. They includemangrove reclamation for resort develop-ment in Fiji, coastal construction inVanuatu, and the clearing of vegetation inTonga. Barrington (1996) describes a simi-lar situation in the Cook Islands which sheargues is a paradise under siege from bothtourism and general development. Manyhave argued that these situations threatentourism development in the Pacific islandsand that ecotourism offers a viable solutionto this problem. Craig-Smith (1994) argues

that the development of tourism in thesmall islands of the Pacific must be builtaround a niche market with an environ-mentally sustainable product. Under theEuropean Union-funded Pacific RegionalTourism Development Programme, theTourism Council of the South Pacific(TCSP) has been actively promoting eco-tourism and it has been championed for anumber of countries in the region. Choy(1998, p. 382) argues that ‘the lesson fromthe experience of the Pacific islands overthe last two decades is that the combina-tion of sun, sand and sea in an exotic envi-ronment is not sufficient for continuedsuccess’.

The use of ecotourism as a solution totourism problems in the Pacific islands is,however, also problematic. Just under adecade ago when describing an ecotourismconference in the Pacific, Valentine (1993,p. 108) noted that there were less ecologistspresent than either developers, architects,bankers, administrators or bureaucrats. Heargued that there was an urgent need to putecology back into ecotourism.

There is little obvious homogeneity inOceanian ecotourism. The countries arevastly different geographically, are physi-cally separated by huge tracts of ocean andcomprise differing cultures. The one thingthat binds them all together is their posi-tion in the Pacific Ocean and their rela-tively unspoilt natures. A brief review isnow made of ecotourism in Australia, NewZealand and the Pacific islands (Fig. 9.1).

Australia

Recent developments in Australian eco-tourism have placed it at the forefront ofglobal ecotourism initiatives (McArthurand Weir, 1998). The country has maderemarkable accomplishments in eco-tourism over the past few years (Depart-ment of Industry, Science and Tourism,1998). These include implementation of arange of ecotourism strategies, setting upnational and local ecotourism associations,the publication of an annual industryguide, hosting international ecotourism

140 R.K. Dowling

Oceania

141

Fig. 9.1. Location map of Oceania (based on outline in Hall, 1994).

conferences, establishing an internationalresearch centre, establishing best practiceecotourism techniques, setting up eco-tourism education and training courses,and developing the national ecotourismaccreditation scheme (EAA and ATOA,1997).

Ecotourism in Australia is being devel-oped by 600 operators and it is estimatedto generate a turnover of AU$250 millionper annum. The industry employs approxi-mately 4500 full time equivalent staff,which represents 1% of the total tourismindustry employment in the country(Cotterill, 1996). Natural tourist iconsinclude the Great Barrier Reef (1.5 million

visitors per year (GBRMPA, 1998)), Uluru(Ayers Rock; Fig. 9.2) (350,000 visitors peryear) and the Tasmanian wilderness.

The considerable progress in ecotourismover the past decade is mainly attributed toa clear and demonstrated lead by theFederal Government through its NationalEcotourism Program executed between1994 and 1996. The programme fosteredthe development of national ecotourismthrough innovative projects that aimed toincrease Australia’s competitiveness as anecotourism destination, enhance visitorappreciation of natural and cultural valuesand contribute to the long-term conserva-tion and management of ecotourism

142 R.K. Dowling

Fig. 9.2. Climbers on Uluru (Ayers Rock) central Australia (photo by Jane James).

resources. A National Ecotourism Strategywas launched in March 1994 which pro-vided an overall framework to guide theintegrated planning, development andmanagement of ecotourism in Australia ona sensitive and sustainable basis(Department of Tourism, 1994).

Australia’s ecotourism development hasbenefited greatly from the formation in1991 of the Ecotourism Association ofAustralia (EAA). In particular, the EAApioneered, in conjunction with theAustralian Tourism Operators Association(ATOA), the National EcotourismAccreditation Program (NEAP) which waslaunched in November 1996 (Common-wealth of Australia, 1996a) (see Chapter29). The programme distinguishes bonafide ecotourism products on the basis ofeight principles including best practiceenvironmental management, education,contribution to local communities, sensi-tivity to different cultures, consistency ofproduct delivery and ethical marketing.The entities eligible for accreditation arenature-based tour companies, naturalattractions relating to the regional environ-ment, and accommodation providers innatural areas. Another recent initiative isthe development of a National Nature andEcotour Guide Certification Program. Thekey components for this are interpretation,education, ecological sustainability, mini-mal impact techniques, operations andawareness.

Trends

There is strong market demand for eco-tourism in Australia (Hatch, 1998). Its richand diverse natural heritage ensuresAustralia’s capacity to attract internationalecotourists and gives Australia a compara-tive advantage in the highly competitivetourism industry (Department of Industry,Science and Tourism, 1998). Ecotouristsare generally from higher education groupsthat are comfortable with technology. Thus,many of their ecotour enquiries and book-ings are transacted via the Internet and

email. With publicity generated by the2000 Summer Olympics held in Sydney,Australia is facing a major tourist influxthat will have an impact on prospects forsustainable ecotourism.

The principles of ecotourism have wide-spread application and they can act as anexemplar for other forms of environmen-tally responsible tourism through the pro-motion of best practice in planning, design,management and operations (Departmentof Tourism, 1995; Tourism CouncilAustralia, 1996). Lessons learned in theecotourism industry can be applied to alltypes of tourism, for example, through thegreening of hotels and resorts (TCA andCRC Tourism, 1998).

Another major trend in Australian eco-tourism is the rapidly expanding knowl-edge base gained from research andeducation. A number of Australian univer-sities offer ecotourism educational coursesand carry out ecotourism research (seeChapter 40). The knowledge base is alsoimproving and the EAA and the FederalGovernment’s Office of National Tourismare both very active in the dissemination ofecotourism information nationally.

‘Partnerships’ was one of the buzzwordsof the 1990s, especially as it related to gov-ernment accomplishing its objectives.Partnerships require a shared vision,shared risks and shared benefits in order tobe successful (Walters, 1992). The 1998EAA conference concluded with specificrecommendations to pursue improved part-nerships with the indigenous and culturaltourism sectors, the conservation sectorand the heritage sector (McArthur andWight, 1999). This vision, if pursued, willenable Australia to maintain its position atthe forefront of ecotourism development.Finally, Australian ecotourism is becomingmore professional in orientation andwhereas in the past many traditional eco-tourism operators were involved in it for‘environmental’ or ‘lifestyle’ reasons thereis now a focus on increased professional-ism and business orientation (McKercher,1998).

Oceania 143

Issues

There are a number of issues emerging inthe development and growth of ecotourismin Australia. They include ecotourism’senvironmental (ecological, cultural andeconomic) sustainability (Burton, 1998)and the role of indigenous people. Sincethe natural environment underpins eco-tourism, it is essential that it is protectedand conserved. While there have beenmany successful Australian ecotourismoperations which have been built on sus-tainable principles (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 1996b), some entrepreneursoperating in natural environments underthe banner of ‘ecotourism’ are simply notlooking after the environment and aremerely pursuing ‘easy’ profits (Fries, 1998).

The other key issue facing Australianecotourism is the place of indigenouspeople and culture (Bisset et al., 1998). Akey characteristic of the Australian defini-tion of ecotourism is that it is based on cul-tural as well as natural values. In thisregard the National Ecotourism Strategystates that ‘cultural involvement requiresconsultation and negotiation with localcommunities (particularly indigenous com-munities) and organisations responsible forthe management of cultural heritage val-ues’ (Department of Tourism, 1994, p. 18).The reality is, however, that there is mini-mal involvement in ecotourism by indige-nous people in Australia despite the strongdemand for it by international visitors. Yetto leave people out of the equation intourist visitation to natural areas is merelyto replicate the Western view that wilder-ness areas must be areas where humans donot live. This is errant nonsense and badlyneeds to be addressed in Australia. Suchissues are particularly important for areasin northern Australia such as Cape Yorkand the Kimberley Region, where indige-nous people compose a large portion of thepopulation. Other aspects of indigenousecotourism include the impacts it has oncommunities and the intellectual propertyright issues associated with interpretation.

Australia’s ecotourism industry is at theleading edge of ecotourism worldwide with

its national ecotourism programme andstrategy, rapidly growing industry associa-tion, the national ecotourism accreditationand guide certification schemes and multi-tude of training and education courses.Other innovations include built designprinciples, water and waste minimizationpractices, marketing strategies such asusing the Internet, and the increasing inter-est in partnerships.

New Zealand

Tourism is well established in NewZealand and it makes a major contributionto the country’s gross domestic product,foreign exchange earnings and employ-ment. Traditionally the focus of tours toNew Zealand have been on the Maori cul-ture and/or adventure tourism. However,the recent overseas promotion of the coun-try by its tourism board is one of a fresh,green and unspoilt environment and thenumber of visitors interested in NewZealand’s natural features has increasedaccordingly. Key attractions include theglow worm caves at Waitomo (250,000 visi-tors per year), the fiords of Milford Sound(200,000) and whale-watching at Kaikoura.Over 55% of the country’s 1 million inter-national visitors per year, visit one or moreof its national parks (New Zealand TourismDepartment, n.d.) (Fig. 9.3).

Much of the tourism industry in NewZealand is now based on the natural envi-ronment, and in the mid-1990s concern wasexpressed about the relationship betweentourism and the environment (NZTB andDoC, 1993; Hall, 1994). Notwithstandingecotourism’s potential to support environ-mental conservation it was also argued thatthe policies of directing tourists into nat-ural environments was creating distur-bance and causing adverse impacts(Warren and Taylor, 1994). At this time itwas suggested that visitor pressure onsome icon attractions such as the WaitomoCaves and Milford Sound could not be sus-tained even in the medium term withoutmajor attention being given to reducingadverse visitor effects. Ward and Beanland

144 R.K. Dowling

(1996) suggested that as there was stillmuch to learn about the New Zealand envi-ronment it was difficult to anticipate visi-tor impacts on the environment before theyoccurred.

In 1997 the government investigatedthis situation and identified three principaladverse environmental effects associatedwith tourism (Parliamentary Commissionerfor the Environment, 1997). These were theloss of quality of the natural environment,a reduction of amenity values from incre-mental development and the rising costs tothe local communities of establishinginfrastructure required for tourism devel-

opment. The report’s principal recommen-dation to the Minister for Tourism was forthe government to implement a nationalsustainable tourism development strategy.It was envisioned that such a strategywould increase environmental awarenesswithin the tourism industry, maintain highenvironmental quality, provide appropri-ately for the indigenous people and theland, and promote industry–governmentpartnerships. This recent development insustainable tourism is significant for thedevelopment of ecotourism as it broughtabout considerable changes to the tradi-tional types of tourism. Guides are now

Oceania 145

Fig. 9.3. The Mackay Falls on the Milford Track, southern New Zealand (photo by Ross Dowling).

expected to be knowledgeable about boththe natural and the cultural environmentsas well as proficient in specific adventureactivity skills (Ryan, 1997).

While ecotourism has been firmlydefined and characterized across theTasman Sea in Australia, in New Zealand aclear definition of the term still remainselusive. B. Ryan (1998, p. 1) states that eco-tourism as a concept remains without awidely agreed definition and he argues theneed for both descriptive and prescriptivedefinitions of the term. Interestingly he dis-cusses ecotourism from a number ofstances including its status as a product, aproperty and a social construction.Following this discussion Ryan para-phrases Budowski’s (1976) definition as‘Ecotourism is a symbiotic relationshipbetween conservation and tourism’. Hisprescriptive definition includes the three‘essential’ criteria of it being nature-based,environmentally sustainable and contribut-ing to conservation.

Writing more recently, Simmons (1999)suggests that this operational definition is apositive step toward shifting the focus ofthe definition from its current product ori-entation to a process orientation. He arguesthat there needs to be a more robust defini-tion of ecotourism which acknowledges theenvironmental resource base on which itfundamentally depends. To achieve thisgoal he adds that a first step is to establisha set of indicators of environmental changeinduced by tourism.

Pearson (1998) suggested that there arefour key issues facing ecotourism in NewZealand. These are the nature of the indus-try as well as a lack of clarity, managementand coordination. To redress this situationPearson calls for the industry to embrace adefinition, develop a national strategy andestablish an accreditation system. A majorpart of this strategy should be the integra-tion of the natural and cultural environ-ments as primary visitor attractionsincorporating the sound industry base builtaround the Maori culture.

A number of studies have been carriedout on the possibility of developing eco-

tourism ventures with and for Maori people.For example, a survey of the HokiangaDistrict of Northland found that the areahas considerable potential for marae-basedecotourism ventures (Mitchell et al., 1998).The relatively unspoilt natural environ-ment combined with the willingness of thelocal community to develop ecotourismproved to be positive factors. In additionthe researchers noted that if the negativeaspects of infrastructural and economiclimitations were overcome then ecotourismventures could be developed to form partof the livelihoods of these communities.

However, as with the situation inAustralia, for New Zealand ecotourism totruly embrace Maori culture, let alonedevelop Maori ecotourism, it will need tounderstand the Maori view of the environ-ment instead of imposing our own interpre-tation on it. Manuka Henare, a HokiangaMaori, defined Maori tourism as ‘essen-tially a spiritual experience. People cometo a place to learn more about themselves.They come not just to see but to be intro-duced to a world unseen too. The spiritualcharacter is the competitive advantageMaori tourism can claim’ (Urlich Cloher,1998, p. 2).

Thus in New Zealand, ecotourism is at arelatively embryonic stage. Without anagreed definition, formalized national strat-egy or accreditation scheme, its ecotourismdevelopment faces some challenges. This isparticularly so because the demand forNew Zealand nature-based tourist activitiesis high, and consequently the industry isdemand-led. This is a situation that couldhave significant impacts on the resources ifthey are not managed appropriately. C.Ryan (1998, p. 304) asks whether eco-tourism in New Zealand is condemned to aduplication of small companies increas-ingly dependent upon overseas marketsand the marketing strategies of intermedi-aries in the channel of distribution overwhich they have little or no control. Hesuggests that one answer is the creation ofcoalitions of operators offering products inpartnership with each other.

146 R.K. Dowling

South Pacific

Tourism in the South Pacific has beenadvanced by the TCSP and the SouthPacific Regional Environmental Program(SPREP). However, there is a great diversityof environments and level of infrastructurein the nations of the region, so commonali-ties of ecotourism policy, planning, devel-opment and experience are few. Forexample, the government of Niue has mar-keted ecotourism based on its fringing reefand caves and chasms (Milne, 1992b). TheWotho Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some-times described as the world’s most beauti-ful atoll, has been suggested as a prime sitefor high-value ecotourism developmentdue to its white sandy beaches, fringingcoconut palms, and crystal clear watersrich in assemblages of coral and fish(Valentine, 1993). In Tuvalu the country’stourism strategy is low-key and is directedat international visitors who are attractedby its small size, remote nature, extensivemarine environment and friendly, relaxedpeople (TCSP, 1992a).

Tourism development in Samoa is basedfirmly on its natural and cultural environ-ment (TCSP, 1992b, p. 105). The country’stourism master plan acknowledges theneed for strong environmental guidelinesfor tourism developments while enrichingthe environmental awareness and experi-ence of the general interest tourist. In addi-tion the country has invoked an ecotourismstrategy in part to utilize its protected areasin order to create a representative frame-work of natural reserves and icon sites.This survey revealed a widespread aware-ness of ecotourism and a number of eco-tourism products already in operation(Fagence, 1997). On six islands inMicronesia (Saipan, Rota, Guam, Palau,Pohnpei, Kosrae) tourism and conservationis being trialled by the US Department ofAgriculture’s Forest Service TropicalForestry Program (Wylie, 1994).

In a general review of environmentalprotection and tourism development, theSolomon Islands were described as havinga spectacular array of scenic beauty areas(marine and terrestrial) and interesting and

diverse flora and fauna (TCSP, 1990, p. 18).An ecotourism development project onMakira Island has been established by anumber of local villages to show how con-servation and development can be inte-grated (Gould, 1995). Ecotours are beingrun by the locals in a bid to protect theirold-growth forests and generate funds toimprove health and education services.Another successful project is theGuadalcanal Rainforest Trail which ‘offersan opportunity for ecologically sustainabletourism development, controlled and man-aged by indigenous Solomon Islanders’(Sofield, 1992, p. 99).

Fiji

Almost a decade ago the case was made forthe development of nature-based tourism inFiji in order to adapt to changing marketsfrom short-haul to long-haul tourists (King,1992) and as an alternative means of pro-tecting the indigenous forest resources(Weaver, 1992). In a survey of the countryin the mid-1990s Ayala (1995, p. 39) arguedthat Fiji is a natural ecotourism destinationwith its more than 300 islands of diversegeological origin encompassing a variety ofspecies and habitats of outstanding scien-tific and heritage value, landscapes ofexceptional scenic beauty, as well asunique marine features. She noted that itskey assets include a relatively undisturbedenvironment, strong heritage and culturaltraditions and existing tourism infrastruc-ture. She concluded that the islands have aunique opportunity to integrate their nat-ural, cultural and heritage assets to delivera high-quality ‘ecoproduct’ with distinctiveecological dimensions. These include thesacred red prawns of Vatulele and turtlecalling at Nacamaki. However, Ayala alsosuggested that, to capitalize on ecotourism,Fiji would need to improve its marketingthrough the potential of joint marketing,improve its training and service delivery,instigate better coordination of its inter-island links, and establish integratedtourism circuits for international visitors.

Today Fiji relies heavily on tourism

Oceania 147

based on its natural environment. It pro-vides a major source of jobs, especially forindigenous Fijians living in traditional vil-lages, and it is the principal source of for-eign exchange income. As a consequencethe government has begun to show concernabout the impact of tourism on Fiji’s nat-ural environment and its society (Haywoodand Walsh, 1996). In 1997 an ecotourismplan was prepared for the country whichspecified five principles on which eco-tourism should be developed (Harrison,1997). These are environmental conserva-tion, social cooperation, complementarity,centralized information, and infrastructuredevelopment. A key point involves theacceptance that ecotourism, with its stronglink to village-based community tourism,can only complement, but not replaceother forms of tourism. Policies that havebeen proposed to help implement the planinclude environmental sustainability, pub-lic awareness campaigns, the embrace ofcultural tourism, and the promotion oflocal economic benefits. Another key sug-gestion is the establishment of a techni-cally oriented government EcotourismCommittee, to act as a focus for ecotourismdevelopment.

The integration of ecotourism and vil-lage-based community tourism is illus-trated through the development of severalgrass roots ecotourism operations whichhave been established (Young, 1992). Theseinclude the Bouma ecotourism venture onTavenui Island (Lees, 1992) and the AbacaEcotourism Co-operative Society whichwas established at Koronayitu in 1993(Gilbert, 1997). This area is the last remain-ing large area of unlogged tropical montaneforest in western Viti Levu, Fiji’s largestisland. With pressure on the area for log-ging and mining the local village commu-nities established the Abaca Cultural andRecreation Park. It consists of an ecolodgebuilt from the remains of an old loggingvillage, educational tours, and walk trailsto scenic and historic sites. Earnings in thefirst year were equal to the whole commu-nity’s total income before the businesscommenced operation. As a consequenceof the success of this initiative a number of

other villages in the region are now settingup their own cooperative ecotourism soci-eties.

By way of contrast, Jean-MichelCousteau, son of the famed French marineecologist, Jacques Cousteau, has estab-lished an upmarket ecolodge on the islandof Vanua Levu. Through operating theresort his aim is to show that it is possibleto be environmentally friendly and finan-cially successful at the same time (McCabe,1998). This was something that Valentine(1993, p. 115) had argued 5 years beforewhen he proposed that ‘there is a need forresearch on successful small-scale village-based ecotourism and the design of practi-cal working examples’. The resort containsonly 20 bures (traditional Pacific islandbuilding primarily used for accommoda-tion) which have been built with local tim-ber and thatch and are oriented in such away as to take advantage of the tradewinds, thus eliminating the need for airconditioning. In addition their elevatednature allows the air to circulate under-neath, also keeping them cool as well aspreventing rot and deterring bugs. Mosquitocontrol has been advanced by establishingendemic plants to attract birds and by cre-ating a series of ponds to lure mosquitoesaway from the resort where fish, toads andshrimp can then eat their larvae. The envi-ronmentally friendly resort includes a high-tech video link which allows non-divingguests to communicate with divers, andview the surrounding undersea environmenton a giant screen, through the telecommuni-cations Uplink video system (Murphy, 1997).

Discussion

This survey of ecotourism in Oceaniaraises a number of trends and issues.Across the region there is great diversity ofnatural attributes, potential ecotourismresources, infrastructure development,involvement of the indigenous people, andlevels of understanding. Common to allcountries, however, is the relative isolationof the region, the political interest in eco-tourism as a perceived generator of eco-

148 R.K. Dowling

nomic benefits and desire by local commu-nities to become involved in it.

Hall (1994) suggests that the term eco-tourism is commonly used in the Pacific torefer to either ‘green’ or ‘nature-based’tourism, that is, a distinct market segment,or any form of tourism development whichis regarded as environmentally friendly. Heargues that these two approaches to eco-tourism pose distinct management, policyand development problems. Writing fromFiji, Harrison (1997, p. 75) argues that

in recent years ‘ecotourism’ has becomesomething of a buzz word in the tourismindustry. To put the matter crudely, but notunfairly, promoters of tourism have tended tolabel any nature-oriented tourism product anexample of ‘ecotourism’ while academicshave so busied themselves in trying to defineit that they have produced dozens ofdefinitions and little else.

He goes on to suggest that if sustainabletourism development is to occur, trade-offsare inevitable and often nature will be theloser. He adds that ecotourism can notsolve all the problems of mass tourism andmay in fact generate problems of its own.

Harrison (1997) suggests that it shouldnot be considered a stepping stone to large-scale tourism, though it often proves to beso. He concludes that ecotourism is anideal, but one worth working towards,because the goals of ecotourism are to fos-ter environmental conservation and cul-tural understanding.

As Ayala (1995, p. 40) has warned, ‘it isbecoming increasingly obvious that thesmall-volume definition of ecotourism isincorrect; the small-scale restriction onaccommodation size is not viable; and con-trol of ecotourists’ direct contact with des-tination landscapes and cultures is neededurgently’. She suggests that resorts estab-lished in protected areas could play amajor part in the advancement of eco-tourism business in Pacific countries byproviding tourists with unique insightsinto these places through education, inter-pretation and experience. An immediateplanning concern for many of the SouthPacific nations is the need to establish a

network of protected areas in order tosecure its natural attributes. Once this hasbeen completed then decisions can bemade on the potential to convert theseattributes to assets, whereby ecotourismcan be harnessed to generate the funds nec-essary to conserve and protect naturalareas.

The inclusion of host communities inecotourism is a contentious issue as manydefinitions appear to be predicated on theconcept that ecotourism occurs only in nat-ural areas which are devoid of people.However, more enlightened approaches toecotourism include host communities intheir characteristics. For example, Sofield(1991, p. 56) argues that ‘while tourism hasbeen drawn into current debate about “eco-logically sustainable development”, thetopic of “sustainable ethnic tourism” haslargely escaped attention’. He then illus-trates this through the Pentecost Land Diveof Vanuatu (also ‘naghol’ – an annual cere-mony in which specially selected initiatesleap head first to the ground from a plat-form approximately 70 ft high, with vinestied to their ankles so that their foreheadsjust touch the earth). Helu-Thaman (1992)argues that the human elements of eco-tourism are better expounded by ‘ecocul-tural’ tourism which is more culturallysensitive and integrated and more sustain-able in the long term.

Other issues facing the development ofecotourism in the region include the needfor increased knowledge and research, thereduction of economic leakage, the needfor an ethical approach, the problems ofnatural and man-made disturbances andthe need for planning. Fagence (1997) con-cludes his survey of ecotourism in thePacific by stating that many island eco-tourism strategies have been based onunrealistic resource appraisal and incom-plete knowledge of potential source mar-kets. Niue’s heavy dependence onimported goods means that much of theinitial expenditure leaks away from thecountry before it can generate income,employment and government revenue(Milne, 1992b). Dee Pigneguy, who oper-ates a marine-based ecotourism enterprise

Oceania 149

in the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park suggeststhat ecotourism operators should developconservation ethics. She states that ‘eco-tourism is a high growth industry and itmust be recognised that there will alwaysbe a point where economic benefits are out-weighed by ecological costs’ (Coventry,1993, p. 56).

The threat of natural disasters such ascyclones, floods, landslips, avalanches andfires will always be present and pose a sig-nificant problem for the development andgrowth of tourism in natural areas (Craig-Smith and Fagence, 1994). Fiji experiencedslumps in tourism in 1983 and 1985because of cyclones (Haywood and Walsh,1996). Tourism declined sharply in theaftermath of two successful coups in 1987(Miller and Auyong, 1991). Cyclone Ofa inFebruary 1990, one of the most destructivein the past two centuries, destroyed Niue’shotel, dive operations and coastal walkingtrails, and severely damaged its guesthouses. Cyclones have also created chal-lenges for the ecotourism industry inSamoa (McSweeney, 1992). In Papua NewGuinea tourism has not realized its enor-mous potential due to its unstable law andorder situation, the impact of mining andinternal conflicts. In the Solomon Islands,tourism development was halted for anumber of years over land disputesbetween foreign investors and traditionalowners (Sofield, 1994).

The need for adequate planning fornational ecotourism development is com-mon throughout the region. In an earlystudy of the impact of tourism on theCommonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, the need for adequate planningwas emphasized (University of Hawaii,1987). Suggestions included the establish-ment of proper land use controls such asthe introduction of zoning; prescribed set-backs, height restrictions and maximumsite coverage ratios for buildings; and theprotection of natural and cultural sites.

A basic axiom when discussing eco-tourism potential is that not all naturalsites lend themselves to ecotourism devel-opment. Lees (1992, p. 61) states that‘Ecotourism is frequently billed as the

panacea in helping conservation pay itsway. The reality in the Pacific is that veryfew areas of conservation value also havethe potential to support economic localtourism enterprises’. She goes on todescribe the case of the Ubai Gubi region inthe highlands of Papua New Guinea. Herean international environment group keento facilitate the area’s protection suggestedan upmarket ecolodge for the viewing ofthe indigenous birds of paradise. The lodgewas built but ‘the project was a failure.Tourists have not arrived. The lodgeremains but the enterprise has folded,yielding no benefits to the landowners orsound protection for the forest’ (Lees, 1992,p. 62). As a further example, of the 24 areassuggested for conservation in the SolomonIslands, only three have been recom-mended for ecotourism development(TCSP, 1987).

Conclusions

It has been argued that the traditionalexport of Western concepts of tourismplanning and development have limitedapplication in the countries of Oceania.Rather than create ‘enclave tourism’, as inthe case of a number of Pacific islandnations, there is merit in creating inte-grated small-scale developments (Craig-Smith, 1994, p. 25). Further, it has beensuggested by Hall (1994, p. 154) that theSouth Pacific region is ‘facing a form ofecological imperialism in the region inwhich a new set of European cultural val-ues is being impressed on indigenous cul-tures through ecotourism development’.Fagence (1997) argues that commitments tolow volume, low technology, special inter-est tourism need to be based on a clearawareness of both the demand and supply.There is considerable evidence that theimplications of a commitment to strategiesof ecotourism are not well understood inthe Pacific region.

Carter and Davie (1996, p. 71) state that‘like Australia, ecotourism in the Pacific isin a developing phase’. However, theauthors suggest that in contrast with

150 R.K. Dowling

Australia, tourism development in thePacific is viewed as embracing culture,benefiting local communities and fosteringenvironmental protection and manage-ment. They conclude that Australian eco-tourism will result in a markedly differentproduct focused on natural icons andlargely ignoring the cultural elements ofthe landscape.

Thus ecotourism in Oceania is undergo-

ing increased demand from travellers,emerging interest by local communitiesand the involvement of industry and gov-ernments. Based on its unspoilt natural ter-restrial and marine environments, friendlypeople, and increased knowledge andinfrastructure, the region will continue tofoster ecotourism development at anunprecedented rate in the new millen-nium.

Oceania 151

References

Ayala, H. (1995) From quality product to eco-product: will Fiji set a precedent? TourismManagement 16(1), 39–47.

Barrington, J. (1996) Paradise lost – Cook Islands under siege. Forest & Bird 279, 26–31.Bisset, C., Perry, L. and Zeppel, H. (1998) Land and spirit: Aboriginal tourism in New South Wales.

In: McArthur, S. and Weir, B. (eds) Australia’s Ecotourism Industry: a Snapshot in 1998.Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp. 6–8.

Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict, coexistence or symbiosis.Environmental Conservation 3(1), 27–31.

Burton, F. (1998) Can ecotourism objectives be achieved? Annals of Tourism Research 25(3),755–758.

Carter, R.W. and Davie, J.D. (1996) (Eco)tourism in the Asia Pacific region. In: Richins, H.,Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A. (eds) Ecotourism and Nature-Based Tourism: Taking the NextSteps. Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia National Conference, AliceSprings, Northern Territory, 18–23 November 1995. Ecotourism Association of Australia,Brisbane, pp. 67–72.

Commonwealth of Australia (1996a) National Ecotourism Accreditation Program. The Department ofIndustry, Science and Tourism, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (1996b) Projecting Success: Visitor Management Projects for SustainableTourism Growth. The Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, Canberra.

Choy, D.J.L. (1998) Changing trends in Asia – Pacific tourism. Tourism Management 19(4), 381–382.Cotterill, D. (1996) Developing a sustainable ecotourism business. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and

Crabtree, A. (eds) Ecotourism and Nature Based Tourism: Taking the Next Steps. Proceedings ofthe Ecotourism Association of Australia National Conference, 18–23 November 1995, AliceSprings, Northern Territory. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp. 135–140.

Coventry, N. (1993) New Zealand eco-tourism under international spotlight. Accountants JournalMarch, 55–56.

Craig-Smith, S.J. (1994) Pacific Island tourism – a new direction or a palimpsest of western tradition?Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 1(1), 23–26.

Craig-Smith, S.J. and Fagence, M. (1992) Sustainable Tourism Development in Pacific IslandCountries. United Nations, New York.

Craig-Smith, S.J. and Fagence, M. (1994) A critique of tourism planning in the Pacific. In: Cooper, C.and Lockwood, A. (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 6.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 92–110.

Department of Industry, Science and Tourism (1998) Ecotourism. Tourism Facts No. 15, June 1998.Office of National Tourism, Canberra.

Department of Tourism (1994) National Ecotourism Strategy. AGPS, Canberra.Department of Tourism (1995) Best Practice Ecotourism: a Guide to Energy and Waste Minimisation.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism, Canberra.EAA and ATOA (1997) National Ecotourism Accreditation Program. Ecotourism Association of

Australia and Australian Tourism Operators Network, Brisbane.Economist Intelligence Unit (1989) The Pacific Islands. International Tourism Report 4, 70–99.

Fagence, M. (1997) Ecotourism and Pacific Island Countries: the first generation of strategies. TheJournal of Tourism Studies 8(2), 26–38.

Fries, P. (1998) Purists take on the profiteers in a battle for the great outdoors. In: Profits in theWilderness: The Ecotourism Industry’s Identity Crisis. The Weekend Australian FinancialReview 11–12 July.

GBRMPA (1998) State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area report, 1998. Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority, Brisbane.

Gilbert, J. (1997) Ecotourism Means Business. GP Publications, Wellington, New Zealand. Gould, J. (1995) Protecting Pacific forests. Habitat Australia 23(5), 14–15.Hall, C.M. (1994) Ecotourism in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific: appropriate tourism

or a new form of ecological imperialism? In: Cater, C. and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism: aSustainable Option. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 137–157.

Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S. (1996) Natural places: an introduction. In: Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S.(eds) Heritage Management in Australia and New Zealand: the Human Dimension, 2nd edn.Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 128–134.

Harrison, D. (1997) Ecotourism in the South Pacific: the case of Fiji. In: BIOSFERA World Ecotour ’97Abstracts Volume. BIOSFERA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p. 75.

Hatch, D. (1998) Understanding the Australian nature based tourism market. In: McArthur, S. andWeir, B. (eds) Australia’s Ecotourism Industry: a Snapshot in 1998. Ecotourism Association ofAustralia, Brisbane, pp. 1–5.

Hay, J. (ed.) (1992) Ecotourism Business in the Pacific: Promoting a Sustainable Experience.Conference Proceedings, Environmental Science Occasional Publication No. 8. EnvironmentalScience, University of Auckland, New Zealand and the East-West Center, University of Hawaii,USA.

Haywood, K.M. and Walsh, L.J. (1996) Strategic tourism planning in Fiji: an oxymoron or providingfor coherence in decision making? In: Harrison, L.C. and Husbands, W. (eds) PractisingResponsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development.John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 103–125.

Helu-Thaman, K. (1992) Ecocultural tourism: a personal view for maintaining cultural integrity inecotourism development. In: Hay, J. (ed.) Ecotourism Business in the Pacific: Promoting aSustainable Experience. Conference Proceedings, Environmental Science OccasionalPublication No. 8. Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand and the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, USA, pp. 24–29.

King, B. (1992) Cultural tourism and its potential for Fiji. Journal of Pacific Studies 16, 74–89. Lees, H. (1992) Ecotourism – restraining the big promise. In: Hay, J. (ed.) Ecotourism Business in the

Pacific: Promoting a Sustainable Experience. Conference Proceedings, Environmental ScienceOccasional Publication No. 8. Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealandand the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, USA, pp. 61–64.

McArthur, S. and Weir, B. (eds) (1998) Australia’s Ecotourism Industry: a Snapshot in 1998.Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane.

McArthur, S. and Wight, P. (1999) Strategic issues facing ecotourism into the new millennium: per-spectives from conference delegates. In: McArthur, S. and Weir, B. (eds) Developing Ecotourisminto the Millennium. Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia 1998 NationalConference, pp. 14–20. www.btr.gov/conf-proc/ecotourism

McCabe, C. (1998) True-blue green. The Weekend Australian 14–15 February.McKercher, B. (1998) The Business of Nature Based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Melbourne.McSweeney, G. (1992) Observing nature in action in the Pacific. In: Hay, J. (ed.) Ecotourism Business

in the Pacific: Promoting a Sustainable Experience. Conference Proceedings, EnvironmentalScience Occasional Publication No. 8. Environmental Science, University of Auckland, NewZealand and the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, USA, pp. 1–5.

Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (1991) Coastal zone tourism: a potent force affecting environment andsociety. Marine Policy March, 75–99.

Milne, S. (1992a) Tourism and economic development in South Pacific island microstates. Annals ofTourism Research 19(1), 191–212.

Milne, S. (1992b) Tourism development in Niue. Annals of Tourism Research 19(3), 565–569.Mitchell, N., Park, G. and George, F. (1998) Evaluation of sites for ecotourism potential in the

Hokianga District of Northland. In: Kandampully, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Biennial New

152 R.K. Dowling

Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Advances in Research, Part 1. LincolnUniversity, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Murphy, R.C. (1997) Environmental responsibility at the Jean-Michel Cousteau Fiji Islands Resort. In:BIOSFERA World Ecotour ’97 Abstracts Volume. BIOSFERA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 166–168.

NZTB and DoC (1993) New Zealand Conservation Estate and International Visitors. NZ TourismBoard and The Department of Conservation, Wellington.

NZ Tourism Department (n.d.) New Zealand Tourism and the Environment. NZ Tourism Department,Wellington.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (1997) Management of the Environmental EffectsAssociated with the Tourism Sector, Summary. Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for theEnvironment, Wellington.

Pearson, S. (1998) An ecotourism strategy for New Zealand. In: Kandampully, J. (ed.) Proceedings ofthe Third Biennial New Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Advances inResearch, Part 1. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Ryan, B. (1998) Ecotourism: what’s in a name? In: Kandampully, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the ThirdBiennial New Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Advances in Research,Part 1. Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Ryan, C. (1997) Rural tourism in New Zealand: rafting in the Rangitikei at River Valley Ventures. In:Page, S.J. and Getz, D. (eds) The Business of Rural Tourism: International Perspectives.International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 162–187.

Ryan, C. (1998) Dophins, canoes and marae. In: Laws, E., Faulkner, B. and Moscardo, G. (eds)Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism. Routledge, London, pp. 285–306.

Simmons, D.G. (1999) Eco-tourism: product or process? Paper presented to the Manaaki Whenua(Cherishing the Land) Conference, Landcare Crown Research Institute, Te Papa, Wellington,21 April 1999.

Sofield, T. (1991) Sustainable ethnic tourism in the South Pacific: some principles. The Journal ofTourism Studies 2(1), 56–72.

Sofield, T. (1992) The Guadalcanal Track ecotourism project in the Solomon Islands. In: Hay, J. (ed.)Ecotourism Business in the Pacific: Promoting a Sustainable Experience. ConferenceProceedings, Environmental Science Occasional Publication No. 8. Environmental Science,University of Auckland, New Zealand and the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, USA,pp. 89–100.

Sofield, T. (1994) Tourism in the South Pacific. Annals of Tourism Research 21(1), 207–215.Tourism Council Australia (1996) Tourism Switched On: Sustainable Energy Technologies for the

Australian Tourism Industry. Tourism Council Australia, Canberra.TCA and CRC Tourism (1998) Being Green Keeps You Out of the Red – an Easy Guide to

Environmental Action for Accommodation Providers and Tourist Attractions. Tourism CouncilAustralia, Canberra.

TCSP (1987) Identification of Nature Sites and Nature Subjects of Special Interest – Solomon Islands.Tourism Council of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

TCSP (1990) Solomon Islands Tourism Development Plan, 1991–2000. Tourism Council of the SouthPacific, Suva, Fiji.

TCSP (1992a) Tuvalu Tourism Development Plan. Tourism Council of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.TCSP (1992b) Western Samoa Tourism Development Plan, 1992–2000. Tourism Council of the South

Pacific, Suva, Fiji.University of Hawaii (1987) The Impact of Tourism on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands. School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii, USA.Urlich Cloher, D. (1998) The sustainability of indigenous tourism. In: Kesby, J.A., Stanley, J.M.,

McLean, R.F. and Olive, L.J. (eds) Geodiversity: Readings in Australian Geography at the Closeof the 20th Century. Special Publication Series No. 6. School of Geography and Oceanography,University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy,Canberra, pp. 491–496.

Valentine, P. (1993) Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some recent developmentsin Micronesia. Tourism Management 14, 107–115.

Walters, W. (1992) Partnerships in parks and preservation. Trends 29(2), 2.Ward, J.C. and Beanland, R.A. (1996) Biophysical Impacts of Tourism, Information Paper No. 56.

Center for Resource Management, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Oceania 153

Warren, J.A.N. and Taylor, N.C. (1994) Developing Eco-tourism in New Zealand. New ZealandInstitute for Social Development and Research, Wellington.

Weaver, D.B. (1998a) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D.B. (1998b) Strategies for the development of deliberate ecotourism in the South Pacific.

Pacific Tourism Review 2, 53–66.Weaver, S. (1992) Nature tourism as a means of protecting indigenous forest resources in Fiji. Journal

of Pacific Studies 16, 63–73.Wylie, J. (1994) Journey Through a Sea of Islands: a Review of Forest Tourism In Micronesia. USDA

Forest Service, Honolulu, Hawaii. Young, M. (1992) Ecotourism – profitable conservation. In: Hay, J. (ed.) Ecotourism Business in the

Pacific: Promoting a Sustainable Experience. Conference Proceedings, Environmental ScienceOccasional Publication No. 8. Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealandand the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, USA, pp. 55–60.

154 R.K. Dowling

Chapter 10

Europe

S. Blangy1 and S. Vautier21Department of Tourism and Sustainable Development, SECA (Société d’Eco-Amènagement),

Parc Scientifique Agropolis, Montpelier, France; 2WittelsbacheraIlee, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Introduction

Political background

Europe is a vast continent, centred on onemain political organization, the EuropeanUnion (EU). As of 2000, 15 countries weremembers: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland,Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK.Switzerland and Norway chose not tobelong to the EU.

The rest of Europe does not benefit fromsuch a tight economic and political net-work. Several Eastern and CentralEuropean countries are applying to join theEU. Some of them hope to join in the nearfuture, including Hungary, Estonia, Poland,Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Othersare working on accession. The EuropeanCommission (EC) supports several eco-nomic projects in Eastern and CentralEuropean countries under the TACIS andPHARE programmes. PHARE covers all theformer Eastern European countries andTACIS deals with the Newly IndependentStates (NIS) from the former Soviet Unionbloc. Two other organizations unifyEuropean countries, the Council of Europeand the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development. However,they are considered more as discussionforums than political organizations. TheCouncil of Europe was created in 1949 toseal the reconciliation between nationsafter the Second World War. Located inStrasbourg, France, it now has 41 memberstates, including the Russian Federation.The oldest and largest political organiza-tion in Europe, it became a structure forreceiving the new democracies of Centraland Eastern Europe after 1990 (Council ofEurope, 1997).

In examining patterns of ecotourism inEurope, this chapter adopts the WorldTourism Organization (WTO) regional divi-sions: Central/East Europe, NorthernEurope, Southern Europe, Western Europeand the East Mediterranean. However, gen-eral issues will also be addressed for pro-tected areas as well as rural, coastal andmountain areas.

Unity of nature and culture

More than any other continent, Europe is amosaic of relatively small countries. Itcomprises an important diversity of ecosys-tems and landscapes, varying from dryland on the Mediterranean coast to humid

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 155

and cold wetlands on the Atlantic coast,alpine mountains, forests and rivers, andboreal taiga. The culture of the Europeancountries is equally diverse, embracing dif-ferent languages, traditions and gastron-omy. The peculiarity of the Europeanlandscape is that it is mainly a product ofhuman activity. The high density of inhabi-tants on the European continent and thedevelopment of human activities almosteverywhere have led to the development ofspecialized landscapes, such as terracesand open land, which have been importantin the preservation or increase in biodiver-sity. This variety makes Europe a very suc-cessful but specialized destination forecotourism. In most European nature desti-nations, ecotourism activities link natureinterpretation with local traditions, archi-tecture and culture.

Tourism success

Tourism flows throughout Europe haveincreased constantly over the past decadebecause of the development of the leisuresociety, reduction in working hours,increased mobility and incomes, and grow-ing numbers of retired people. Europeleads the world in terms of tourism flows(arrivals and receipts), spending andemployees. In 1996, Europe accounted for59% of international tourist arrivals and51% of international tourism receipts(WTO, 1998). Within Europe, France ranksfirst in terms of international tourismarrivals (62.4 million in 1996) and secondin terms of international tourism receipts(Italy is first with US$30 billion in 1996).

Europeans tend to travel within Europe,the major trend being travel to the south,and especially around the Mediterraneancoast. This is likely to continue in thefuture. However, because of the simultane-ous development of increased leisure timeand growing competition in the tourismindustry, demand will become more criti-cal and specialized. Nature and culturaltourism will increase their share of themarket, especially for short holidays and ascomplementary activities to beach holi-

days. Competition means that demand willalso be increasingly critical on quality,including environmental aspects.

Tourism in Europe is viewed as a veryimportant part of the economy and a toolfor land management. It is therefore notjust a concern of private businesses, butalso of many other stakeholders includingthe European Council and EC, and the vari-ous state and local governments andauthorities. Since the Rio Earth Summit in1992, the priority at every level is to pro-mote sustainable tourism development in Europe. This includes ecotourism,although it is more common in Europe tospeak about rural, nature or sustainabletourism (see Chapter 29). Many of theseconcepts involve nature interpretationtogether with enjoying the environmentand local culture.

Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism:European Definitions and Markets

Definitions

The term ecotourism is not as widely usedin Europe as elsewhere in the world. Theterm sustainable tourism is preferred, andis applied by the EU as a concept,approach and form of organization. Thisconcept is illustrated through the inte-grated quality management (IQM) approachdescribed below (see Box 10.1). The WTOdefinition of sustainable tourism has beenwidely adopted by the European stakehold-ers, i.e. ‘A form of tourism which meets theneeds of present tourists and host regionswhile protecting and enhancing opportuni-ties for the future’. It can be used in thecontext of all kinds of tourism, includingurban as well as rural. Although it impliescatering for markets which respect, and areinterested in, host environments and cul-ture, and encouraging products which areauthentic, low impact, etc., the definitionis not explicit in this regard. In contrast,the term ecotourism is not taken just asanother word for sustainable tourism, butas something quite specific. Rather thandescribing an approach or philosophy for

156 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

tourism, it is used more often to describe atype of tourism activity, essentiallywildlife/nature-based tourism that is sensi-tive to environmental and social condi-tions. It is perhaps more widely used byEuropean outbound tour operators than bydestinations. This reflects the relativelymore limited amount of wildlife andwilderness tourism in Europe comparedwith other continents as a proportion of alltourism.

Markets

European statistics do not provide cleardata on the ecotourism market, because ofimportant confusion between naturetourism, rural tourism, adventure tourismand nature interpretation activities. This isintimately related to the characteristics ofthe European natural environment. Veryfew areas in Europe remain free of humansettlements to the extent that they can beconsidered as wilderness; most of the con-tinent consists of humanized landscape.However, European citizens are demandingmore environmentally friendly products.Surveys conducted by the EU have shownthat 82% consider that environmental pro-tection is an immediate and urgent prob-lem. Nine out of ten declare that they arequite, or very, anxious about various formsof pollution that are threatening their coun-tries; 67% were ready to pay more for envi-

ronmentally friendly products (CommissionEuropéenne, 1995). Holidays are no excep-tion to these findings. Demand is evolvingdramatically, and changing rapidly towardsgreater sustainability in all sectors, activi-ties and regions, and on both the demandand the supply side.

An important part of rural tourism con-sists of visitors seeking peace and quiet ina quality natural environment and wantingparticipative holidays together with occa-sional interpretative activities. However,over the last 10 years Europe has witnessedthe growth of a very specific market com-posed of ‘nature aficionados’. NorthernEuropeans are the most important con-sumers of holidays (German tourists hadthe highest overall tourism expenditure inthe world in 1996 with US$50.8 billion(WTO, 1998)). They also have the highesttravel intensity, followed by Switzerlandand Denmark (Rein and Scharpf, 1997).These northern countries lead the marketfor sustainable tourism, and most environ-mental management schemes and eco-tourism tour operators are found here. InGermany for instance, an association foralternative tourism (Forum Anders Reisen)is a federation of more than 40 small andmedium tour operators and travel agenciesfulfilling ecologically sound tourism crite-ria. A German web site (www.eco-tour.org)provides all definitions, political declara-tions, label schemes, criteria and projectson sustainable tourism or ecotourism,

Europe 157

Box 10.1. Integrated quality management as a process to help define sustainable tourism.

IQM

Integrated quality management is a management process, not a form of tourism, which has beenconsidered by the EU–DG Enterprise in the context of tourism destinations. The definition adopted bythem is:

The management of a tourist destination in a way which should simultaneously take into account,and have a favourable impact on, the activities of tourism professionals, tourists, the local populationand the environment (that is the natural, cultural and man-made assets of the destination). It musthave the requirements of tourists as one of its major considerations.

(European Commission, 1999)

It is true that ‘sustainability’ should be an objective of IQM in a destination, but the emphasis is onprocesses to check and deliver beneficial impacts of tourism in terms of visitor satisfaction, businessperformance, and social and community impacts, in an integrated way.

together with links to package offers andtour operators. ITB Berlin, the main com-mercial trade show in Europe, is deliveringworkshops and a forum for discussions onsustainable tourism. Participants and orga-nizers have been paying more attention tosustainable tourism over the recent years,through these seminars on the subject dur-ing the fair.

Specialized and small travel fairs aredeveloping around Europe on green, natureand sustainable tourism, for example theReise Pavillon in Hanover, Germany. In theUK, ecotourism has become a significantpart of the tourism economy, with morethan 50 tour operators and travel agenciesoperating in this market (Guicherd, 1994).Numerous associations for the protectionof the environment, such as the NationalTrust and Royal Society for the Protectionof Birds also offer ecotourism trips. In theUK, birdwatching has proved to be verysuccessful. Volunteering is also included inthe ecotourism market. This is mainlydeveloped in Germany, the UK and TheNetherlands. The British Trust forConservation Volunteers now operates‘Natural Break’ holidays in most nationalparks. The organization runs 400 separateprojects, each with an average of 12 people.Mixed packages include conservationwork, recreation (rambling) and interpreta-tion activities (evening lectures).

Ecotourism in the TouristDestinations

Protected areas in Europe

Europe has developed a wide and complexnetwork of between 10,000 and 20,000 pro-tected areas. Since 1982, an impressiveextra 10 million ha – an area larger thanHungary – has acquired protected area sta-tus. The IUCN categories of protected areamost used in Europe are II, IV and V (seeChapter 18). These protected areas havemany different labels: wilderness areas,nature reserves, marine reserves, natureparks, regional parks, national parks andprotected landscapes. They suffer from

many pressures, including tourism. InCentral and Eastern Europe, the recentpolitical and economic changes could alsobe the main threats to valuable ecosystemsbut, in the meantime, there is the opportu-nity to establish a well-managed protectedareas network (IUCN, 1994).

According to the IUCN (1994), the 1990soffered an unprecedented opportunity forprotected areas because:

• human populations are relatively stableand affluent;

• there are declining pressures on land inmany areas because of agricultural sur-pluses and reduced military activity;

• there is a high level of public supportfor conservation; and

• there is a climate of international coop-eration.

Parallel to this opportunity, and to encour-age its member states to go further innature conservation, the EU established theNatura 2000 network. This is based on twoEuropean directives: Birds (1979) andHabitats (1992). Each member state isresponsible for the choice of sites and man-agement tools, in accordance with theEuropean requirements. In September1999, the 15 member states had designated2492 sites occupying a total area of 169,823km2. Natura 2000 will be a leading pro-gramme for environmental protection inEurope. It will promote sustainable man-agement in these areas, promoting activi-ties, including special tourism activities,which are compatible with the protectionof the sites.

Tourism in European protected areas

European protected areas are becomingincreasingly popular tourism destinations.No international survey of visitors in parksis available. However, some national datagive an idea of the importance of this phe-nomenon. The UK recorded 103 millionvisitor/days in its 11 national parks during1987. Figures being monitored by the TatraNational Park in Slovakia show that visitornumbers doubled over the last 20 years.

158 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

The approach towards tourism in protectedareas varies strongly with the philosophyof nature conservation. Two mainapproaches can be identified:

• Strict natural reserves or national parks,where the main issue is to controltourism impact and allow specific activ-ities via specific zoning systems, facili-ties and direction.

• Inhabited protected areas, where themain issue is still conservation.However, the difference is that they areseeking to allow sustainable develop-ment, where appropriate, in parallelwith this, as they are also concernedwith socio-economic issues. Often theissue in these areas is to maintain a bal-ance or mutual support between tourismand specific traditional economic activi-ties that contribute to the quality of thelandscape and biodiversity.

Techniques for managing tourism in pro-tected areas have improved considerablyover the last 20 years. These include effi-cient planning, such as zoning; the man-agement of tourism flows, equipment,facilities, interpretation trails and centres;GIS techniques; and the development ofproactive tourism products. The publica-tion of the report Loving them to death?from the Federation of Nature and NationalParks of Europe (Europarc Federation,1993) was a significant lever for a positivepartnership-based approach to tourismmanagement in protected areas. This reportrecommended local community involve-ment; a strategic approach; the assessmentof carrying capacity; survey and analysis ofvisitors and the impact of tourism activi-ties; voluntary promotion of products,including educational tourism, targeted tothe potential ecotourism market; and coop-eration with the private sector. This wassupported by the IUCN, which recom-mended the creation of a European Charterfor Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas,and the establishment of a sustainabletourism service to help implement andmonitor the Charter in its action plan forEuropean Protected Areas, Parks for Life(IUCN, 1994). The European Charter was

officially presented in April 1999(Europarc Federation, 1999) and piloted inten European parks. Recommendations forecotourism development are made on thebasis of the overall needs of the area (envi-ronmental, economic, social, and the needsof local people and tourists). They are theresults of partnerships between privateoperators and local people. The chartercommits signatories to design strategies to:improve the tourism product; raise visitorawareness; train parks’ and privateemployees; preserve and enhance the qual-ity of life for local people; conserve andenhance local heritage, including the nat-ural environment; contribute to social andeconomic development; and managetourism flows. The aim of this scheme is todistinguish areas and enterprises for theirexcellence in the field of sustainable devel-opment. Simultaneously, the World WideFund for Nature UK launched its Pan Parkscheme. This aims to create a qualitybrand, which represents an expanding net-work of well-managed protected areas,‘must-see’ sites for tourists and wildlifelovers.

These programmes are the result of anew philosophy from the European parks,choosing to encourage a certain kind ofdevelopment, compatible with nature con-servation, rather than to restrict all devel-opment. It is also the consequence of a newapproach to nature conservation in Europe,aimed at better involvement and considera-tion of the interests of the residents of thebuffer zones. This new voluntary approachfrom the parks has led to the developmentof various nature products and labellingschemes. The French Natural RegionalParks, for example, have developed spe-cific trademarks for environmentallyfriendly weekly holidays, a chain of envi-ronmentally friendly hotels, Hôtel Nature,and Gîtes Panda. These gîtes (self-cateringaccommodation) provide visitors withinformation about the local fauna and flora,direct access by foot to nature sites, andprovide material for observing fauna andflora (binoculars, maps, books, etc.). Thegîte owners commit themselves to raisingvisitor awareness, helping them to better

Europe 159

understand the environment. They areencouraged to accompany their guestswhen they visit the park.

In the Abruzzo National Park, in Italy,the tourism strategy is based on the obser-vation of wild fauna such as wolves, bearsand lynx. Its eco-development strategystarted in the early 1970s with the creationof a museum of the wolf in a small village.Today, the return on investment reaches60%. The park directly employs 100people, but the number of jobs createdindirectly is easily ten times that amount.Its guiding principle is to preserve a bal-ance between revenue linked to tourismand that of other sectors. After a very sensi-tive zoning of the park and a global strategyfor the area, the park developed a networkof museums of local fauna, and areas to ori-ent visitors to nearby villages, thus increas-ing the impact on the local economy.Villages are surrounded by short interpreta-tion trails, giving an introduction to naturein the area. For the aficionados, the parkoffers increasingly successful guided walksand volunteering programmes. Many parksare developing holiday packages, tourismassociations and supporting private initia-tives for ecotourism products. At present,approaches are not coordinated at theEuropean level. However, schemes such asthe European Charter and Pan Park havethis aim.

Rural tourism: the raw material forecotourism

Changes in the European way of life haveled to new forms of tourism, includingshort-break holidays, which favour ruraltourism development. At the same time adecrease in agriculture and forestry,together with a rural exodus, have encour-aged many rural areas to view tourism asan alternative boost to their economy, cre-ating jobs. Landscape characteristics meanthat European rural tourism cannot becompared with the American concept ofecotourism. Rural tourism often includesall forms of tourism taking place in naturalareas with a low density of population and

where agriculture, forestry and traditionalactivities are intimately related to tourism.Some definitions refer to the aim of thedestination, for example: ‘a wish to givevisitors personalised contact, a taste of thephysical and human environment of thecountryside and opportunities to partici-pate in activities, traditions and lifestylesof local people’ (LEADER, 1997). Thedelivery of this tourism experienceinvolves many different players: naturalresources, cultural traditions, transport ser-vices, a whole range of tourism enterprisesas well as public authorities such as parksand local authorities.

With respect to rural tourism destina-tions, the following products can be identi-fied:

• traditional, popular destinations nearsizeable urban areas receiving a highproportion of daily visitors;

• traditional, popular destinations with asignificant quantity of visitor accommo-dation and infrastructure;

• rural areas where a major part of theproduct is characterized by small his-toric towns and villages and a rich his-toric, architectural, cultural or industrialheritage interspersed in the countryside;

• rich agricultural areas where farmingprovides much of the visitor appeal;

• areas close to the sea, wishing todevelop rural tourism in inland loca-tions away from the coast;

• mountain or forest locations;• protected areas seeking to manage

tourism as well as the environment andlocal economy in an integrated way(IUCN Category V protected areas);

• remote areas with appeal based onwildlife and wilderness (often situatedin mountain areas, national parks or nat-ural reserves).

In the past decade, rural destinations havemade enormous efforts to increase thequality of standards in services and accom-modation, as well as to diversify and spe-cialize their product. Many destinationshave started to develop specific productsfor selected targets of clientele such as fam-ilies, short-holiday takers, educational or

160 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

school groups, senior citizens, people withspecial interests such as walking, cycling,local heritage interpretation, and peoplewith disabilities (European Commission,1999).

Coastal tourism: a lesson for moreenvironmentally friendly tourism

European coastal areas have always beenvery attractive tourist destinations.According to the WTO, the Mediterraneancoast receives 35% of international touristarrivals, with 90% concentrated in thecoastal areas of France, Spain and Italy(Rein and Scharpf, 1997). Many environ-mental problems have arisen from thistourism pressure, including over-construc-tion, site coverage, over-consumption ofwater, and stress on the environment andlandscape. These negative impacts haveled to numerous reactions from politicalorganizations. The French government, forinstance, reacted by passing coastal legisla-tion. In mid-1975, the Conservatoire del’Espace du Littoral was founded with theaim of buying endangered coastal areas anddedicating them to nature conservation.Today, considerable effort is focused onrestoration of the coastal environmentthrough international programmes. At amultilateral level, the MediterraneanAction Plan was founded in the early1970s under the auspices of the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP)and today results in active cooperationbetween countries. The blue flag campaignis a European award scheme encouraginglocal authorities to maintain clean and safebeaches for the local population andtourists (UNEP et al., 1996). In recentyears, it has become a criterion in selectingtheir destination for many Europeancitizens.

In 1996, the EC set up a demonstrationprogramme to remedy the alarming envi-ronmental condition of European Coastalzones. It launched Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM), a proactive and adap-tive process of coastal resource manage-ment. Between 1997 and 1999, 35 projects

in Europe have piloted ICZM. In December1999, the EC also published a study on theintegrated quality management of coastaltourist destinations, including 15 casestudies (Commission Européenne, 1999a).In most of these, environmental manage-ment was paralleled by the development ofnature activities, such as natural and cul-tural interpretation trails or visits to neigh-bouring natural areas.

Mountain areas

Mountain areas represent a very importantEuropean landscape. The Alpine districtsof seven countries, with an area of 191,287km2 and 13 million inhabitants, are veryattractive mountain tourism destinations.However, mountain tourism has also devel-oped in other areas such as the ScottishHighlands, the Scandinavian fjords,Spanish and French Pyrenees, the moun-tains of Macedonia and Bulgaria, etc.However, it is the Alps, with now over 100million visitors a year, which have sufferedmost from environmental pressures. Alpinetourism began in the mid-18th century, butskiing really escalated in the 1970s andproblems ensued, such as the constructionof ski lifts, increased urbanization and traf-fic and landscape destruction. Socio-cultural impacts include the proliferationof holiday homes (used only a few weekseach year) and the abandonment oftraditional activities which played a key role in mountain landscape management(Manesse, 1994). Consequently, sustainabledevelopment, including ecotourism, isbeing promoted to remedy this situation.International cooperation for the protectionof the Alps exists through the InternationalCommission of the Protection of the Alps(CIPRA), an NGO created in 1952. CIPRAaims to reduce environmental impacts onthe Alps and supports sustainable develop-ment projects. In 1991, the governments ofthe Alpine countries signed a conventionto protect the Alps, The AlpineConvention, which includes a tourism pro-tocol. This intends to promote harmoniza-tion of policies and programmes between

Europe 161

countries and different economic sectors toensure better environmental protection and land management. Euromontana, aContinental European association targetingeconomic and social issues for the moun-tain areas, also promotes internationalcooperation and exchanges, includingresearch on sustainable tourism in moun-tain areas.

In the past decade, because of a declinein the skiing industry, the private sectorhas also launched many environmentalprotection initiatives. These take the formof ‘sustainable tourism resorts’ and devel-opment of nature interpretation activities.Several popular skiing resorts in Austria,Switzerland and France have recentlydeveloped sustainable tourism strategiesand action plans, based on quality, envi-ronmental management of accommodation,landscaping of ski lifts and interpretationof natural resources. Chamonix andAvoriaz, in France, for instance, are work-ing on a marketing policy based on the sus-tainability and preservation of mountainecosystems.

Sustainable Tourism in the Regions of Europe

In 1996, Europe received 349 million inter-national tourist arrivals. The regionalshares are: Western Europe 34%, SouthernEurope 28%, Central and Eastern Europe23%, Northern Europe 11% and EasternMediterranean 3% (WTO, 1998).

Western Europe

Western Europe has a long tradition oftourism and offers a wide range of destina-tions from coastal, rural and mountainareas to cities. High population densitymeans that most rural areas of WesternEurope are inhabited. It is not surprising,therefore, that this area is the most suitedfor the development of tourism linkingnature interpretation with experience oflocal lifestyle and cultural heritage. Thetourism product is quite well developed

and organized, with quality trademarks,national strategies, eco-labelling schemes,etc.

The European Commission plays a keyrole in rural tourism development throughLEADER funds, in a cohesive strategyaimed at restoring a balance in the level ofdevelopment between different regions ofEurope. In 1995, a report from the LEADEREuropean Observatory, Marketing RuralTourism, identified 71 projects, out of atotal of 217, where tourism was a majorobjective in rural development (LEADER,1997). In 1995, the EC, in partnership with17 national authorities, established anaward for tourism and environment pro-jects. Many countries of Western Europesupport the development of high-qualitynature tourism or ecotourism.

AustriaIn Austria, the self-regulated HolidayVillages in Austria Association was estab-lished in 1991 to encourage high environ-mental standards compatible with growingdemands from tourism. There are strictmembership criteria concerning villagecharacter, minimum ecological standardsand minimum social and touristic stan-dards coupled with load thresholds. TheTyrolean Environmental Seal of Quality isan eco-labelling scheme that monitorstourist establishments on an annual basisaccording to their performance on a set ofobligatory criteria (Williams and Shaw,1996).

Portugal Portugal recently passed a law setting crite-ria for all kinds of activities, services andaccommodation in parks. The official textdefines the type of services, but also thenecessary commitment of owners towardsenvironmental management and raised vis-itor awareness. Increased tourism pressureon protected areas also led to the creationof a National Program for Nature Tourism,a protocol of cooperation between theMinister for Tourism and the Minister ofEnvironment. Several levels of demand fortourist use in protected areas have beenestablished, from areas in great demand to

162 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

those less popular. This programme hastwo strategic aims: first, to promote the cre-ation of an integrated product that fits theconservation objectives of each protectedarea; second, to add potential to the touristactivity (which promotes local develop-ment and respects local economic andsocial aspirations). Several measures andtools are planned towards that end.Regulations already published include, fornature tourism, a nature tourism kitemark,tourism guide, code of conduct, trainingplan and designation of pilot projects.

Southern Europe

The Mediterranean is the most attractivedestination in Europe, but the mostadversely affected by tourism, sufferingfrom its popularity. The region is wellknown for its beautiful weather, its attrac-tive landscapes, its warm-hearted peopleand their characteristic, relaxed lifestyle(Europarc Federation, 1993). As ‘the cradleof western civilisation’, the region has anexceptionally rich cultural heritage. Thescale of tourism in the region is enormous.This is the world’s leading area, accountingfor 35% of the international tourist trade.The economies of many Mediterraneancountries are highly dependent on tourism.The Mediterranean Action Plan predictseven greater increases; that between 380and 760 million people will visit theMediterranean in 2025.

Further tourism development will bringtremendous environmental pressures.Countries such as Italy, Greece and Francehave already developed very popular holi-day resorts all along the Mediterraneancoastal zone, but these have suffered fromover-visitation in the past, and are experi-encing a recent stagnation in tourism flows.Environmental pressure and damage haveresulted from badly designed resorts andserious marine pollution. Today, manyMediterranean holiday resorts are fallingout of fashion, leading to a correspondingfall in tourist arrivals. As a result, resortsand coastal municipalities are looking foralternatives. Within the IQM programme

conducted by the EC, several pilot resortshave been studied. Small islands (theSpanish Canary and Balearic Islands, andthe Greek islands) have developed sustain-able tourism plans and actions andadopted guidelines though INSULA, a net-work of sustainable tourism islands.Popular destinations have hosted seminarsand conferences on sustainable tourism, forexample Lanzarote and Calvia (EcoNETT,1999). Several European programmes andnetworks, such as MEDPO and MEDWET,are trying to act as catalysts for sustainabletourism strategies and promotional material.

Central and Eastern Europe

The Eastern European countries are catch-ing up in terms of sustainable tourism andlearning fast from the mistakes and suc-cesses of Western countries. After the fallof the Berlin wall, CEE countries becameattractive and fashionable destinationsbecause of their mystery, high biodiversity,rich wildlife and cultural heritage.Charismatic species such as bison, wolvesand bears that have disappeared in WesternEuropean countries can still be seen inEastern countries, for example in most ofthe natural reserves and national parks ofPoland (Hall, 2000).

However, lack of development, environ-mental pressures and consequent degrada-tion, volatile political situations, anddesire for fast profits have all hindered theprocess. Flows of visitors from Westerncountries stagnated in some areas, but arenow recovering following a trend towardsgreater sustainability. In some places thatwere chosen as pilot areas to developwildlife tourism and boost huntingtourism, tour operators had to withdrawbecause of lack of professionalism and mis-calculation of the tour package prices(Blangy, 1996). This was the case inBerezinski Reserve in Belarus, whereWestern tour operators stopped visiting thereserve in 1997 after a 100% price rise anda reduction in observation opportunitiesattributable to increased hunting. Com-petition can be high between Eastern

Europe 163

European countries with common bordersand similar attractions such as wildlife,wilderness, attractive landscapes and cul-tural tourism. Tour operators will not hesi-tate to transfer their operations from onecountry to another, even if they run theirbusiness with conservation and sustainabledevelopment in mind.

Before the changes, tourism in the coun-tries of the former USSR was centralizedand controlled from Moscow through themulti-faceted organization called Intourist(Europarc Federation, 1993). Tourists weremainly domestic, with school groups com-ing from all over the Soviet Union. Foreigntourism was limited to specific places,mostly cities. Nature tourism was in itsinfancy. Today, however, many WesternEuropean countries have been funding theexchange of information and expertise. TheUK Know-How Fund, for example, isassisting protected areas to consider how todevelop sustainable tourism. Both the ECand the Council of Europe are fundingpilot projects and encouraging cross-bordercooperation to develop rural sustainabletourism, conservation and wildlife-watchingprojects. Environmental protection hasbeen an integral part of the EC TACIS andPHARE programmes to assist economicreform. The use of such funds is beingreoriented to assist the development of sus-tainable tourism related to protected areas.Three cross-border projects sound interest-ing in terms of sustainable tourism: Karelia(Finland, Russia), Niemen Region (Poland,Belarus) and Carpathia (Romania andUkraine).

Eastern and Central Europeans are keento learn, and many want to participate inWestern European seminars on conserva-tion and sustainable tourism. Several dele-gations, such as from Slovenia, Slovakiaand Poland, have been invited to visitWestern countries and learn from theirexperience. Field trips are organizedaround the sustainability of tourism pro-jects in mountain and coastal resorts. TheUkraine and Slovenia assigned muchimportance to sustainable tourism andenvironmental requirements. Protectedareas, however, need to be reinforced and

enlarged, given their incipient nature. Anaim is benchmarking to Western norms toensure adequate product quality andauthenticity prior to marketing.

Northern Europe

The UKIn 1989, the English Tourist Board and theCountryside Commission published theirprinciples for tourism in the countryside.Shortly afterwards (in 1991), the govern-ment set up a taskforce on tourism and theenvironment. The principles of rural sus-tainable tourism that emerged from thiswere tested by various pilot projects,described in a report Sustainable RuralTourism, Opportunities for Local Action(Countryside Commission, 1996). In theUK, enjoyment of nature and rural land-scapes is an important part of the culture.National agencies, local authorities andindividual projects have placed consider-able emphasis on planning for sustainabletourism and on visitor management. Manyinitiatives for developing ecotourism takeplace in the UK national parks. The PeakDistrict National Park is the most visitedpark in Europe, and has a very dynamicstructure for sustainable development.Initiatives include integrated visitor man-agement plans; mechanisms to raise moneyfrom visitors for environmental projects;and development of marketing and tourismassociations. The Peak Park has a strategyto promote public transport.

ScandinaviaThe essential tourism assets of Denmarkare on the North Sea coast, which accountsfor more than one-half of tourist nights(Ellul and Council of Europe, 1996). Thiscoastal tourism is linked with a wide rangeof outdoor activities including golf, cyclingand fishing. Although coastal tourism hasnot been as damaging to the North Sea as ithas been to the Mediterranean, high con-centrations in time and space generateproblems such as demand for land, pollu-tion, use of resources and conflicts withlocal people. To cope with these problems,

164 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

the government introduced planning pol-icy at national, regional and local levelsbased on high local participation. In 1994,new legislation was introduced, prohibit-ing any new development within 3 km ofthe coast. Denmark has, since 1917, hadspecific legislation allowing privatelandowners compensation to protect land-scapes and natural areas of national inter-est (Ellul and Council of Europe, 1996). Atthe same time, the government promotesfree access to nature. Each year new land ispurchased and made available to the pub-lic, thus also ensuring nature conservation.This strategy allows improved tourism flowmanagement and zoning. It is accompaniedby an information strategy aimed at raisingpublic awareness of the value of nature andlandscapes, and promoting better under-standing and responsible behaviour fromvisitors.

Tourism in Sweden is mainly based onnature, mountains, culture, and leisurefacilities such as zoological parks. As inother northern countries, free access tonature is a Swedish right. Sweden has oneof the highest percentages of population(77%) going on holidays in Europe (Elluland Council of Europe, 1996); Swedes have6 weeks holiday per year. This amount ofleisure time, together with the develop-ment of short breaks, has led to many con-flicts between private landowners andtourists, as well as environmental impactssuch as path erosion and disturbance ofwildlife. As nature tourism is a very impor-tant cultural characteristic, the nationalgovernment developed a positive strategybased on development of the tourism prod-uct and public information. The Swedishenvironmental agency is working in closepartnership with the tourism industry,making codes of behaviour available forspecific destinations and activities.

Finland has experienced a spectacularrise in the European tourism market in thepast decade, promoting Lapland, snow, ski-ing, northern lights, reindeers and FatherChristmas. However, this is based on masstourism and is an inappropriate use of theSami culture, although Finland has appar-

ently developed a sustainable tourismstrategy at the national level (Parviainenand Pöysti, 1995). In Swedish andNorwegian Lapland, several Sami commu-nities are developing community-basedtourism linked to the reindeer economyand Sami traditional activities.

East Mediterranean

The East Mediterranean is a relatively newtourist destination, mainly oriented oncoastal tourism and receiving WesternEuropean citizens (mostly Germans andBritish).

The desire of governments to boost theireconomy through tourism has led to thedevelopment of tourist resorts that arerarely accompanied by adequate infrastruc-ture such as sewerage or waste water treat-ment. The destinations remain highlydependent on coastal tourism and foreigninvestment. However, some countries haverecently started to implement bettertourism development control and incen-tives for product diversification. In 1990,the Cypriot government announced a mora-torium on coastal tourism development.Planning policy, as well as a nationaltourism plan, permits new constructiononly under certain conditions, includingcompulsory environmental impact assess-ment. The new strategy aims at promotingthe development of new forms of tourism,especially agro-tourism, mountain andnature tourism.

In Turkey, the development of tourismremains an economic priority. However,with the support of the World Bank, thegovernment initiated a project to protectthe south-west coast. Priorities are forinfrastructure development for waste treat-ment to stop marine pollution. Simul-taneously, tourism is being promoted tomore remote areas of the country toencourage a better spread of tourism bene-fits. These initiatives should soon lead tothe development of new nature and cul-tural products, including ecotourism, inthese destinations.

Europe 165

The Main European OrganizationsInvolved in Sustainable Tourism

As discussed in Chapter 29, supra-nationalorganizations are becoming an increasinglyimportant mechanism for implementingtourism policy in Europe. In this regard,both the EC and the Council of Europe areimplicitly attaching a high priority to eco-tourism by promoting environmentallyfriendly tourism and sustainable tourismpractices.

The European Commission

The EC has taken different measures topromote sustainable tourism especiallyecotourism in sensitive areas. For example,tourism and the environment has been oneof the main themes of the CommunityAction Plan to Assist Tourism since 1990(Tzoanos, 1992). One of the Plan’s six crite-ria for selecting measures for Communitysupport was contribution to conservingnatural environmental quality and culturalheritage, along with respecting the way oflife of local populations. The Action Planwas adopted by the 12 member states in1993. The argument for intervention wasthat the sheer size and diversity of thetourism sector necessitates a close collabo-ration between the Commission, memberstates, and different sectors of the industry.

The Community Action Plan to AssistTourism includes support for:

• initiatives aimed at making tourists andoperators more aware of the interdepen-dence of tourism and the environment;

• innovative pilot projects aimed at main-taining a balance between tourism andthe protection of natural environments,in particular coastal zones, uplandareas, national parks and naturereserves; and

• initiatives aimed at developing differentforms of sustainable tourism.

Within this first Plan, several projects werefunded in 1993 and 1995 under the super-vision of the General Directorate DG XXIII(Tourism Unit), renamed DG Enterprise in

1999. These 17 pilot projects haveinformed the 15 member states and somehave led to further national projects:

• ECOTOE Biotope protection and eco-tourism. Coastal ecotourism case studies.

• The ECOMOST project, EC models ofsustainable tourism.

• GRECOTEL, a tourism and environmentnetwork of hotels in Greece.

• A common agenda for sustainable golfdevelopment and management.

• A handbook of good practice for sustain-able tourism in walled towns.

• Green suitcase, the Ökologisher Touris-mus in Europa (ÖTE) seal of quality.

The European prize for tourism and theenvironment in 1995 was awarded to fiveexemplary destinations, out of 60 appli-cants. Germany now organizes a similarevent each year to reward private operatorsand initiatives aimed at promoting sustain-able tourism. The ReisePavillon trade showwas one of projects awarded in 1999.

Various important sustainable tourismnetworks initiated and supported at theEuropean level within the CommunityAction Plan to Assist Tourism are still run-ning in 2000:

• EcoNett, hosted by the World Tourismand Travel Council (WTTC), is a website recognized as a focal point for envi-ronmental information, good practice,new techniques and technologies.

• Ecotrans, a network of experts workingin the field of sustainable tourism.

The Commission has also produced andwidely disseminated several bookletswhich present the most helpful findingsand experiences gained from the pilot pro-jects (Alpenforschungsinstitut, 1995). Asecond programme, Xylophénia, submittedin 1997 was more ambitious, but notadopted by the member states. However,several other pioneering works andresearch were conducted at the Europeanlevel:

• The Integrated Quality Management ofcoastal, urban and rural tourist destina-tions (see above).

166 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

• The visitor payback process. Support forvarious innovative, transferable, researchand pilot projects, such as into the ‘visi-tor payback’ process of raising moneyfrom visitors to support conservation(The Tourism Company, 1998).

From the environmental perspective aswell, sustainable tourism has become amajor issue. In the Fifth CommunityProgramme for Environment and Sustain-able Development (Commission Européenne,1993) tourism became one of the five prior-ity areas. The specific priorities for tourismare:

• integration of environmental considera-tions into tourism policy at the mostappropriate level, and in land-use plan-ning;

• a framework for the protection of sensi-tive areas;

• information for environmentally friendlybehaviour of tourists;

• management of tourist flows to respectthe carrying capacity of tourist sites.

The DG Environment (previously DGXI)Nature Conservation Unit, in charge of ECenvironmental policy, is playing a majorrole in this field. DG Environment runs afund, LIFE (Nature and Environment) sup-porting conservation-based pilot projectsaround Europe and coordinating a new net-work of protected areas, Natura 2000. LIFEEnvironment has supported several conser-vation projects aimed at developingspecific models of sustainable tourism innatural environments. Among them twomajor initiatives have been essential forprotected areas in Europe:

• the European Charter for sustainabletourism in protected areas;

• the guidelines for sustainable tourism inprotected areas and Natura 2000 sites.

In 2000, LIFE Environment will focus onpilot projects aiming at implementing gen-eral principles of sustainable tourism inprotected areas and conservation areas.Guidelines will be submitted to the differ-ent member states for approval, and to theConvention on Biological Diversity. The

message which the Commission has beentrying to put across, and which the indus-try is now beginning to understand, is thatenvironmental integrity makes good busi-ness sense, and is a necessary response toconsumer demands and the market, ratherthan a strictly altruistic gesture.

The Council of Europe

In 1995, a pan-European Biological andLandscape Diversity Strategy was adoptedby the Council of Europe, and within thestrategy implementation a committee ofexperts was created which deals withtourism and the environment. The group’swork resulted in the elaboration of severalrecommendations relating to general poli-cies for tourism development and the envi-ronment, and the development ofenvironmental management training forprofessionals in the tourism sector. Tworecommendations concerning tourismdevelopment in protected areas (Council ofEurope, 1995) and in coastal zones(Council of Europe, 1997) are specificallyrelevant to this study. These recommenda-tions have been adopted by the Committeeof Ministers of the Council of Europe andare being widely disseminated.

In addition, the Council of Europe hasdeveloped a specific programme focusedon promoting sustainable tourism in twoways:

• Intergovernmental cooperation andtechnical assistance to pilot projects onsustainable tourism development locatedin critical regions of Albania, Slovakia,Belarus, Romania, Ukraine and Latvia.

• Conferences and workshops which wereheld in several Council of Europe mem-ber states, i.e. Hungary, Poland, Slovenia,Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria and Latvia.An international conference on Tourism,Environment and Employment wasorganized for the end of 2000 in Berlin(Germany).

The Council of Europe has also drawn uptwo important documents which will havean impact on coastal tourism development:

Europe 167

a Model Law on sustainable managementof coastal areas and a European Code ofConduct for coastal zones.

The different measures taken by the ECand the Council of Europe have played amajor role in the evolution of Europeantourism, influencing the national policiesof different member states as well as theprivate sector. Some of the states lead interms of national strategy, regulations,labelling, incentives and funding for sus-tainable tourism. None, however, hasreached the level of sophistication of the Australian Ecotourism Strategy (seeChapters 9 and 29). However, the differentnational initiatives combine together toform an interesting blend of experimentaltools and policies.

Other European organizations involved insustainable tourism

In Europe several different organizations(NGOs and not-for-profit) have been instru-mental in promoting sustainable tourismand helping support the industry todevelop policies and adopt principles.Some of them have an international man-date. However, as they have Europeanheadquarters they significantly influencenational policies. This is the case for WTOin Madrid and UNESCO and UNEP IE inParis. Others are specific to Europe.

The main organizations acting for sus-tainable tourism are the following:

• Europarc: The pan-European protectedareas organization, whose aim is toimprove conservation and quality andeffectiveness of protected areas, devel-oped the European Charter forSustainable Tourism in Protected Areasdiscussed earlier.

• WWF Pan Parks aims to provide anature conservation-based response tothe growing market for nature-orientedtourism. This is to be achieved by creat-ing a quality brand which stands for: (i)an expanding network of well-managedprotected areas; (ii) areas which arewidely known by Europeans as naturalcapitals, which they know and are

proud of; (iii) ‘must see’ sites for touristsand wildlife lovers; (iv) wider publicand political support for protectedareas; and (v) new income for parks andnew jobs for rural residents. Concreteactions include management organiza-tion and logo establishment; draft PanParks Principles and Criteria; collabora-tion with protected areas as pilot areas;Pan Parks workshops; and the informa-tion newsletter Pan Courier. Pan Parksaims to strengthen and diversify finan-cial support for protected areas fromboth public and private sectors, in par-ticular through logo attribution (logoholders will pay a proportion of theirrevenue to the protected area).

• WTTC with Eco-Nett, as describedabove.

• UNESCO, UNEP IE. Based in Paris,UNEP IE has produced several publica-tions widely used in Europe as referencessuch as Ecolabel and EnvironmentalGuidelines for the Tourism Industry(UNEP/IIPT, 1995).

• IUCN ‘Parks for life’ coordination unit isbased in Slovenia. IUCN is actively par-ticipating in international cooperationin sustainable development. It con-tributed to the development of theEuropean Charter for Sustainable Tourismin Protected Areas in partnership withEuroparc Federation and promotes thedevelopment of sustainable tourism.

• Tourism Concern is a UK-based charitywith a global membership network,started in 1989. Tourism Concern aimsto promote awareness of tourismimpacts on people and their environ-ment. It produced ten principles for sus-tainable tourism to achieve the aims ofthe Rio Earth Summit and influencepolicies and programmes adopted by thetravel and tourism industry worldwide(WWF, 1992).

• WTO has its headquarters in Madrid,Spain and strongly influences Europeanpolicies.

In Europe, membership networks similar toThe Ecotourism Society and the EcotourismAssociation of Australia do not exist.Networks that do exist are spread out and

168 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

do not have the same audience. Forinstance, ECOTRANS, a European networkfor sustainable development, consists of 30experts and is supporting Eco-tip, aEuropean information service on the inter-net which provides information on eco-label and on good practices in sustainabletourism (www.eco-tip.org).

The Private Sector

Several initiatives are worth mentioning inthe private sector. For hotels (independent,resorts and hotel chains) and self-cateringaccommodation, the International HotelsEnvironment Initiative (IHEI) (UNEP et al.,1995), the Youth Hostels Association(IYHA, 1994), and Farm Holidays network(European Centre for Eco-Agro Tourism orECEAT) lead in terms of environmentalmanagement. The European Federation ofCamping Sites Organisations awards anenvironmental prize, the David BellamyAward, and has developed an environmen-tal charter.

The European Federation of YouthHostels Association has developed an envi-ronmental charter and manages severaltraining and pilot programmes for youthhostel managers. Mirrow 21 is the mostadvanced example of sustainable youthhostels combining specific design, alterna-tive energy, environmental managementand education activities.

The Gîtes de France (self-cateringaccommodation) have developed GîtesPanda, environmentally sound properties,together with information on fauna andflora and observation opportunities in nat-ural parks. The label is given by WWF fol-lowing the visit of an expert. Touroperators are also getting the point. TheEuropean Tour Operators Associationdeveloped environmental guidelines in1992. Tour operators have also taken manyindividual initiatives such as the EthicsCharter of a French tour operator, Atalante.This Charter has been adopted by tourism-related private enterprises such as LonelyPlanet, Swissair, Aigle (sports retailer), andTrek Magazine. Some tour operators also

run charity programmes to support conser-vation work where they operate (Allibert,France).

Conclusions

Sustainable tourism is a growing trend atdifferent levels in Europe, under whichmany implicitly ecotourism-related initia-tives are subsumed. The tourism industryis expected to increase its involvement andevolve towards greater sustainability. Manypilot projects and good practices have beenidentified all over Europe and are beingfunded and supported by the various orga-nizations mentioned above. Eco-tip hasselected the Top 100 best sustainabletourism practices in its web site. These bestpractices cover the following fields:

• guidelines, charters, recommendations,codes of ethics for developing sustain-able tourism;

• planning, sustainable tourism strategies;• charters;• certification and accreditation scheme;• visitor payback;• product development;• visitor management;• soft mobility and transport options.

These trial projects provide the input forfurther policies, incentives and tools.Further national policies and pilot projectsare to be expected in the near future fromEU member states and, in particular, fromthe Eastern European countries.

At the EC, the Tourism and EnvironmentDirectorates both aim towards greater inte-gration of sustainable tourism practices incommunity policies that affect tourism.Synergy between the different departmentsconcerned with quality (employment, enter-prise and agriculture) is also being aimedfor. Different seminars and workshops pointtowards a strong need for more formal net-works of experts, site managers, groundoperators, and actors in the field toexchange information and develop policies.A sustainable tourism network and Europeanassociation is needed as well as furtherresearch and publications in this field.

Europe 169

References

Alpenforschungsins (1995) Tourism and the Environment. European Commission, DGXIII, Brussels.Anon (1995) Tourism in National Parks: a Guide to Good Practice. Rural Development Commission,

Wales tourist board, English Tourist Board, Countryside Council for Wales and CountrysideCommission.

Commission Européenne (1995) Les Européens et l’Environnement, Quelques grands résultats dusondage effectué dans le cadre de l’Eurobarométre 43.1bis, Bruxelles.

Commission Européenne (1999a) Les enseignements du programme de demonstration de laCommission Européenne sur l’aménagement intégré des zones côtières (AIZC), Luxembourg.

Council of Europe (1993) Sustainable tourism. Naturopa 84, 48.Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (1995) Recommendation No. R (95) 10 of the Committee

of Ministers to Member States on a Sustainable Tourist Development Policy in Protected Areas.Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Council of Europe (1997) Questions and answers. Tourism and Environment. Vol. 3.Countryside Commission (1996) Sustainable Rural Tourism: Opportunities for Local Action.

Countryside Commission, London.EcoNETT (1999) Calvia Declaration on Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean.

The call for, and Regional Authorities. EcoNett, Brussels.Ellul, A. and Council of Europe (1996) Tourisme et environnement dans les pays européens, collec-

tion Sauvegarde de la nature, 83.Europarc Federation (1993) The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. Guide

to Implementation of the Charter by Protected Areas and Evaluation Process. The EuropeanCommission, The French Federation of natural parks, Paris.

European Commission, Enterprise DG, Tourism Unit (1999) Towards Quality Rural Tourism,Integrated Quality Management (IQM) of Rural Tourist Destinations. European Commission, Brussels.

Guicherd, B. (1994) Les Perspectives de Développement du Tourisme Naturaliste dans les ParcsNationaux et Régionaux Français. Ministère de l’Environnement, Région, Rhone Alpes, pp.21–22.

Hall, R.D. (2000) Evaluating the tourism-environment relationship: central and east European experi-ences. Environment and Planning 27.

International Youth Hostel Association (IYHA) (1994) Implementing the IYHF EnvironmentalCharter. IYHF, Brussels.

IUCN (1994) Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.LEADER European Observatory (1997) Marketing Quality Rural Tourism: the Experience of LEADER

1, 1997.Manesse, J. (1994) Les montagnes d’Europe, Présentation, Menaces et solutions. Parcs transfrontal-

iers. In: Tourisme de montagne et rôle des parcs naturels régionaux. Conseil de l’Europe,Strasbourg, pp. 13–65.

Parviainen, J. and Pöysti, E. (1995) Towards Sustainable Tourism in Finland: the Results of an Eco-audit Experiment in Ten Tourist Enterprises and Suggestions for Further Measures. FinnishTourist Board, Helsinki.

Rein, H. and Scharpf, H. (1997) Biodiversity and Tourism, Conflicts on the World’s Seacoasts andStrategies for their Solution. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Springer, Berlin.

The Tourism Company (1998) Visitor payback. Encouraging tourists to give money voluntarily toconserve the places they visit. Ledbury/London.

Tzoanos, G. (1992) Tourism and the environment: the role of the European Community. Industry andEnvironment 15, 3–4.

UNEP IE/IIPT (1995) Environmental Codes of Conduct for Tourism. UNEP, Paris.UNEP (1995) Environmental Action Pack for Hotels. Practical Steps to Benefit your Business and the

Environment. The International Hotel Association, The International Hotels EnvironmentInitiative, UNEP, UNEP IE, Paris.

UNEP, WTO and FEEE (1996) Awards for Improving the Coastal Environment: the Example of theBlue Flag. United Nations Publications.

170 S. Blangy and S. Vautier

Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (1996) Tourism, Leisure, Nature Protection and Agri-tourism. TourismResearch Group, University of Exeter.

World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) (1992) Beyond the Green Horizon. A Discussion Paper onPrinciples for Sustainable Tourism. WWF, Godalming, UK.

WTO (1998) Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. WTO, Madrid.

Europe 171

Chapter 11

Latin America and the Caribbean

D.B. Weaver1 and R. Schlüter21School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia; 2Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Turisticos, Avenida del Libertador, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Introduction

Among the world’s ‘macro-regions’, LatinAmerica and the Caribbean stands out forthe high profile of its ecotourism sector,even though most progress in this respecthas been achieved only since the early1980s. The purpose of this chapter is tosurvey the status of ecotourism in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean as of 2000. Inorder to contextualize this theme, the envi-ronmental characteristics of the region willalso be considered where appropriate, aswill the general tourism industry. For dis-cussion purposes, the study area is dividedinto three regions: the Caribbean andMexico, Central America, and SouthAmerica. This division adheres to geo-graphical convention except for the inclu-sion of Mexico with the Caribbean, whichis based upon commonalities of proximityto the Anglo-American market and thedominance of 3S (sea, sand, sun) tourism.However, as will be seen, the dissimilargeographical characteristics of theseregions give rise to distinctive patterns ofecotourism activity.

The Caribbean and Mexico

At first perusal, the Caribbean, and to alesser extent Mexico, may not appear to bea likely venue for ecotourism activity,given the presence of a 3S-based masstourism industry that dominates most ofthe states and dependencies in the region(see Fig. 11.1). The insular Caribbean, forexample, accounts for just 0.7% of theworld’s population, but 2.4% of all interna-tional stayovers (Weaver and Oppermann,2000). In addition, the Caribbean is themost important area in the world for cruiseship tourism (Wood, 2000). The depen-dence of the region on tourism is evi-denced by the observation that this sectoraccounts for at least 10% of GNP in 19 of24 insular Caribbean states or dependen-cies (including Bermuda and the Bahamas).A hyper-dependent relationship, moreover,is apparent in the 11 or 12 entities that relyon tourism to generate at least 30% of GNP.The situation in Mexico is very different inrelative terms, since tourism accounts foronly 2% of the diverse national economy.However, in absolute terms, Mexico is theworld’s seventh largest destination forinternational stayovers, receiving over 21million in 1996 (Weaver and Oppermann,2000).

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 173

174D

.B. Weaver and R

. Schlüter

Fig. 11.1. The Caribbean.

Despite this situation, the actual andpotential status of ecotourism in theCaribbean and Mexico is considerable.This is in part due to the inherent suitabil-ity of island settings for ecotourism-relatedactivity (see Chapter 15). In addition, masstourism tends to be confined to just a smallportion of the littoral in even the mosttourism-intensive countries, leaving theremaining terrestrial areas free to accom-modate activities associated with alterna-tive tourism, including ecotourism. Thefollowing discussion will therefore empha-size the actual and potential status of eco-tourism within this 90–95% of theCaribbean land area that is not orientedtoward mass tourism.

Specialized ecotourism destinations

Not all Caribbean islands have a tourismsector that adheres to the stereotype of thebeach resort. The most notable of these atthe national level is Dominica, which hasbeen consciously marketing itself as anature-based destination since the 1970s.Prior to this time, the government hadaspired to develop in the 3S mode, butthese aspirations were thwarted by theisland’s lack of white-sand beaches, moun-tainous terrain that hindered the develop-ment of the necessary infrastructure,political uncertainties, and high levels ofrainfall. Accordingly, these perceived dis-advantages were re-marketed as assets, andDominica was promoted as the ‘natureisland of the Caribbean’. Subsequent pro-motional references to 365 waterfalls,though probably apocryphal, offer an inter-esting counterpoint to Antigua’s emphasison its own purported 365 beaches. Butmore tangibly, the island has encouragedvarious policies, such as the establishmentof small, locally controlled nature lodges inthe interior, that attest to its status as acomprehensive ecotourism destination(Weaver, 2001). Arguably, the only othercountry-level destinations that can make alegitimate claim to this status are StVincent and the Grenadines, andMontserrat prior to its devastation by a vol-

canic eruption in 1994 (Weaver, 1995,1998).

The second type of specialized eco-tourism destination in the Caribbeaninvolves peripheral islands of archipelagicstates. Examples include Tobago (relativeto Trinidad), Nevis (relative to St Kitts), StJohn (relative to St Thomas), Barbuda (rela-tive to Antigua), and Little Cayman Islandand Cayman Brac (relative to GrandCayman Island). None of these entities,however, is as comprehensively and delib-erately ecotourism-oriented as Dominica.At a broader scale, the tourism policy ofthe Bahamas advocates large-scale 3Stourism for Grand Bahama and NewProvidence islands, but small-scale, nature-based tourism for the remaining ‘FamilyIslands’.

Other ecotourism venues

On islands oriented toward other types oftourism, numerous opportunities are stillavailable to pursue ecotourism. Threetypes of venue are especially important.First, many islands contain mountainousareas, usually in the interior, that retainextensive forest cover and sometimes har-bour endemic flora and fauna. Among thelarger Caribbean islands, such areasinclude the Sierra Muestra of south-easternCuba, the Cordillera Central of theDominican Republic, Trinidad’s NorthernRange, the El Yunque region of Puerto Ricoand the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. On asmaller scale, mountainous interiors arecharacteristic of Saint Lucia, St Kitts,Grenada and Martinique. Large areas of theMexican interior are similarly endowed,giving rise to ecotourism icons such as theMonarch Butterfly Reserves, whichattracted approximately 100,000 tourists in1989 (Hawkins and Khan, 1998).

Second, most Caribbean islands, andportions of the Mexican coastline, arefringed by coral reef formations that offeropportunities for scuba-diving andsnorkelling. If such activities in the mainare conceded to constitute a form of eco-tourism, then the latter activity assumes

Latin America and the Caribbean 175

great importance as an adjunct to the masstourism of Grand Cayman Island, Barbados,Cancún and several other destinations. Inaddition, peripheral islands such asBonaire and Saba (Dixon et al., 1993) areeven more solidly positioned as special-ized marine ecotourism destinations.Third, and least prevalent of the three, arelittoral wetlands. Prominent examples thatalready accommodate nature-orientedtourist activity include the Caroni wetlandsnear Port-of-Spain in Trinidad, thePeninsula de Zapata in Cuba, the man-groves of Bonaire and the mouth of theBlack River in Jamaica.

Strengths and opportunities

The insular nature of the Caribbean sug-gests formidable potential in the area ofmarine and littoral ecotourism, while thepotential of mountainous interiors remainsrelatively untapped. A second majorstrength is proximity to the North Americanmarket, which rivals Western Europe as theworld’s major ecotourist source region.More controversial is whether the existenceof a dominant 3S-based mass tourismindustry should be perceived as a strengthor liability. The argument for the former isthat mutually beneficial relationships, intheory, can be formed between ecotourismand mass tourism. As discussed in Chapter5, these involve the provision of mainly softecotourism diversions for the mass touristmarket, which thereby supplies a criticalmass of clientele, and an incentive todevelop and enhance such nature-basedproducts. In return, the overall holidaypackage is enhanced through diversifica-tion, and a ‘greener’ product is encouragedthroughout the tourism system. To a largeextent, the ecotourism product of theCaribbean and Mexico is already structuredin such a way, with diversionary, soft eco-tourism being dominant except in special-ized destinations such as Dominica.Ecotourism-type accommodations haveeven been established in such unlikely des-tinations as Bermuda, as described inChapter 33.

Cuba represents a promising opportu-nity for the regional ecotourism sector as awhole, but a possible threat to establishedecotourism destinations in the Caribbeanand Mexico because of its high potential.This potential is based on its post-1959legacy of small-scale ‘socialist’ tourism, itsextensive natural assets, advanced pro-tected area systems (which cover 17% ofthe island’s land area) and strong politicalsupport for the ecotourism sector. The needto cope with the US embargo has also con-tributed in a bizarre way to ecotourism byfostering the use of low energy, ‘soft’ tech-nologies. Finally, prototypes such as theMoka Ecolodge have already been estab-lished (Honey, 1999).

Weaknesses and threats

Widespread environmental degradation,both marine and terrestrial, is a significantweakness and threat to the regional eco-tourism product. Extreme levels of deterio-ration are evident in Haiti, which retainsless than 1% of its original forest cover, butthe situation is also serious in theDominican Republic (25% retention), Cuba(29%) and Jamaica (35%), among the largercountries. In Mexico, 77% of original ‘fron-tier’ forests are considered threatened(World Resources Institute, 1998). Withrespect to offshore resources, the coralreefs of the Caribbean rank among the mostendangered in the world due to masstourism, industrialization, shipping, fish-ing and sedimentation. The rapidly grow-ing tourism industry is itself regarded as amajor contributor to the area’s environmen-tal problems, despite its recent embrace ofthe rhetoric of sustainability (Holder,1996). It is for this reason that the linkbetween mass tourism and ecotourism canalso be perceived as a threat. One exampleis the Costa Maya project in Mexico’sQuintana Roo Province, which purports tobe an ‘ecotourism’ development, yetincludes 18-hole golf courses and at leastone full-service marina (Ceballos-Lascuráin,1996). In addition, there is a risk that eco-tourism will be used as a marketing ploy

176 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

by unscrupulous operators who are notgenuinely committed to the principles ofsustainability. A related weakness is thelow proportion of land occupied by pro-tected area systems in most islands,although Cuba and the DominicanRepublic (31.5% protected) constitute sig-nificant exceptions, at least on paper.

Because of their geographical location,the Caribbean and Mexico are highly sus-ceptible to natural disasters such as hurri-canes, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.Small islands are especially vulnerable,given that a single seismic or climaticevent can devastate an entire state ordependency. The destruction of Montserratby a volcanic eruption in 1994 is the bestillustration so far of this devastation sce-nario. Hurricanes may wreak a greaterubiquity of destruction, but the effects aretemporary. Finally, ecotourism suffers froma lack of institutional articulation. Amongcountries and dependencies in the region,any common understanding of ecotourismis absent, with some islands proffering def-initions that can only be described asbizarre. Martinique, for example, includesgolfing as a component of ecotourism(Weaver, 2001).

Central America

In terms of ecotourism activities, CentralAmerica is notable for the differencesamong its constituent countries (see Fig.11.2). On one hand, Costa Rica hasachieved, rightly or wrongly, iconic statusas an ecotourism exemplar. In contrast, ElSalvador and Nicaragua demonstrate littleevidence of any such activity. Betweenthese two extremes, Belize and Panama aremoving toward the Costa Rica model,while Honduras and Guatemala are incipi-ent. This section will begin with an outlineof Costa Rica, then progress to Belize as anemerging competitor to Costa Rica. Theremaining countries of Central Americawill then be discussed as members of theincipient group.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica is arguably the best-known eco-tourism destination in the world at anational level (Schluter, 1998; Honey,1999). This status, as with most high-profile destinations (see Chapter 18), isclosely associated with Costa Rica’s well-developed national protected area system,which covers approximately one-quarter ofthe country (about one half of which isstrictly protected). Included in this systemare well-known public entities such asPoas, Irazu, Carara and Manual Antonio,and private reserves such as Monteverde,Rara Avis and La Selva. These protectedareas capitalize on an impressive level ofbiodiversity that results from Costa Rica’smainly tropical climate, its variability ofaltitude, and its location astride the Northand South American biological provinces.The growing popularity of these protectedareas is reflected in the finding that one-half of all international visitors in 1991spent at least some time in such an area,compared with 20% in 1983 (Epler Wood,1993). By the mid-1990s, two-thirds of allarrivals had visited at least one protectedarea. Recent reconfigurations of this systemhave fostered a greater potential for com-munity-led ecotourism development (seeChapter 18). Other innovations includerestoration-oriented units such as Guana-caste National Park, in the exhausted pas-turelands of the north-east. In respect tofactors external to tourism, the country hasexperienced a prolonged period of politicalstability, and was thrust into a positivespotlight in 1987 when then-presidentArias was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet, there are grounds for contestingCosta Rica’s reputation as an ecotourismexemplar. Beyond its protected area sys-tem, environmental degradation (and forestclearance in particular) continued unabatedthroughout the latter half of the 20th cen-tury, to a point where the non-deforestedportion of the country’s land area is essen-tially co-extensive with that system. Theprotected areas themselves have beenchronically underfunded, relying to a largeextent on foreign donations and volunteer

Latin America and the Caribbean 177

activity for their maintenance and manage-ment. With respect to the tourism sector,ecolodge-type facilities, despite their highprofile, actually account for only a minis-cule proportion of all accommodations.Most ecotourism activity in reality involvesdiversionary, daytime visits by soft eco-tourists to a small number of protectedareas that are readily accessible to San Juanor the beach resorts of the Pacific coast(Weaver, 1999).

Visitor motivations reflect this multi-purpose profile. According to a 1995 sur-vey, 44% of US visitors cited ‘sea and sun’as a major purpose for their visit, comparedwith 42% for ‘natural history’. The com-

parable figures for the European market(excluding Germany) were 45% and 50%(TTI, 1996). As with the Caribbean, thispattern of association can be interpreted aseither a threat or an opportunity. In eithercase, it is clear that the government ofCosta Rica has always pursued masstourism at least as avidly as ecotourism. Itis toward the development of the formerthat most government policy and incen-tives are oriented, while the impetus forecotourism-related development has for themost part come from foreign and domesticnon-government organizations (NGOs),individuals, and local community associa-tions (Honey, 1999).

178 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

Fig. 11.2. Central America.

Belize

Costa Rica’s status as the primary eco-tourism destination of Central America isbeing challenged increasingly by Belize,which was already recognized in the early1990s for its fledgling ecotourism sector(Boo, 1990). The development of eco-tourism in Belize has been assisted by atleast eight factors:

• the second longest barrier reef in theworld, extending 115 km;

• a largely extant natural environment,with forest cover accounting for about85% of the country’s land area;

• a low population density of about 10persons per km;

• a well-established protected area systemthat in theory strictly protects almost21% of the country;

• extensive complementary cultural assets;• political and social stability;• proximity to the North American market

and to major 3S destinations such asCancún; and

• the status of English as the country’sofficial language.

In terms of venue, ecotourism in Belize isassociated with high profile community-based protected area initiatives such as theCommunity Baboon Sanctuary and RioBravo (see Chapter 19), and public sectorprotected areas such as the Hol ChanMarine Reserve and Cockscomb BasinWildlife Sanctuary (Lindberg et al., 1996).Although the integrity of Belize as an eco-tourism destination is assisted by theabsence of widespread environmentaldestruction, the country does resembleCosta Rica in terms of the parallel growthof mass tourism in coastal regions such asAmbergris Cay. As in Costa Rica, it is ques-tionable whether much of this develop-ment, and the concomitant growth ofvisitor arrivals, is complementary to thephilosophy and practice of ecotourism(Cater, 1992; Lindberg et al., 1996; Weaver,1998).

Incipient Central American ecotourismdestinations

Of the remaining Central American coun-tries, Panama shows the greatest eco-tourism potential, with a high level of strictland protection (about 19%) and a signifi-cant inventory of relatively undisturbedforests and other natural environments.Situational factors are also important.Panama is already a well-known destina-tion because of the presence of the PanamaCanal, Panama City’s status as a regionalfinancial centre, and proximity to CostaRica, with whom bilateral protected areainitiatives are being pursued. Ecotourismopportunities are already being offered byNGOs such as the Smithsonian TropicalResearch Institute, and by protected areaswithin or adjacent to the old Canal Zonebuffer zone. Furthermore, the governmentappears interested in including a high pro-file ecotourism and conservation compo-nent in its planning as an adjunct to thedevelopment of a rapidly expanding con-ventional tourism industry (Ayala, 1997,1998).

Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua allhave considerable ecotourism potentialthat has not yet been realized to any greatextent due to a combination of environ-mental, image, infrastructural and politicalproblems. The situation in Honduras isillustrative. A limited amount of eco-tourism already occurs in protected areassuch as La Tigra, Pico Bonita and LaMuralla National Parks. However, the fur-ther evolution of this incipient sector hasbeen hindered by the relative obscurity ofthese attractions, the devastation caused byHurricane Mitch in 1998, and the presenceof stronger regional competitors. In particu-lar, the Moskitia region in the country’snorth-east, along with adjacent parts ofNicaragua, is well positioned to become amajor ecotourism destination. As forNicaragua, this country is estimated to con-tain four times as much forested land asCosta Rica, and, like Panama, is pursuingbilateral protected area initiatives with thatcountry. Guatemala’s ecotourism sector

Latin America and the Caribbean 179

will potentially be assisted by the partici-pation of this country in the regionalMundo Maya programme (see below). ElSalvador is the only Central Americancountry that appears to have little eco-tourism potential, given the extensivedeforestation of the country.

Mundo Maya

The Mundo Maya initiative is worthy ofmention because of its ecotourism connec-tions and multilateral character, but alsobecause of the controversy that it has gen-erated. The concept was formalized in theearly 1990s by Guatemala, Belize,Honduras, El Salvador and the neighbour-ing states of Mexico to develop a regionaltourism product around the theme of theMayan culture. Related projects that pur-portedly emphasize ecotourism include theformation of the Toledo EcotourismAssociation in Belize and the Rio BecEcotourism Corridor in southern Mexico(Mundo Maya Organization, 1996). Yet,despite the high profile status of eco-tourism, the Mundo Maya Organizationwhich manages the initiative has been crit-icized for giving preference to domestic orforeign-controlled mass tourism projects(e.g. Costa Maya), while ignoring orneglecting small operations in its attemptsto maximize revenue earnings (Thomlinsonand Getz, 1996). Even if this problem isaddressed, it seems clear that the MundoMaya will follow the model that dominatesecotourism worldwide, that is, by provid-ing soft ecotourism opportunities as anadjunct to mass tourism.

South America

South America dwarfs the Caribbean andCentral America in terms of land area andavailable natural assets (see Fig. 11.3). Yet,the development of ecotourism to date hasbeen seriously impeded by SouthAmerica’s distance from major tourist-gen-erating regions, and by the lack of a strongdomestic ecotourist market, especially in

the northern half of the continent.Regarding the former factor, South Americaaccounts for 5.9% of the world’s popula-tions, but only 2.5% of all internationalstayovers, most of whom are of intra-regional origin (Weaver and Oppermann,2000). In contrast to the previous materialon Central America, the following sectionsconsider South American ecotourism fromthe perspective of four dominant physicalenvironments that straddle internationalboundaries in the region: the Amazonbasin, the Andes, the Pantanal andPatagonia. Other physical regions, such asthe Gran Chaco of Paraguay and Argentina,Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest (Fig. 11.4), theVenezuelan savannah, the temperate rain-forests of southern Chile and the deserts ofthe Pacific coast, are not included,although these areas do accommodate asmall amount of ecotourism activity. At acountry level, Guyana is perhaps the onlySouth American country so far that appearsintent on developing a tourism industrydominated by ecotourism. Brazil has alsoformulated an ecotourism master plan,though national tourism development over-all is following a more conventional path(see Chapter 29).

The Amazon basin

The Amazon basin is by far the dominantphysical region of South America in termsof size (7–8 million km2), country presence(Brazil, French Guiana, Suriname, Guyana,Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru andBolivia) and biodiversity (e.g > 2000species of fish and 2500 orchid varieties).The last characteristic, and the fact thatmost of the flora and fauna in this region isstill extant, suggests that the Amazon basinshould be an ecotourism powerhouse. Yet,this is not the case. Brazil, as cited above,has made progress toward the institutional-ization of ecotourism in the Amazon andelsewhere. Actual development, however,has been curtailed by poor accessibility,and by the presence of established butpotentially incompatible industries such aslogging and mining.

180 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

Tourism, ironically, is mostly confined toregional urban gateways such as Manausand Belem. Accordingly, most ecotourismis found within a relatively short distanceof these strategic urban locations. Because

most parks in this region are ‘paper parks’that lack facilities or effective managementpractices (SUDAM/OEA, 1995), ecotourismtends moreover to occur within privatelyowned areas of secondary forest cover

Latin America and the Caribbean 181

Fig. 11.3. South America.

(Wallace and Pierce, 1996). This conformsto a wider global trend wherein privatelyowned protected areas are becomingincreasingly important as ecotourismvenues (see Chapter 19). The implication isthat such experiences may not impart a trueappreciation for primary Amazonianecosystems, and are less likely to reflect theideals associated with ecotourism. Concernsare thus raised as to whether these‘ecotourism’-labelled products deserve thename.

This said, government and the privatesector are both pursuing ecotourism as adevelopment option for Brazil’s Amazonianregion, and are well aware of the area’spotential in this regard. According to astudy undertaken by the Superintendencyfor the Development of the Amazon(SUDAM), and the Organisation ofAmerican States (OAS), 2204 distinctattractions were identified in the region, of which 1142 (64.4%) belong to thenature/ecological category. Other categor-ies that are potentially complementarywith ecotourism include history/culture(16.1%), folklore (14.4%), scientific researchand technical activity (2.3%) and pro-grammed events (1.6%) (SUDAM/OEA,

1997). There is evidence that specializedtravel agencies were already capitalizingon the presence of Amazonia’s nature-based attraction in the 1960s, althoughmore significant growth did not occur untilthe late 1980s. An ethical code of conductfor the practice of ecotourism was estab-lished in 1996 (Pires, 1999), and researchhas been conducted into the demographicand behavioural profile of this market.According to this research (Ruschmann,1997), most ecotourists are between 26 and55 years of age, and three-quarters haveattained higher education qualifications.

Brazil is not the only Amazonian coun-try that is engaged in ecotourism. Severalprominent ecolodges have been establishedin the Peruvian Amazon, and especially inthe Madre de Dios region. For example,Manu Lodge, in the Manu World HeritageSite, was hosting 500 visitors per year by1990 (Roe et al., 1997). In the same year,about 3000 visitors were accommodated bythe Cuzco-Amazonico Lodge. However, theviability of these operations has beenthreatened by encroachment from colonists,and by tenure problems that resulted inecolodge land being turned over to localindigenous reserves. Of particular concern

182 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

Fig. 11.4. Train ride through the Mata Âtlantica (tropical rainforest), southern Brazil.

to the ecotourism sector has been theapparent favouritism shown by the govern-ment to the colonists for political reasons,even though that same government isaware of ecotourism’s potential to differen-tiate and diversify the Peruvian tourismproduct (Yu et al., 1997). Similar dynamicsapply to other peripheral Amazonian coun-tries, such as Ecuador (the GalapagosIslands are covered in other chapters),Venezuela, Colombia and Bolivia. Specificand generic information on rainforesttourism that is relevant to the Amazonbasin is provided in Chapter 12.

The Andes

The Andes are the second major physicalfeature of South America and, like theAmazon, this alpine region is sharedamong a large number of South Americancountries (i.e. Venezuela, Colombia,Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina)and remains in a largely natural state.However, no country dominates the Andesto the same extent as Brazil dominates theAmazon basin. Another major difference isthe adherence to a strong ecotourism/pro-tected area relationship in the Andes. Thisis most evident in the border regionbetween Chile and Argentina, where well-established protected area systems havecombined with good infrastructure, politi-cal stability, and relatively strong domesticecotourist markets to foster significant eco-tourism activity. Notable as an ecotourismgateway is the city of San Carlos deBariloche, at the foot of the Andes moun-tain range, which emerged in the 1930s fol-lowing the creation of Argentina’s firstnational park (Schlüter, 1999). In theremaining Andean countries, the develop-ment of ecotourism in alpine regions hasbeen hindered by inadequate protectedarea funding (i.e. the more typical ‘paperpark’ pattern that exists in the Amazonbasin and within the less-developed worldin general), as well as political and socialinstability. The well-publicized activitiesof the Sendero Luminoso in Peru are illus-trative, as is the ongoing conflict between

the government and leftist insurgents inColombia. Further discussion of eco-tourism in the South American Andes isprovided in Chapter 13.

The Pantanal

The Pantanal is a vast, flooded plain ofapproximately 140,000 km2 situated in thesouth-west of the states of Mato Grosso andMato Grosso du Sul, and extending intoBolivia and Paraguay. Situated between theAmazonian region and the Central HighPlain of Brazil, the area exhibits character-istics of both ecosystems. Hence, it isregarded as one of the world’s great con-centrations of fauna as well as one of itsmost important natural nurseries. Theattractiveness of the Pantanal is enhancedby the presence of an annual rainy season,which gives rise to completely differentconditions from those experienced duringthe dry season (SUDAM/OEA, 1997).

Although the region received sporadicecotourist visitations in the 1960s, it wasnot until the 1990s that concerns werevoiced over an increasing visitor influx. Onone hand, ecotourism was welcome byfarmers and ranchers as an opportunity todiversify their revenue sources. However,given the considerable fragility of thePantanal wetland ecosystem, conservationgroups are concerned about the negativeimpacts that may result from excessive vis-itation levels. According to a study under-taken by SUDAM/OEA (1994), the rapidand disorganized growth of tourism hasbeen associated with the inadequate treat-ment of residues and drinking water, ani-mals killed by vehicles, and noisepollution caused by road traffic and motorboats. Adverse impacts have also beennoted with respect to local customs andtraditions. With the objective of minimiz-ing the negative impacts of tourism, aseries of programmes which aim to pre-serve the environment and train the localpopulation have been implemented. Theobjective is to transform the Pantanal intoan important destination for internationalecotourism which facilitates sustainabledevelopment for the entire region.

Latin America and the Caribbean 183

Patagonia

Unlike Amazonia, tourism in the southernArgentine region of Patagonia was alwaysclosely linked to the area’s protected areasystem, part of which was established tosafeguard the fauna of the Atlantic Coast.Species such as whales, penguins, elephantseals and sea lions suffered from vigorouscommercial exploitation in the early 20thcentury (Figs 11.5 and 11.6). Federal andprovincial restrictions implemented in the1960s did little to prevent the problem ofpoaching. In 1964, a government agencywas established with the dual objectives ofintroducing more effective protectionthrough an improved system of faunalreserves, and sustainably managing theintake of tourists that was anticipated to beattracted by these reserves (Schlüter, 1999).

By the end of the 1990s, this protectedarea system extended from the 41st latitudeto the extreme southern tip of mainlandArgentina. The rapid replenishment ofmany endangered species, and the fact thatthis has occurred despite the rapid growthof tourism, is evidence that both objectiveshave been achieved. Tourism is presently

one of the dominant economic activities onthe coast of Patagonia (Fig. 11.7). However,because potentially conflicting fishing andoil exploration activity is also carried outin the region, tourism stakeholders areworking with these co-existent sectors tomanage the coast in such a way as toaccommodate all users in an environmen-tally appropriate manner.

Over-fishing and oil spills are two waysin which these other activities have nega-tively affected the local fauna, and thusecotourism. One consequence of all theseactivities, including ecotourism, has beenthe alteration of whale behaviour in such away that fewer boats can make the trip forsightings, and strict guidelines regardingviewing distance thresholds have had to beimplemented. The soft nature of eco-tourism on the Patagonian coast is indi-cated by the fact that visitors tend onaverage to spend between 1 and 1.5 h in areserve. Ninety per cent of these visitorsconsider that they are able to learn some-thing new and interesting about nature andconservation during this time (Taglioretteand Lozano, 1996).

184 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

Fig. 11.5. Marine elephants on the Patagonian Atlantic coast, Argentina.

Latin America and the Caribbean 185

Fig. 11.6. Penguins at the Cape Dos Bahías Natural Reserve, Patagonia, Argentina.

Fig. 11.7. Lighthouse Punta Delgada Ecotourism Complex. Valdes peninsula, Patagonia, Argentina.

Conclusion

For discussion and generalization pur-poses, Latin America and the Caribbeancan be divided into three distinct regionsbased on physical geography and the statusof the ecotourism sector. Figure 11.8 sum-marizes the patterns that are presented inthis chapter in terms of the general statusof ecotourism, and the strengths, opportu-nities, weaknesses and threats that areassociated with this sector in each of thethree regions. Before commenting on thesegeneral patterns, it is appropriate to reiter-ate that ecotourism activity is unequallydistributed in all three regions, each ofwhich possesses nodes of well-developed

ecotourism, as well as extensive areaswhere this activity is virtually non-existent.As evident in Chapters 6–10, this pattern isconsistent throughout the world. Struc-turally, the other pattern that is consistentwith global trends is the emphasis on softecotourism, and its concentration in asmall number of protected areas that areaccessible to international gateways, majortransportation routes, and developed resortareas.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, thegeneral pattern involves moderate activityin the 3S-dominated Caribbean and coastalMexico, followed by a higher level ofengagement in Central America. It is ironicthat at least two specialized ecotourism

186 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

Strengths,opportunities

Sub-region Weaknesses,threats

Caribbean

CentralAmerica

SouthAmerica

– Proximity to markets– Dominant 3S tourism– Extensive littoral and marine resources– Potential of Cuba

– Extensive biodiversity– Strong protected area systems– Cultural tourism– Political stability– Multinational initiatives

– Enormous environmental resources– Emerging domestic markets, especially in Argentina and Chile

Shading indicates relative importance of ecotourism in sub-region

– Environmental problems– Dominant 3S tourism– Natural disasters– Weak protected area systems– Limited land area

– Natural disasters– Environmental problems– Emergence of Caribbean ecotourism

– Political instability– Distance from markets– Intervening opportun- ities in the Caribbean and Central America– Environmental problems– Poorly funded and managed protected area systems– Small domestic ecotourist market north of Argentina and Chile

Fig. 11.8. Ecotourism patterns in Latin America and the Caribbean.

countries have emerged in the masstourism-dominated Caribbean, but this isexplained by the very small size of theseparticular countries. South America, ingeneral, has a lower level of ecotourismthan either of the preceding regions, due toa variety of regional weaknesses andthreats that counter its formidable array ofenvironmental assets and its emergingdomestic and intra-regional tourist mar-kets. Central America benefits from a highlevel of biodiversity, a well-articulated pro-tected area system, significant multilateraland bilateral tourism and protected areainitiatives (e.g. Mundo Maya), growingpolitical stability, and strong complemen-tary products such as cultural tourism. Onthe weakness/threat side, Central Americais experiencing major environmental prob-lems, is subject to natural disasters, andwill face competition in future from thelarger Caribbean islands. In the Caribbean,strengths and opportunities include accessto the North American market, strongmarine and littoral environmental resources,and the potential of Cuba as a major eco-tourism destination. Weaknesses and threats

include environmental deterioration, episodicnatural disasters, poorly developed pro-tected area systems, and limited land areas.The presence of a dominant 3S-basedtourism industry can be interpreted as bothan opportunity and a threat.

The art of prediction is always fraughtwith uncertainty. However, it appears inthe medium term as if the insularCaribbean and Mexico will rival CentralAmerica as an ecotourism-providingregion, especially as links between masstourism and soft ecotourism in that regionare expanded in the effort to diversify theresort tourism product. South America willprobably display two patterns of develop-ment. In the more developed southern areaoccupied by Argentina, Chile, Uruguay andsouthern Brazil, growing domestic demandand improving infrastructure will generatea pattern similar to North America andEurope. In contrast, the remainder of SouthAmerica is not likely to progress muchbeyond incipient ecotourism, given its con-tinuing relative isolation, underdevelop-ment, and small domestic markets.

Latin America and the Caribbean 187

References

Ayala, H. (1997) Resort ecotourism: a catalyst for national and regional partnerships. Cornell Hoteland Restaurant Administration Quarterly 38(1), 34–45.

Ayala, H. (1998) Panama’s ecotourism-plus initiative: the challenge of making history. Cornell Hoteland Restaurant Administration Quarterly 39(5), 68–79.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol. 2. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC,USA.

Cater, E. (1992) Profits from paradise. Geographical Magazine 64, 16–20.Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996) Ecotourism or a second Cancun in Quintana Roo? Ecotourism Society

Newsletter 3.Dixon, J., Scura, L. and van’t Hof, T. (1993) Meeting ecological and economic goals: marine parks in

the Caribbean. Ambio 22(2–3), 117–125.Epler Wood, M. (1993) Costa Rican parks threatened by tourism boom. The Ecotourism Society

Newsletter 3(1), 1–2.Hawkins, D. and Khan, M. (1998) Ecotourism opportunities for developing countries. In: Theobold,

W.F. (ed.) Global Tourism, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 191–204.Holder, J.S. (1996) Maintaining competitiveness in a new world order: regional solutions to

Caribbean tourism sustainability problems. In: Harrison, L.C. and Husbands, W. (eds) PractisingResponsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy, and Development.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 145–173.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996) Ecotourism questioned: case studies from Belize.Annals of Tourism Research 23, 543–562.

Mundo Maya Organization (1996) Mundo Maya: Where Man, Nature and Time are One. MundoMaya Organization, Mexico City.

Pires, C. (1999) Management in ecotourism agencies and their insertion in the context of sustainabil-ity. Turismo: Visäo e Acäo 1(2), 45–46.

Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997) Take Only Photographs, Leave OnlyFootprints: the Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. HED Wildlife and DevelopmentSeries No. 10. Environmental Planning Group, London.

Ruschmann, D. (1997) O ecoturismo no Brasil. Proceedings of the World Ecotour ’96. Rio de Janeiro,Brazil, pp. 1168–1174.

Schlüter, R. (1998) Tourism development: a Latin American perspective. In: Theobold, W.F. (ed.)Global Tourism, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 216–230.

Schlüter, R. (1999) Sustainable tourism development in South America. The case of Patagonia,Argentina. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development.Routledge, London, pp. 176–191.

SUDAM/OEA (1994) Diagnóstico do Desenvolvimento do Ecoturismo no Panatanal Brasileiro.Belem, Brazil.

SUDAM/OEA (1995) Linhas Básicas Para un Programa de Desenvolvimento do Turismo na RegiäoAmazónica. Belem, Brazil.

SUDAM/OEA (1997) Recursos Naturais na Amazonia. Belem, Brazil.Tagliorette, A. and Lozano, P. (1996) Estudio de las Demanda Turística en la Costa Patagónica.

Informe Técnico no. 24, Fundación Patagonia Natural, Puerto Madryn.Thomlinson, E. and Getz, D. (1996) The question of scale in ecotourism: case study of two small eco-

tour operators in the Mundo Maya region of Central America. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4,183–200.

TTI (1996) Costa Rica. International Tourism Reports 4, 4–24.Wallace, G. and Pierce, S. (1996) An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of

Tourism Research 23, 843–873.Weaver, D.B. (1995) Alternative tourism in Montserrat. Tourism Management 16, 593–604.Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D.B. (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research

26, 792–816.Weaver, D.B. (2001) Mass tourism and alternative tourism in the Caribbean. In: Harrison, D. (ed.)

Tourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK (in press).Weaver, D.B. and Oppermann, M. (2000) Tourism Management. John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane.Wood, R.E. (2000) Caribbean cruise tourism: globalization at sea. Annals of Tourism Research 27,

345–370.World Resources Institute (1998) 1998–99 World Resources: a Guide to the Global Environment.

World Resources Institute, New York.Yu, D., Hendrickson, T. and Castillo, A. (1997) Ecotourism and conservation in Amazonian Peru:

short-term and long-term challenges. Environmental Conservation 24, 130–138.

188 D.B. Weaver and R. Schlüter

Section 3

A Regional Survey by Biome

D.B. WeaverSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia

If ecotourism attractions are primarilynature-based, then it is useful to differenti-ate this sector on the basis of the major bio-mes that comprise the natural realm. Thesix chapters in this section examine eco-tourism in the context, respectively, ofrainforests, alpine areas, polar regions,islands and coasts, deserts as well as grass-lands and savannahs, and marine environ-ments. Ecotourism has penetrated all ofthese ecosystems, but the extent and man-ner of this penetration, and the manage-ment issues that result, depend on thecharacteristics of each ecosystem and theway they are perceived by relevant stake-holders. The treatment of the ecosystems asseparate entities, however, is more a matterof convenience than a reflection of reality,since the divisions between them are oftenfuzzy, and a single setting, such as athickly forested mountain slope inSoutheast Asia, can belong to more thanone category. In addition, ecotourism prod-ucts often deliberately seek to diversify byestablishing synergies among a variety ofecosystems.

Biomes, in the first instance, differ interms of appearance and species composi-tion. This is critical to ecotourism, sinceboth characteristics help to define the aes-thetic appeal of biomes and their potential

for providing learning opportunities. Frost,in Chapter 12, describes the impressiveand even overwhelming level of biodiver-sity that is associated with lush, closed-canopy rainforests. High levels of diversityare also often associated, though for differ-ent reasons, with alpine areas, savannahs,coral reefs and islands. The opposite end ofthe biodiversity continuum is occupied bythe polar ice caps, which, as described byStonehouse in Chapter 14, harbour a lim-ited amount and array of terrestrial life,and only on their periphery. Yet, thegrandeur and pristine condition of suchphysical settings ensures a growing level ofinterest from determined ecotourists.Compared with the above ‘poster’ settings,grasslands and deserts, as discussed byWeaver in Chapter 16, are ‘Cinderella’ecosystems whose charms are often moresubtle.

Ecosystems also vary dramatically interms of their survival in a more or lessnatural state. On one extreme, the ice capsexist today in much the same form andextent that they have for the past millen-nium. Deserts may be even more extensivethan they once were, though this owesmore to the degradation of adjacent ecosys-tems than to any enlightened attitude towardsuch areas. In either case, preservation is a

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 189

matter of default rather than intent; theseare settings, in other words, that have longbeen perceived as having only marginaldirect utility for human beings. For ecosys-tems that are seen as having the potentialof such utility, the situation is grim. InChapter 13, Williams, Singh and Schlüterdescribe how sensitive alpine environ-ments are being heavily encroached uponby human settlement, resource extractionand, in the more economically developedregions, alpine sporting activity. Similarly,Halpenny indicates in Chapter 15 howcoastal and insular ecosystems are threat-ened by resort tourism and populationmigration in general. Just offshore of theseareas in the tropics, associated threats arebeing posed to coral reefs, as discussed byCater and Cater in Chapter 17.

But rainforests, more than any of theseareas, have come to symbolize the destruc-tion of the world’s ecosystems, whether itis occurring in the Brazilian Amazon or inBritish Columbia. The amount of intactrainforest has declined by about one-halfjust in the past century, leading to growingconcern about the future ability of rain-forests to host ecotourism, and indeed,about the role that ecotourism mightincreasingly play in arresting this decline.Probably no other ecosystem receives thepublicity and research that rainforestsreceive, including that which is related toecotourism. In contrast, long- and medium-grass prairies are among the most endan-gered ecosystems in the world, as Weaverpoints out, yet have attracted little atten-tion by comparison. This may be due inpart to the lack of drama involved in theirconversion to farmland, and to the relativeease with which such lands can be rehabil-itated.

The inequity in attention is of coursepartly a function of perception. Mosttourists consider rainforests, savannahsand coral reefs, and their associatedwildlife, to be far more attractive thangrasslands or deserts, a view that is rein-forced by incessant publicity. Yet, untilrecently, all natural ecosystems in Westerncultures were regarded in a negative lightto the extent that they were spaces not

being used for farming, forestry, mining orother ‘useful’ activities. Despite the contin-uing degradation of these environments, itis a positive sign that the remaining naturalspaces are increasingly being perceived asour most precious assets, rather thanwastelands awaiting fitful exploitation.

As stated above, the characteristics andcircumstances that attend each of theseremaining ecosystems have a bearing ontheir management as ecotourism settings.In all cases, ecotourism can potentiallyfunction as an incentive to preserve andeven enhance what is left of the naturalcomponent. However, if incorrectly man-aged, ecotourism can act as one of theforces that contributes to its demise, asmany of these chapters show. Diving andviewing pressures, for example, canquickly overwhelm coral reef and cetaceancarrying capacities for tourism, while theprevalence of ecotourism hybrids such astrekking in mountain regions can mean thedilution of the sustainability imperative,and overall poor quality of the tourismproduct. The fact that most rainforests,savannahs and coral reefs are locatedwithin less economically developed regionsmeans that sufficient resources are notalways available to implement or enforceappropriate management strategies. More-over, the dichotomy between wealthy,white ecotourists and poor, non-white localcommunities is often present in such situa-tions, creating challenges for the realiza-tion of socio-cultural sustainability. Such,however, is not a concern for uninhabitedAntarctica, which is also unique in beingsubject to an international treaty structurethat circumvents the normal hierarchy ofmunicipal, state and national governments.

Many other ecosystems-based manage-ment issues can be cited. Frost, for exam-ple, describes how visitors to the rainforestusually arrive with preconceived notionsas to how these ecosystems operate.Should managers try as much as possibleto satisfy visitors by confirming these pre-conceptions, or should they engage in massdebunking? Rainforests, because of theirclosed-in character, can also ‘hide’ largenumbers of visitors, whereas even a small

190 D.B. Weaver

number of ecotourists in an open grasslandor on an ice cap can give rise to an intru-sive and crowded effect. In terms of experi-ences, Weaver points out that theinteraction with nature on the Africansavannah is primarily a visual experiencein which the visitor is almost always guar-anteed of seeing at least some interestingwildlife. In contrast, the rainforest experi-ence is more one of feel and sound, andvisually more focused on plants than ani-mals. In light of these contrasts, an ele-vated viewing structure is appropriate forthe rainforest, but perhaps not for thegrassland. Where ecotourism occurs in

coastal regions, Halpenny points out that itis increasingly difficult to dissociate thisactivity from 3S resort development,wherein visits to sand dunes and man-groves, and excursions to nearby rain-forests, are important add-ons to the latterwhich can foster mutually beneficial rela-tionships. Cater and Cater make the sameobservation with respect to offshore divingand whale-watching. In sum, the circum-stances of each biome will in large part dic-tate the mode of ecotourism product that isbest able to effect sustainable outcomes forthat environment.

Regional Survey by Biome 191

Introduction

For most tourists interested in nature, rain-forests are about the most attractive biomeon Earth. Tourists often see rainforests aslush, luxuriant, vibrant, immense, mysteri-ous, spiritual and romantic. As mosttourists are urban-dwellers from countrieswithout rainforests, a visit to a rainforest isan exotic and rare experience. Rainforestsare also associated with other attractiveexperiences and images. Tropical beaches,islands and resorts are easily associatedwith rainforests. Rainforests hold a specialplace for some as the landscapes of thedinosaurs. Today, rainforests are the homeof exotic, rare and threatened species, suchas the mountain gorillas of Africa and theorang-utans of Sumatra. With increasedinterest over the last 20 years in preserva-tion of the environment, the fate of therainforests, especially those of the Amazonbasin, has become symbolic of that strug-gle. For many tourists a visit to a rainforestis an affirmation of their support for theenvironment.

Rainforests seem easy to understand,certainly at the simple level. Even the mosturban-centred tourist can enjoy a shortventure into a rainforest (especially if alonga well-made path or walkway). In additionto the enjoyment of such pleasant sur-

roundings, such a tourist could easilyunderstand many of the special character-istics and values of the rainforest and howit can be threatened. Massive coverage ofrainforest issues, especially through televi-sion and educational institutions, has ledto most of us feeling we have some exper-tise in understanding rainforests. Incontrast, the special features of otherbiomes, such as grasslands, are far harderfor the ordinary tourist to understand andappreciate.

Increasingly, rainforests are where eco-tourism and mass tourism collide. This cre-ates many problems. Should tourismoperators and park managers cater for theniche or mass market? Can they satisfyboth? If the average tourist already comesarmed with a great deal of general knowl-edge and set expectations about rainforests,how then do we approach the provision ofinterpretation? Is it acceptable to manipu-late the natural environment to better fitpreconceptions about rainforests? How dowe manage visitors to rainforests to maxi-mize their experience and minimize theirimpact?

This chapter has two main aims. Thefirst is to provide a general descriptiveoverview of rainforests and rainforesttourism. That rainforests are seen as soeasy to understand is a trap. It is important

Chapter 12

Rainforests

Warwick FrostDepartment of Management, Monash University, Berwick, Australia

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 193

to fully understand the complexities oftheir definition, different typology and geo-graphical distribution. Similarly rainforesttourism needs some careful explanation,for it comes in different guises and thereare quite marked geographical differencesacross the world.

The second aim is to provide a discus-sion of the key issues affecting rainforestsand rainforest tourism. These include thedifficulties of balancing mass and eco-tourism, providing meaningful interpreta-tion and protecting rainforests fromexcessive visitor impact. Consideration isalso given to the increasing trend towardsartificial rainforests as tourist attractions.

What are Rainforests?

Defining rainforests generally is simple,defining them exactly is very difficult andhas generated much debate. The term rain-forest was coined in 1898 by the Germanbotanist Andreas Schimper in his PlantGeography upon a Physiological Basis(posthumously translated into English in1903). He described dense lush tropicalforests which he had visited on fieldworkin the Caribbean; South America, Sri Lankaand Indonesia. These forests only occurredin areas of high rainfall. Thus he combinedrain and forest for the term Regenwald,which was quickly translated into Englishas Rainforest (the alternative Rain Forestis mainly used by northern hemispherewriters).

Difficulties arose when other high rain-fall forests around the globe were consid-ered. Some were structurally similar toSchimper’s tropical rainforest but occurredin subtropical, temperate and even coldtemperate climates. Other tall, denseforests occurred in high rainfall areas, butseemed substantially different in structure.In the confusion rainforests were oftendefined in a negative way (Adam, 1992).Schimper and his fellow botanists weremainly Europeans and North Americans,they already knew about the high rainfallconifer and deciduous forests of their homecountries, they were describing different

forests, so they defined rainforest in a Euro-centric way as evergreen broadleaf forest(i.e. not European). In Australia somebotanists defined rainforests as forests inhigh rainfall areas which were not eucalyptforests. Similarly on the west coast of theUSA it was decided that the redwood(sequoia) forests were not rainforests.

The problem worsened in the 1960s andbeyond as the use of the term expandedbeyond scientific circles and into commonusage. Ordinary people began to use it gen-erally to describe any high rainfall forest(nowadays a common dictionary defini-tion). Many botanists began to focus ondefinitions based on density of canopy andother structural differences rather thangeography or climate. Some botanists weredisturbed by the existence of deciduousrainforest trees, forests that seemed to berainforests but lacked the diversity whichcharacterized tropical rainforests, andanomalies regarding conifers (araucarianconifers were acceptable, but not others).In addition, there was increasing evidencethat species (such as eucalypts) which hadbeen excluded from rainforests had actu-ally evolved from rainforests.

On the other hand, under increasedpressure not to log rainforests, forestersand public land managers demanded nar-rower and narrower ‘scientific’ definitionsof rainforests. This conflict was well illus-trated in the instance of Victoria (Australia)where much of the high-rainfall eucalyptforests are intermingled with rainforestspecies as an understorey and alongmoister gullies. In 1985 the State Depart-ment of Conservation and Environmentestablished a Rainforest Technical Com-mittee consisting of senior botanists. Thiscommittee’s brief was to finally provide a‘scientific’ definition of rainforest. How-ever, when the committee agreed upon adefinition which included the mixed euca-lypt rainforest forests, the state governmentdeleted these mixed rainforests from thefinal definition in order to appease forestryinterests (Cameron, 1992).

What has developed is a continuumscale of definitions. At one extreme we stillhave writers who only accept tropical rain-

194 W. Frost

forests as rainforest (a common position inmany popular works). Moving along thescale there are many who accept a numberof different types of rainforest, but drawthe line if so-called non-rainforest speciesare present. Next come a group (seeminglygrowing) who accept various levels of mix-ing. Finally we have the other extreme thatall high-rainfall forests are rainforests (aposition increasingly adopted by sometourist operators trying to attract as manytourists as possible).

Bearing all these difficulties in mind, itis possible to construct a generally accept-able definition of rainforest. A rainforest isa high density grouping of tall trees andother vegetation, in which the tall treesform a dense canopy which significantlyreduces light levels at the forest floor.Many of the trees in the rainforest will beevergreens with relatively soft leaves andthese trees will have the ability to repro-duce under the undisturbed canopy.However, the rainforest may also includenumbers of conifers and hard-leaved ever-greens. As these species do not usuallyhave the ability to reproduce under thecanopy they may be relics from previousdisturbances or be found mainly aroundthe edges of the rainforest.

Types of Rainforest

There are a number of different ways ofclassifying rainforests, the following isprobably the most common. Though it usesa nomenclature which suggests typologybased on climate, the differences are reallymuch more of a structural nature.

Tropical rainforest

This is the original rainforest as describedby Schimper, the most common type andthe stereotype of rainforest firmly lodged inthe mind of most tourists. Its chief charac-teristics are:

• A very wide diversity of tree and plantspecies. Even though tropical rainforestsonly cover 7% of the Earth’s landmass,they provide about 50% of the world’splant species (Whitmore, 1990).

• A very dense canopy, often multi-lay-ered, sometimes with a fairly openunderstorey at ground level.

• Most trees have very large leaves andoften massive buttress roots.

• Large numbers of thick, woody vines,palms and epiphytes.

Tropical rainforest primarily requireswarm temperatures (a minimum of 18°C)and secondarily high rainfall (a minimumof 100 mm each month). Half the world’stropical rainforests are in the Americas,particularly Central America, the Carib-bean and the northern third of SouthAmerica. Tropical rainforests are alsofound in West Africa, Madagascar, westernIndia, Sri Lanka, southern China, SoutheastAsia, Papua New Guinea, the far north-eastern coast of Australia and many Pacificand Indian Ocean islands (Whitmore,1990).

Subtropical rainforest

Subtropical rainforest occurs adjacent totropical rainforest in areas that are slightlycooler due to difference in altitude or lati-tude. Subtropical rainforest looks very sim-ilar to tropical rainforest, but is somewhatless luxuriant and diverse. It is dominatedby only a few tree species and it is less lay-ered. Buttresses, figs, palms, large epi-phytes and woody vines may be lessfrequent and there may be more ferns.

An interesting and confusing variationoccurs with rainforest on less fertile andacidic soil. Even though it may be adjacentto subtropical rainforest, this depauperatetype is called warm temperate rainforest. Itis typically dominated by one or twospecies, trees are shorter, leaves are smallerand it has far less tropical rainforest char-acteristics (for example buttresses, woodyvines).

Rainforests 195

Dry or monsoonal rainforest

Usually contiguous to tropical and subtrop-ical rainforests, these are rainforestsmarkedly affected by a pronounced dryseason. They are characterized by speciestypically found in the other rainforests, butwhich have adapted to the more seasonalconditions. This adaptation might includedwarfing or a limited growing season. Suchrainforests are typically more open with farless luxuriant foliage. They may be domi-nated by more drought-tolerant rainforestspecies, such as araucarian conifers. Insome instances small patches of dry rain-forest may be found along watercoursesand in gorges in regions that are normallyconsidered quite arid.

The subtropical, warm temperate anddry or monsoonal rainforests extend signif-icantly outwards from the tropical rainfor-est cores of Central–South America, WestAfrica and Southeast Asia. For example,rainforest is found in northern Iran.However, rainforests are usually notregarded as extending into Europe, theUSA or Canada.

Cool temperate rainforest

Cool temperate rainforests do not reallymatch the stereotypes of rainforests. Theylack the diversity and luxuriance of tropi-cal rainforests. They are usually cold andwet and therefore unattractive to sometourists. They look far more like Europeanforests. Yet, in the last few decades theyhave come to occupy a special niche forrainforest lovers. In a way that tropicalrainforests are not, cool temperate rain-forests are seen as real wild places, a sort oflast frontier. Being cold and wet they areusually not in close proximity to intensivecultivation or large densities of humans.Furthermore, they are viewed as havingstrong links to the Earth’s prehistoric past,they are perhaps seen as living fossils. Thislink is best seen in how modern cool tem-perate rainforests were used as the back-ground for the 1999 BBC TV series Walkingwith Dinosaurs.

Cool temperate rainforests are geograph-ically distant from the other rainforests.They are mainly found in the southern halfof the southern hemisphere, namely Chile,Tasmania and New Zealand. However, verysmall patches can be found further north,but only at high altitudes (though depend-ing on one’s definitional stance, the westcoast forests of USA and Canada could beincluded in this category).

The chief characteristics of cool temper-ate rainforests are:

• one dominant tree variety; usuallyNothofagus (southern beech);

• very small leaf size; sometimes decidu-ous;

• buttresses, palms, figs, large epiphytesand woody vines completely absent;

• abundant ferns, mosses and lichens.

Some writers, mainly from the northernhemisphere, refer to cool temperate rain-forests as montane rainforests and to tropi-cal and subtropical rainforests as lowlandrainforests.

Evolution of the Rainforests

Schimper in 1898 only discovered rain-forests in a Eurocentric sense, by namingthem. The far longer history of rainforestshas really only been pieced together morerecently. Their origins are in the greatsouthern supercontinent Gondwanalandwhich existed between 160 and 100 mil-lion years ago and consisted of modern daySouth America, southern Africa, India,Australia and Antarctica. In a world muchwarmer and wetter than today,Gondwanaland developed as a rainforestcontinent. The Gondwanan dinosaursgrazed in an extensive and lush environ-ment of conifers, ferns, palms and cycads.A striking example of how much moreextensive the rainforest coverage was thenis the recent uncovering of hundreds ofrainforest fossil leaves from the desert atLake Eyre in South Australia (White, 1994).

About 125 to 100 million years ago flow-ering plants began to develop, probably asopportunists filling newly created ecologi-

196 W. Frost

cal niches as sea levels varied (White,1994). At around the same time,Gondwanaland began to break apart, someparts drifting off to collide with the north-ern supercontinent Laurasia and otherparts remaining separate. Today’s rain-forests are either found on former parts ofGondwanaland or in regions of close prox-imity. The break up of Gondwanaland wasaccompanied by (and probably caused)global cooling and drying, which was par-ticularly manifested in the development ofpolar ice caps and irregular Ice Ages. Thiscaused rainforests to evolve their cool tem-perate form and prevented their spreadinto Europe and temperate North America.Indeed increased understanding of ourbotanical history reverses traditional Euro-centric views. The supposedly ancientforests of Europe are really post Ice Ageyoungsters.

Changing Attitudes to Rainforests

For tens of thousands of years the rain-forests of the Americas, Africa, Asia andAustralia have been the home of indige-nous people. In the last 500 years theexpansion of Europeans over the globe hasled to nearly all rainforests coming undersome sort of colonial administration. Inmany cases the European colonies wereprimarily extractive with indigenous peo-ple coerced into a colonial labour force. Insome instances indigenous people werereplaced or supplemented with labourdrawn from other locations (such asAfrican slaves or Chinese indenturedlabourers). In Australia and New Zealandthe Europeans created settler societies. Inthe 20th century European colonialismdeclined dramatically, with most countriesgaining independence. However, in placeof colonial powers, domination has passedto a handful of key economic powers. Allthese different interests have led to a widerange of attitudes towards rainforests.

For many indigenous people the rain-forests were their entire world. Certainparts of the rainforest, particularly certaingroups of trees, were regarded as sacred

and taboo and certain rainforest animalshad religious and totemic significance(Flannery, 1998; Boomgaard, 1999). Rain-forests provided nearly all their economicwants. Food came from hunting and gath-ering, often combined with simple slashand burn agriculture. Tropical rainforestwas particularly diverse in the range ofresources it provided, a diversity whichrequired indigenous peoples to developand pass on from generation to generationa massive range of local botanical andzoological knowledge (Flannery, 1998).Indeed, so abundant were the resources ofrainforests that they may have stifled agri-cultural development in many regions.

The close relationship between indige-nous people and rainforests leads to acommon misunderstanding. Because therainforests were not exotic and therefore (itis sometimes argued) special to these peo-ples, it has been quite easy for Eurocentriccommentators to conclude that indigenouspeople had nothing more than a utilitarianrelationship with the rainforests.

Initially, for Europeans, the rainforestwas a mask they had to remove. It hid pre-cious minerals and sometimes hid theforces of resistance. Most importantly ithid agricultural opportunities. Removingthe rainforest allowed the rain and (some-times imagined) fertile soil to producehigh-value export commodities. Rainforestswere cleared for rubber, coffee, tea, sugarand dairying (Aiken and Leigh, 1995; Dean,1995; Grove, 1995; Frost, 1997). Whereovercropping caused declining soil fertil-ity, land was abandoned and more virginrainforest cleared and planted (Dean 1995;Grove 1995; Frost 1997). Until late in the20th century, timber-cutting fell far behindmining and agriculture, for with the excep-tion of some very high-value woods, it wasnot economic to export timber. As a resultcleared rainforest was usually burnt as awaste product.

Over time a variety of conservation sen-timents developed. Declining stream flowand soil fertility quickly became a majorproblem on some West Indian and IndianOcean islands (Grove, 1995). In somecolonies Europeans formed conservation

Rainforests 197

societies in order to protect particular ani-mals for their exclusive game hunting(Boomgaard, 1999). However, in othercases there was very little interest in con-servation (Dean, 1995).

It was in Australia, the one area whererainforests were successfully convertedinto family farms by European settlers, thatthe strongest and most widespread regardfor rainforests developed. While clearinglarge areas, many farming communitiestook great care to preserve small patches(especially waterfalls and gullies) as parks.Rainforest beauty spots were not only val-ued by locals; between the 1870s and the1930s rainforests were seen as especiallyattractive by urban-dwellers and became amajor component of a successful nature-based tourism sector in Australia (O’Reilly,1945; Ritchie, 1989; Frost, 2000).

After the Second World War the clearingof tropical rainforests quickened due to themassive economic expansion which char-acterized this period, especially in theAsia-Pacific Region. The buoyant economiesof the USA and East Asia increasinglydemanded timber, food and minerals.These could be gained cheaply by clearingrainforests in poorer countries which weremissing out on industrialization but werestill keen to grab a piece of the globalaction. The development and utilization ofmodern machinery allowed clearing tooccur far more quickly and cheaply thanbefore (Collins, 1990; Whitmore, 1990;Aiken and Leigh, 1995).

The scale of modern clearance is diffi-cult to quantify. Government statisticalauthorities rarely collect forest clearancedata. Estimates may be done on differentcriteria and for different time periods andcomparisons between countries may bevery difficult (for example see Salim andUllsten, 1999). If we are just counting areacleared, the greatest modern clearance hasoccurred in Brazil, followed by Indonesiaand Nigeria. On the other hand if we con-sider area cleared as a percentage of totalrainforest, the highest rates of clearance arein Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Costa Rica and ElSalvador (Whitmore, 1990). However weview the statistics, it is clear that in the

1980s and 1990s rainforest clearing inmany countries has reached a rate whichcannot be sustained if these rainforests areto survive as significant biomes.

The scale and intensity of recent clear-ance has directly led to a tremendousgrowth of interest and appreciation in rain-forests. Less than 20 years ago some com-mentators bemoaned that few touristsunderstood rainforests (Valentine, 1991).However, by 1990 it was confidently pro-claimed that ‘rainforests have crossed athreshold of perception’ (Whitmore, 1990).Writers on heritage argue that many thingsonly come to be seen as heritage when theyare under threat (Davison, 1991). That isexactly what occurred with rainforests.Publicity about clearing stimulated angerand fascination. Rainforests became acause célèbre of the 1980s and 1990s. Film,television and popular music reinforcedimages of rainforest as something worthsaving. And as interest in the conservationof rainforests grew, so too did interest invisiting and experiencing rainforests.

Rainforest Tourism Today

Rainforest tourism is very difficult to quan-tify and package neatly. There are majorproblems in defining rainforest tourists andcounting them. Do we define by interests,activities or attractions visited? Do wecount numbers or revenue yielded? Is itright (as is commonly done) to value inter-national tourists as far more important thandomestic tourists? How do we deal withcomparisons between countries? As we area long way off quantifying rainforesttourism and there has been very littleresearch specifically on rainforest tourism,the approach taken here is descriptive andsomewhat speculative.

The most significant development inrainforest tourism in recent decades hasbeen the growth of high-value packagetours. These have been particularly notice-able in Latin America, most notably CostaRica, but also Guatemala, Honduras,Belize, southern Mexico and Brazil(Thomlinson and Getz, 1996; Wallace and

198 W. Frost

Pierce, 1996; Lumsdon and Swift, 1998;Weaver, 1998; Honey, 1999; Minca andLinda, 2000). Tours also occur to a lesserextent in most of the rainforested areas ofthe world, although political instabilityand warfare have severely limited theirdevelopment in some countries (Shackley,1995; Weaver, 1998).

The market for this type of rainforesttourism is typically relatively well-to-dotourists from well-developed countries,especially from the USA and northernEurope. Such tourists fit the classic eco-tourism mould, they are generally well-edu-cated, keen to incorporate learningexperiences into their holiday and con-cerned about conservation. Whether or notthe tours and experiences they engage inare truly ecotourism is the subject of alively ongoing debate (Thomlinson andGetz, 1996; Wallace and Pierce, 1996;Lumsdon and Swift, 1998). Nonetheless,many of these tourists would either seethemselves as real ecotourists or as far moreserious than the usual sun and sand crowd.

The cost of such tours averagesUS$100–200 per day per person for theland component only (Shackley, 1995;Thomlinson and Getz, 1996). When airfaresare added a rainforest holiday is an expen-sive proposition. This tends to limit themarket to older, high income, experienced,highly motivated travellers. It also tends topreclude domestic tourists (though CostaRica and Australia do have strong domesticvisitor rates). However, it is important todistinguish between the current and poten-tial markets. In recent years there has beenthe growth of a younger backpacker mar-ket. Their tendency is to be more indepen-dent, accept cheaper accommodation,meals and transport and splurge on shortexpensive rainforest tours and experiences(in the same way as normally frugal back-packers still tend to be big spenders on div-ing experiences on the Great Barrier Reef).

Much of the high-value rainforesttourism is through traditional style grouptours. These are typically 7–14 days, allinclusive of food, accommodation andattractions, often cover a large area and anumber of countries and are usually built

around a strong theme. In addition therehas been much development of accommo-dation properties as self-contained destina-tions. These often have distinctive themesor styles, for example they may be pro-moted as eco-lodges or safari camps or asboutique or specialized (Moscardo et al.,1996; Wallace and Pierce, 1996). Someeven present themselves as scientificresearch centres (Weaver, 1998; Honey,1999). As well as food and lodging theytend to offer exclusive access to local rain-forest, guided tours, animal feeding andinterpretative talks. Many now have stronglinks to indigenous groups, utilizing themas guides and interpreters and in somecases these facilities may be owned andoperated by local communities (Wallaceand Pierce, 1996; Weaver, 1998).

Rainforests are not the sole attraction forthese tourists. They may be interested in arange of attractions which are geographi-cally linked to the rainforest, or it mayeven be that the rainforest is just the back-ground for a far stronger interest. Tours ofCentral America are packaged and pro-moted around a number of features, includ-ing Mayan ruins, beaches, adventureactivities and indigenous culture as well asthe rainforests (Thomlinson and Getz,1996; Lumsdon and Swift, 1998; Weaver,1998). Most tropical beach resorts havesome linkages to rainforests, either havingadjoining stands or offering longer tours tonearby forests. While their customers areprimarily interested in the beach and resortactivities, the rainforest offers variety andexotic glamour. Animal and birdwatchingtourism is a particularly significant high-value niche market which often utilizesrainforest environments (Shackley, 1995).

A different form of rainforest tourismhas tended to develop in Australia, particu-larly in Queensland. It is chiefly distin-guished by its markets. In Queensland theyare chiefly domestic tourists, internationalvisitors from Asia and backpackers. Pricesare lower and packages are built aroundaccommodation destinations rather thanlong tours. These accommodation destina-tions (and there are hundreds) skilfully userainforest plantings and views as their

Rainforests 199

setting. Nonetheless, the rainforest is typi-cally a background for the tourists’ chiefinterests in beaches, water activities andadventure experiences. Ecotourism ven-tures do exist and have grown in recentyears, but they are only a small segment.Another significant difference in Australiais that perhaps over half of rainforest visi-tors are from nearby areas and manytourists are taken to rainforests by friendsor relatives whom they are visiting(Parsonson et al., 1989; Valentine 1991).

Rainforest Interpretation

Interpretation aims at providing touristswith explanations about the places theyvisit and is a very important component ofecotourism (see Chapter 35). Interpretationhas two components: the message (ortheme) and the method (or mode).Unfortunately, tourism managers often con-centrate more on the method than the mes-sage and rainforest tourism is no differentin this respect.

Determining what are the key messagesfor tourists in rainforests is difficult forfour reasons. First, most tourists come torainforests already loaded down with pre-conceptions. Do tourism managers shapethe experience to fit and satisfy these pre-conceptions or do they risk challengingthem? Second, as noted earlier in thischapter, there is considerable unresolveddebate about certain aspects of rainforests.How should they be handled? Should theinterpretation be kept simple or can itinclude multiple conflicting explanations?Third, at what level should the interpreta-tion be aimed? Tourists range from chil-dren to highly educated adults, from themass tourist seeking a pleasant experienceto the dark green ecotourist. How dotourism managers strike a balance? Fourth,different tourism managers will have dif-ferent messages depending on their owncircumstances and beliefs. For example agovernment agency charged with managingrainforests may give its highest priority topromoting what a good job it is doing inconserving a particular patch. However,

down the road, an independent tour opera-tor may explain to their tourists that thesame government agency is encouraginglogging and agricultural clearance.

It has been suggested that there are cer-tain messages which should be included ininterpretation at all rainforests. These arethe following (adapted from Frost, 1999).

1. What makes a rainforest and the debateover what is and what is not a rainforest.2. The different types of rainforest and, inparticular, the type that this rainforestbelongs to.3. How indigenous people interacted withthis rainforest.4. How European colonization or settle-ment affected this rainforest.5. The major threats today.6. Plant and tree varieties.7. Animals, birds and insects.8. Special growing conditions associatedwith this rainforest (such as the nutrientcycle or the presence of buttressed roots).9. The fragility and resilience of rain-forests in general and of this particularrainforest.10. Any revegetation or scientific researchprojects in progress.

Each of these messages varies in termsof complexity, controversy and vestedinterests. When the interpretative materialsat six popular rainforest parks in Australiawere surveyed, some strong patternsemerged (Frost, 1999). None of the parksprovided any information about currentthreats to rainforests in Australia. However,some referred to rainforest clearing inBrazil! The likely explanation for theseomissions is that the government agenciesresponsible for these parks were usuallyparts of larger agencies responsible fortimber-cutting in the area. In addition,none of the six attempted to provide a ‘sci-entific’ definition of rainforest. Again thismay have been due to the broader logginginterests of the park managers or it mayhave been seen as just too complex to try toexplain to tourists. Curiously, three of thesix had good information on indigenoususe of the rainforest and three had nothingon this topic.

200 W. Frost

In contrast, all six parks provided exten-sive excellent quality interpretative mater-ial regarding the special growingconditions to be found in that rainforest.Five of the six provided information aboutthe animals, birds and insects and labelledthe major tree varieties. Such emphasescan be explained in two ways. First, thisinterpretation focused on informationwhich was incontestable and uncontrover-sial: the trees had buttresses, they were of aparticular species, there were epiphytes,nutrients were returned to the soil byrapidly rotting leaves, etc. Second, thisinterpretation related to the internaldynamics of the rainforest; it did not gobeyond the rainforest and consider how itinteracted with the rest of the world.

The quality of interpretation is highlydependent on the level of knowledge of itscreator, the writer of text for signs or a tourguide. The level of knowledge has becomeparticularly important for rainforesttourism in Latin America. On the high-value tours which characterize this regionthe tourists are typically well educated,knowledge-hungry and have high expecta-tions. They expect to interact with local(perhaps indigenous) guides. However,they can often be dissatisfied by expectingWestern standards from non-Westernguides. Examples of problem areas arisingfrom cultural clashes include guides withlow levels of scientific or technical knowl-edge and guides seemingly indifferent toWestern ideals of preserving nature(Wallace and Pierce, 1996).

Research into the quality of the mes-sages conveyed to tourists through inter-pretation is a fairly new area. However, forrainforest tourism it is becoming a vitalingredient in the long-term sustainabilityof individual operators and regions.Rainforest visitors, especially those wecharacterize as ecotourists, come to therainforests to enhance and increase theirexisting knowledge. To satisfy suchtourists, tourism managers need to beaware of this and prepared to meet theseneeds.

Elevated Viewing Structures

Rainforest tourists can choose from a widerange of modes of experiencing and under-standing the rainforests. Some of these,though used in other biomes, work verywell in rainforests. These include smallguided walks, trails with signage andnight-time spotlight walks. However, thereis one particular mode which has becomealmost exclusively associated with rain-forests, this is the elevated viewing struc-ture.

The stated logic behind elevated struc-tures is that as the canopy is the most inter-esting feature of a rainforest, most touristswill wish to go there. As well as being thedistinguishing characteristic, the canopy iswhere tourists can see epiphytes, fruit,flowers and wildlife close up. Such experi-ences cannot be had at ground level. A sec-ond attraction of the elevated structure(though rarely openly stated) is that it givesthe tourist a thrill. For that reason many ofthem are suspension structures whichmove, swing and shake. They are essen-tially soft adventure tourism.

Elevated viewing structures are a recentphenomenon (though at least one dates tothe 1930s). Their numbers and range haverapidly expanded in the last 10 years inresponse to the increase in tourist interestin rainforests. A number of types can bedistinguished. The first are publicly builtstructures, usually located in nationalparks. Typically these are designed to caterfor large numbers of mass tourists (for onlyhigh attendance can justify their cost).They are easily accessed by good roads andmay have visitor centres and cateringattached. They provide a short, concentratedexperience, generally no more than 1 h(Frost, 1999).

A second type are privately constructed.They are nearly always associated withaccommodation. These structures providean exclusive experience for the payingguests.

A third category consists of (usually pri-vately owned and operated) mass viewingstructures. Their cost is met by admissionfees. The best examples of these are the

Rainforests 201

recently built cable cars running throughrainforests in Costa Rica and Queensland(Chapman, 1996; Honey, 1999).

Elevated viewing structures may be seenas examples of hardening (the use of toughmaterials to protect the environment fromtourist traffic), sacrificial sites (overdevel-opment of one site in order to protect othersites) and concentration (providing a focalpoint for tourists to visit, either for the pur-poses of collecting revenue, managing visi-tors or providing services). Such structureshave also been criticized as possibly beinga poor substitute for good quality interpre-tation. It may be that having invested in thecapital works, tourism managers are eitherunwilling or feel it unnecessary to spendfurther on tour guides or signage (Frost,1999). Such structures have also been criti-cized as providing a sanitized and limitedexperience for tourists (Evans, 2000).

The Artificial Rainforest

Another recent tourist development is theartificial rainforest. As rainforests arehighly attractive, but expensive to visit,some developers have taken the approachof bringing the rainforest to the city ratherthan vice versa. It is interesting to note thatone key tourism textbook only refers torainforest attractions in this sense, citingthe case of the indoor Lied Jungle inNebraska, USA, which attracts 1.3 millionvisitors annually (Goeldner et al., 2000).Other examples include the massive tropi-cal rainforest glasshouse opened in 1988 inthe Botanic Gardens in Adelaide, Australiaand the indoor forest (including livingtrees 200 feet high) opened in 2000 at the Museum of Victoria, Melbourne,Australia.

Such developments are highly depen-dent on technology, either to create realis-tic artificial copies or to keep realspecimens alive. Their massive costrequires very large numbers of visitors pay-ing small entry fees. Generally they pro-vide an hour or two of interest and aredirectly competing with a wide range ofsimilarly priced accessible attractions

(including cinemas and other museums).Whether or not they are financially viablein the long term (especially after the nov-elty has worn off and costly revamping isrequired) remains to be seen. What is alsouncertain is whether or not these urbanalternatives affect demand for real rainfor-est tourism. (See Chapter 20 for a moredetailed discussion of ecotourism in modi-fied environments.)

Environmental Impact

The great increase in rainforest tourism hastended to affect the environment in twoways. The first is degradation throughincreased traffic. The world’s survivingrainforests are typically in remote, sparselypopulated areas. What remain today arerainforests which lacked either accessibil-ity or fertility and so were not utilized forfarming or logging. Increased tourismrequires the building of roads and otherservices in relatively unspoilt areas. Unlesscarefully managed, tourism may lead toincreased erosion, soil compaction, weeds,diseases and pollution. Conversely, takingpositive steps to minimize negativeimpacts may become an attractive sellingpoint for the environmentally conscioustourist. For example, much is made of howthe pylons of rainforest cable cars inQueensland and Costa Rica were broughtin by helicopters, so negating the need forclearing for permanent access roads(Chapman, 1996; Honey, 1999).

The second negative effect arises fromthe strong preconceptions of how rain-forests should look which tourists bringwith them. It may be highly tempting toreshape rainforests in a standardized for-mat in order to satisfy those expectations.As such at a resort on Lindeman Island offthe Queensland coast, exotic rainforestspecies were introduced, ‘to assist in rein-forcing the tropical island image desiredfor the resort’ (Harris and Walshaw, 1995).At Cable Beach Resort in Broome, WesternAustralia, the buildings and landscapingwere done in a Balinese style and thedevelopers were initially quite ignorant

202 W. Frost

that indigenous dry rainforest existed ontheir property.

A Place for Tourism?

In the last decade there has been a greatdeal of discussion about the accelerateddestruction of rainforest and measures forpreserving and protecting what remains.Unfortunately a great deal of this literatureignores tourism, either as an influence or asa force for preservation (for examples seeCollins, 1990; Whitmore, 1990; and most

significantly Salim and Ullsten, 1999).Such an omission is indeed worrying.Tourism already exists as an activity inrainforests and is growing. If efforts to pre-serve rainforests are to be successful, plan-ners, managers and governments need totake account of tourism and its potential,both as a force which could damage rain-forests and as a force for promoting interestin and understanding of rainforests. In turntourism operators and managers need to beactively involved in preservation and edu-cation.

Rainforests 203

References

Adam, P. (1992) Australian Rainforests. Oxford University Press, New York.Aiken, S.R. and Leigh, C.H. (1995) Vanishing Rainforests: the Ecological Transition in Malaysia.

Clarendon, Oxford.Boomgaard, P. (1999) Oriental nature, its friends and its enemies: conservation of nature in late-colo-

nial Indonesia, 1889–1949. Environment and History 5(3), 257–292.Cameron, D. (1992) A portrait of Victoria’s rainforests: distribution, diversity and definition. In: Gell,

P. and Mercer, D. (eds) Victoria’s Rainforests: Perspectives in Definition, Classification andManagement. Monash Publications in Geography, Melbourne.

Chapman, K. (1996) Skyrail: rainforest cableway. In: Charters, T., Gabriel, M. and Prasser, S. (eds)National Parks: Private Sector’s Role. University of Southern Queensland Press, Toowoomba,pp. 134–139.

Collins, M. (ed.) (1990) The Last Rainforests. International Union for Conservation of Nature andMitchell Beazley, London.

Davison, G. (1991) The meanings of heritage. In: Davison, G. and McConville, C. (eds) A HeritageHandbook. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 1–13.

Dean, W. (1995) With Broadax and Firebrand: the Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forests.University of California Press, Berkeley.

Evans, S. (2000) Ecotourism in tropical rainforests: an environmental management option for threat-ened resources? In: Font, X. and Tribe, J. (eds) Forest Tourism and Recreation: Case Studies inEnvironmental Management. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 127–142.

Flannery, T. (1998) Throwim Way Leg. Text, Melbourne.Frost, W. (1997) Farmers, government and the environment: the settlement of Australia’s ‘Wet

Frontier’, 1870–1920. Australian Economic History Review 37(1), 19–38.Frost, W. (1999) Straight lines in nature: rainforest tourism and forest viewing structures. In: Tourism

Policy and Planning: Proceedings of the International Geographical Union Sustainable TourismStudy Group Conference, Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, pp. 163–173.

Frost, W. (2000) Nature-based tourism in the 1920s and 1930s. In: Peak Practice: Papers of the 2000Council of Australian Tourism and Hospitality Educators Conference. La Trobe University,Melbourne.

Goeldner, C., Ritchie, B. and McIntosh, R. (2000) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 8thedn. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Grove, R.H. (1995) Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins ofEnvironmentalism, 1600–1860. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Harris, R. and Walshaw, A. (1995) Club Mediterranee Lindeman Island. In: Harris, R. and Leiper, N.(eds) Sustainable Tourism: an Australian Perspective. Butterworth-Heinnemann, Sydney,pp. 89–99.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Lumsdon, L.A. and Swift, J.S. (1998) Ecotourism at a crossroads: the case of Costa Rica. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 6(2), 155–172.

Minca, C. and Linda, M. (2000) Ecotourism on the edge: the case of Corcovado National Park, CostaRica. In: Font, X. and Tribe, J. (eds) Forest Tourism and Recreation: Case Studies inEnvironmental Management. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 105–126.

Moscardo, G., Morrison, A.M. and Pearce, P.L. (1996) Specialist accommodation and ecologically-sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4(1), 29–52.

O’Reilly, B. (c.1945) Green Mountains. Smith & Paterson, Brisbane.Parsonson, R., Wearing, S., Anderson, K., Robertson, B. and Veal, T. (1989) New England-Dorrigo

Rainforest Tourism Study. Centre for Tourism and Leisure Studies, Kuring-Gai College, Sydney.Ritchie, R. (1989) Seeing the Rainforests in 19th-century Australia. Rainforest Publishing, Sydney.Salim, E. and Ullsten, O. (1999) Our Forests our Future: Report of the World Commission on Forests

and Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Shackley, M. (1995) The future of Gorilla tourism in Rwanda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(2),

61–72.Thomlinson, E. and Getz, D. (1996) The question of scale in ecotourism: case study of two small eco-

tour operators in the Mundo Maya region of Central America. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,4(4), 183–200.

Valentine, P.S. (1991) Rainforest recreation: a review of experience in tropical Australia. In: Werren,G. and Kershaw, P. (eds) The Rainforest Legacy: Australian National Rainforest Study, Vol. 3.Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra, pp. 235–239.

Wallace, G.N. and Pierce, S.M. (1996) An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals ofTourism Research 23(4), 843–873.

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.White, M. (1994) After the Greening: the Browning of Australia. Kangaroo, Sydney.Whitmore, T.C. (1990) An Introduction to Tropical Rain Forests. Clarendon, Oxford.

204 W. Frost

Chapter 13

Mountain Ecotourism: Creating aSustainable Future

P.W. Williams1, T.V. Singh2 and R. Schlüter31School for Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,British Columbia, Canada; 2Centre for Tourism Research and Development, Indira Nagar,Lucknow, India; 3Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Turisticos, Avenida del Libertador,

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Introduction

Tourism has become a primary source ofrevenue for many mountain areas, provid-ing a rare opportunity for mountain peopleto participate directly in the global econ-omy. Indeed it is estimated that as much as15–20% of the tourist industry, orUS$70–90 billion per year, is accounted forby mountain tourism activities (MountainAgenda, 1999). In contrast to the generallysmall contribution of alpine environmentsto national economies, the value of moun-tain tourism to many regions is very signifi-cant (Zimmerman, 1995; Price et al., 1997;Ritchie, 1998). Ecotourism represents anemerging and promising option for manymountainous locations that are seekingalternatives to the more traditional forms oftourism development that have character-ized alpine tourism in the past.

Given the growing demand for suchforms of development, this chapterdescribes the fundamental attractiveness ofalpine areas for ecotourism, the inherentnatural and cultural sensitivities associatedwith developing such areas for ecotourism,and the fundamental strategies whichshould be considered when developing

and managing ecotourism on a sustainedbasis. It places particular emphasis ondescribing these challenges from an indus-try development perspective. It selects thisspecific focus in order to underline theimportance of supporting small andmedium-sized enterprises which tend to bethe backbone of the fledgling ecotourismsector (Thomlinson and Getz, 1996).Throughout the discussion, examples frommajor alpine regions are used to highlightinnovative approaches to mountain eco-tourism development and management.

Alpine Areas as EcotourismDestinations

The lure of tourists to mountain regions isbased for the most part on natural featuresthat are attractive for travellers. Theseinclude clean, cool air and water; variedtopography with unique blends of bioticand abiotic resources; and ever-changingscenic mountain viewscapes (Price et al.,1997). In many ways, mountains are focalpoints of global biodiversity, often retain-ing a greater number of species than adja-cent lowlands due to extreme variations in

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 205

altitude and the presence of micro-environments (Mountain Agenda, 1999).All of these natural attributes are con-ducive to activities and outcomes, includ-ing physical health, wellness, contemplationand meditation, that motivate mountaintravellers (Singh and Kaur, 1985;COFREMCA, 1993). However, it is recog-nized that many of these pursuits also havesignificant impacts on the natural resourcesthat they use. The management of moun-tain areas must strive for a careful balancebetween the protection of these naturalresources, the needs of local people, andthe desires of tourists (McConnell, 1991;Schlüter, 1993; Gill and Williams, 1994).

Mountains are also home to manydiverse traditions and unique culturallandscapes that are linked to indigenousmountain people. Indeed, many mountaincommunities have rich cultural heritagesthat are visually expressed in the form ofcostume, buildings, and a wide range oflifestyle practices (UNEP, 1994). Such fea-tures are attractive to travellers seekingopportunities to experience and learnabout the cultural and heritage dimensionsof more remote and exotic destinations.Local communities and enterprises can sta-bilize their economies by recognizing theinterest tourists have in understandingmountain cultures. For instance, the citizen-founded Hand Made in America organiza-tion, which operates in the AppalachianMountains of the eastern USA, has success-fully capitalized on the tourism potentialassociated with cultural heritage. Throughinitiatives such as its Craft Heritage Trailsprogramme, it has stimulated enterprisedevelopment for craftspeople while con-centrating the flow of tourists in areas thatdo not compromise the area’s culturalintegrity (Yates-McGill, 1999). Cultural her-itage is a key element of the attractivenessof many mountain regions for tourism. Itcan be a valuable attraction for tourists, butit should not be sacrificed for short-termbenefits (Muller and Thiem, 1995) (seeChapter 25).

Geographic Focus of MountainEcotourism

The spread of mountain ecotourism devel-opment in response to market demand andregional development priorities is concen-trated primarily in western North America,Europe, the Himalayas and western SouthAmerica, each of which has varying levelsof development and activity focus.Although not focused upon in these dis-cussions, similar issues, albeit on a smallerscale, are associated with other, relativelyminor mountainous areas of the world.These include the Atlas Mountains ofNorth Africa, the Drakensberg range ofSouth Africa, the Australian and NewZealand Alps, the Urals, the AppalachianMountains, the Caucasus, and the highmountains of New Guinea.

North America

Mountain ecotourism in a North Americancontext is focused primarily in the westerncordillera region of the continent.Extending from Alaska to Mexico, thisNearctic area is the largest single moun-tainous region in the world (Thorsell andHarrison, 1992). Within this zone eco-tourism development tends to be concen-trated in specific geographic locationsespecially noted for their high-qualitywilderness and protected area attributes.These sites, in particular, are associatedwith areas of Alaska (e.g. Denali, Katmai,Alexander Archipelago), Yukon (DawsonRange and Pelly Mountains), NorthwestTerritories (Mackenzie Mountains), BritishColumbia (Columbia Mountains, PacificRanges, Vancouver Island Ranges), thePacific Northwest and mountain region ofthe USA (Cascade Range, Rocky Moun-tains, Olympic Mountains), and California(the Sierra Nevada).

Europe

In Europe, the focus of mountain eco-tourism development is centred in the

206 P.W. Williams et al.

Western Palaearctic zone. While the mainalpine feature is the Alps, the lesser rangesin the region (e.g. the Pyrenees,Cantabrians, Taurus, Apennines, Balkans,Carpathians, Jotunheim and the highlandsof Scandinavia) provide the primary focifor the continent’s emerging mountain eco-tourism industry. The focus of ecotourismactivity in these regions reflects the small-scale adventure and culturally orientedcharacter of initiatives found in NorthAmerica. Unlike the other major regions,European mountain regions are located inclose proximity to large population centres,creating added pressure in terms of othertourism activities (and especially wintersports such as skiing) and other modes ofresource use.

Asia

In Asia, mountain ecotourism is primarilycentred in the South/Central Palaearcticzone which crosses seven countries.Containing the greatest concentration ofhigh mountains in the world (Thorsell andHarrison, 1992), the area comprises theranges of the Himalaya, Hindu Kush,Karakoram and Pamir. Of these, theHimalayas in particular have developed anature-based tourism industry that resem-bles and links with ecotourism in severalways. The Himalayan ranges commence atNaga Parbat (8126 m) in the north-west,and pass through Pakistan and India’sHimachal Pradesh state, ending at NamcheBarwa (7828 m) in the east. The areaembraces the watershed of the Indus andBrahmaputra rivers.

Most of the ecologically based touristactivities in this region are confined tonational parks and protected areas that arerich in bio-cultural diversity. Naturetourism of a more ‘hard core’ variety isfound in the higher ranges of theKarakoram and Hindu Kush. In contrast,softer forms, based on ecological resources,are emerging in Ladakh (Jammu-Kashmir),Kulu and Kangara (Himachal), Har ki doon(Uttarakashi), Valley of Flowers (Chamoli),and Kunda (Almora), where indigenous

populations, particularly Bhotias, Joharsand Marchchyas, have become engaged insuch options. This trend has received a fur-ther boost from national and regional pol-icy goals favouring ecotourism. TheSherpas of Nepal, particularly in theKumbu, Langtang, Rolwaling and Anna-purna regions, present good examples ofecotourism. Semblances of ecotourism arealso evident in Himalayan pilgrimagetourism, with good examples found in theGarhwal Himalayas, and particularlyaround the geopious pilgrim resorts ofBadrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri andYamunotri.

By and large, the main ecotourism activ-ities in this mountain region are trekking,rambling, enjoying the scenery offered bymountain panoramas, birding, angling,viewing wildlife, forest-recreation, boatingin the lake waters, and photography. Insome parts, eco-trekking and conservationholidays have been initiated where hostsand guest have opportunities for interac-tion. Some of the more appreciable formsof ecotourism are emerging in Bhutan andthe Sikkim portion of the Himalayas. Inother areas, such as Kashmir and along theIndo-Tibetan border, geopolitical instabilityhinders the development of ecotourismand other forms of tourism.

South America

In South America, apart from the uplandmassifs in Brazil and Venezuela, the majormountainous region used for ecotourismactivity is the Andean Cordillera. TheAndes mountain range rises abruptly fromthe Caribbean Sea and extends the wholelength of South America to Tierra delFuego. It runs parallel to the west coast ofthe continent and contains a considerablenumber of national parks: from the HenriPittier National Park in Venezuela to theTierra del Fuego National Park where themountain range descends into theAntarctic sea. In addition, the Andesmountain range north of Argentina consistsof a number of plains that are generallyknown as the ‘Altiplano’, or the High Plain,

Mountain Ecotourism 207

located predominantly in Bolivia and Peru.It is a discontinuous series of plains andbasins of variable dimensions and heights,separated by mountain chains and deepcanyons. Here is found Lake Titicaca, thehighest navigable lake in the world, whichattracts ecotourists from different parts ofthe world.

As in much of the world (see Chapter18), there is a marked tendency in Andeancountries to consider ecotourism as a formof tourism that is practised primarily innational parks. In Venezuela, for example,the national parks are defined officially astourist products. The first Andean nationalpark was gazetted in 1934 in Argentina(Nahuwl Huapi National Park), with theHenri Pittier National Park in Venezuelacreated in 1937. In Colombia, the PuraceNational Park in the south of the countryconsists of volcanic landscapes and ther-mal waters that allow for the observation ofdiverse wildlife, immersion in thermalwaters, and long walks. However, as Leitchpoints out (1993, p. 203), social instability,political problems and the violence associ-ated with drugs have inhibited Colombia inits development of tourism and, as a result,the Purace National Park has not been able

to realize its potential and benefit from ahealthy flow of ecotourists.

This is not the case with Argentina andChile, where the Andean-Patagoniannational parks constitute one of the conti-nent’s principal ecotourism assets(Schlüter, 1993) for both hard and soft eco-tourist markets. The Andean-PatagonianMountain Range in Argentina is the hometo seven national parks, or 80% of thecountry’s national park system. The GlacierNational Park, in the extreme continentalsouth of Argentina, started to gain in popu-larity in the 1990s. Surveys of park visitorshere show that almost all go to see thePerito Moreno glacier. As is the case withthe majority of the Andean National Parks,most of the visitors to the Glacier NationalPark are Argentinean, although foreigntourists compose more than 40% (Schlüter,1997), with Europeans the dominant inter-national market. The flow of tourists toChilean Patagonia intensified from thebeginning of the 1990s when the ‘CarreteraAustral’, the Southern Motorway extendingfrom the South of Puerto Mont (Rivas-Ortega and Martinez-Coronado, 1989) tothe south of the city of Coihaique, wascreated (Figs 13.1–13.4).

208 P.W. Williams et al.

Fig. 13.1. Glacier at Lake Argentino, Glacier National Park, Patagonia, Argentina.

Alpine Ecotourism Activities

For the most part, alpine ecotourism devel-opment tends to be small scale (average of12–15 per travel party) and primarilyfocused on low-impact adventure activi-ties. Ecotourism is usually differentiated

from adventure tourism by the significantelement of risk that prevails in the latter(see Chapter 5). However, it can be arguedthat alpine ecotourism commonlyhybridizes with adventure tourism to theextent that virtually any direct contact withnature in an alpine setting implies a certain

Mountain Ecotourism 209

Fig. 13.2. Los Alerces National Park, Patagonia, Argentina.

Fig. 13.3. Lake Puelo National Park, Patagonia, Argentina.

degree of risk in itself. This is the case inPeru, for example, where the most impor-tant natural and cultural sites are found athigh altitudes where low oxygen levelspose a physical risk for people of advancedage and for those who suffer from precari-ous health.

Operators in such areas place emphasison providing opportunities for natureobservation, interpretation and photogra-phy, while travelling through zones of pris-tine wilderness and solitude on foot,horseback, or in canoes. Normally, facilitydevelopment associated with these opera-tions is limited to a few base camp lodgeswhich serve as supply and staging pointsfor outward bound visitors. To varying butsubstantial degrees, these operations accen-tuate the use of environmentally sensitivehard and soft technologies to ensure lowimpacts from their tourism-related activities.

The core activities that are intricatelylinked to mountain ecotourism are pri-

marily nature and culture-based apprecia-tive pursuits. The nature-based activitiesare centred on various types of fauna view-ing (e.g. bird, bear, mountain goat, elk,moose, etc.) and landscape appreciation(e.g. flora photography, caving and glacierexplorations, and astronomical observation).Cultural pursuits are mainly focused onguided visits to traditional aboriginal areas,resource-based wellness sites, and/or vari-ous trekking adventures along pioneertravel routes. These core pursuits are oftencomplemented by a range of more clearlyadventure-oriented water (e.g. kayaking,rafting, canoeing), land (e.g. mountaineer-ing, trail riding, hut-to-hut skiing, snow-shoeing, dog-sledding, and snowmobiling),and air (e.g. aerial wildlife/nature viewing,heli-hiking, paragliding, hot air ballooning)experiences. A good example of productdiversity occurs within the PeruvianAndes. There, the Huascaran National Parkand the Inca path to Macchu Picchu are thecountry’s two most important sites for bothecotourism and adventure tourism.

Notwithstanding the small scale andenvironmentally sensitive character ofmost of these operations, demand for eco-tourism and other forms of ‘environmen-tally friendly’ recreation opportunities arecreating rapidly growing stresses in manymountain regions. These stresses are beingexpressed in the form of negative effects onwildlife, vegetation, soils, air and waterquality. They are derived primarily fromthe construction, use and maintenance oftransportation corridors, accommodation,trails and other recreation facilitiesdesigned to cater to the needs of visitors.

While the effects of such physical devel-opments can be significant in their ownright, they tend to be magnified whenintroduced into the fragile ecosystems ofmost mountain areas. A combination ofextreme and rapidly changing weather con-ditions, unstable and steep slopes, rapidand peaked water runoff, limited flora cov-erage, slow-growing vegetation and limitedhabitat all serve to make mountain areasespecially susceptible to destabilizationprocesses created by tourism and otherforms of human intervention. Furthermore,

210 P.W. Williams et al.

Fig. 13.4. Hanging glacier near Puyuhuapi insouthern Chile.

these interventions have only been exacer-bated by new technologies that haveincreased the ability of tourists to penetratemore remote, rugged and high mountainregions.

This is true not only in the alpineregions of industrialized countries, but alsoon the highest and most remote mountainranges of the less-developed world. Theadvent of larger and more frequent groupsof tourists, each with specialized equip-ment needs for lodging, personal hygiene,cooked food and warmth has led to signifi-cant environmental damage in theHimalaya, the Andes and elsewhere(Banskota and Sahrma, 1995). In response,management agencies are beginning to cre-ate the institutional frameworks and man-agement strategies needed to allow theindustry to develop in a more systematicand environmentally friendly fashion(Mallari and Enote, 1996; BCMELP, 1998;Gerst, 1999). Such initiatives are best artic-ulated at present in the European Alps,through multilateral organizations such asCIPRA and Euromontan (see Chapter 10).

Mountain Ecotourism Stakeholders

Careful use of environments, maintenanceof biodiversity, and safeguarding the needsand heritage of local people must be bal-anced carefully against the growingdemand for ever-expanding forms ofmountain tourism development. Overall,the tourism industry has great responsibil-ity in this regard, and forms of ecotourismsuited to mountain environments offergrowing opportunities for some regions.Yet this type of development brings manychallenges for a variety of stakeholders.These stakeholders and their constituentsinclude:

• federal, state and community govern-ments responsible for representing thepublic’s interest in tourism, regionaldevelopment, natural protected areasdesignations, natural resource allocations,cultural protection, environmental man-agement, and economic development(Howe et al., 1997; Kezi, 1998);

• non-governmental organizations (NGOs),e.g. community groups and indigenouspopulations concerned with resourceallocations and management strategiesassociated with tourism, economic devel-opment, recreation and conservationdecisions (May, 1991, Walle, 1993; Priceet al., 1997); and

• individual tourism businesses, privateand public tour operators and tourwholesalers concerned with the day today challenges of developing and man-aging sustainable ecotourism venturesthat attract a profitable flow of cus-tomers (Sirakaya, 1995; Herremans andWelsh, 1999).

The remainder of this chapter focuses onthe challenges that stakeholders concernedwith developing and managing mountainecotourism must address.

Mountain Ecotourism Developmentand Management Challenges

There are many challenges associated withthe development and management of eco-tourism in mountain regions, especially inthe less-developed world. While wellintended, the delivery of programmes inmany protected areas is less than optimal.Leitch (1993, p. 161) affirms that ‘the sys-tem is better developed conceptually thanmaterially’. Only a few protected areashave a suitable infrastructure that includestourist centres, specialized personnel, asystem of paths and descriptive brochures,etc. Some of the more critical issues thattend to be common to most alpine areasinclude product development and enhance-ment, packaging and resource protection.These issues are discussed in the followingsections.

Product development

It is difficult to establish the overall spatialdistribution of ecotourism products inmountain regions primarily due to thefledgling character of this industry and itstendency to hybridize with adventure and

Mountain Ecotourism 211

cultural tourism. Indeed, the full extent ofsuch operations is continuing to unfold.Generally, the distribution of ecotourismdevelopments is primarily focused on less-developed and remote mountainousareas with outstanding natural resources.Defined by their own cultural rhythms, thedestinations of mountain ecotourists tendto have unique attributes which are oftenassociated with formally or informally des-ignated protected spaces. Some of theseplaces are nationally or internationally sig-nificant. For example, tourists can view awide variety of birds of prey and over 40species of reptiles and amphibians in theDadia Forest Reserve on the RhodopeMountains of north-eastern Greece. Thedevelopment of tourism in this area hashelped to transform Dadia from an isolatedand impoverished village into a lively com-munity-based ecotourism centre (Valaoras,1999).

Similarly, some mountain tour operatorshave developed ecotourism hikes into theRocky Mountains of northern BritishColumbia and Yukon. Here, their cus-tomers gain a stronger first-hand apprecia-tion of the interconnectedness betweenpeople and the unique wildlife (e.g. grizzlybears, eagles and mountain sheep) thatinhabit the Tatshensheni and Alsek Rivervalleys (http://mtsobek.com). This situa-tion is mirrored in Asia and South Americawhere visitors, for example, can enjoy therare sight of high altitude Himalayanpheasants (monal) in protected areas of theupper Beas basin in Himachal Pradesh andGovind Wildlife sanctuary in Uttarkashi(Garhwal Himalaya). They can also witnessthe spectacle of Himalayan musk-deer inthe Kedarnath sanctuary.

Despite the superb locations and prod-uct development of the best mountain eco-tourism ventures, many of them are lessimpressive with regard to the latter.Measured against the dimensions of quality(hospitality, reliability, accessibility, vari-ety, etc.) associated with other competitivetourism destinations and businesses,mountain ecotourism developments varyconsiderably in their quality. To remedythese inconsistencies, a range of alterna-

tives exists, including raising the numberof new products, promoting seasonal diver-sification and upgrading product quality.

Increasing the number of new productsWhile the demand for mountain ecotourismadventures is growing, appropriate and sus-tainable infrastructure to support thismarket expansion is lacking. Few well-developed products and facilities exist tocater to the needs of domestic and foreigntravellers. Moreover, in many regions, thefocus of most nature-based mountaintourism is still fixed on hunting and fishingactivities which may not be compatiblewith the interests of ecotourism travellers.More products are needed which comple-ment the principles of ecotourism, and areof a quality that will attract domesticand/or international tourists. For instance,some tour operators are introducing smallgroup, low-impact expeditions (1–10 people)into the Coastal and Rocky Mountains ofwestern Canada. Adhering to an environ-mentally friendly code of conduct referredto as ‘Traveler’s Commandments’, theseexpeditions provide tourists with personal-ized opportunities to learn about andrespect the ecosystems they are passingthrough. Furthermore, relatively unusualtransportation methods (e.g. dogsledding,goat trekking and hut-to-hut cross-countryskiing) are offered to provide a competitiveedge in attracting customers (http://www.gorp.com/outeredge). A portion ofeach trip’s fees is also used to support localresearch and conservation projects.

In Asia examples of innovative moun-tain ecotourism development include theintroduction of electric ropeways in theHuang Shan scenic area of China’s famousheritage site. These facilities have allowedvisitors to experience the scenery of thelocal landscape without disturbing thefragile habitat. In the Garhwal Himalaya,the upgrading of eco-pilgrimages along thesacred Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers hasimproved the overall quality of the eco-tourism experience.

Despite these examples of good practice,more must be done to create a better ‘fit’between ecotourism products offered by

212 P.W. Williams et al.

mountain tourism operators and the mar-kets that they are trying to attract.Mountain ecotourists seek products thatprovide unique opportunities to experienceoutstanding sites. At the same time, thesetravellers also base their destination deci-sions on convenience, quality and value forthe money spent. Unfortunately, mountainecotourism suppliers do not always meetthese criteria.

Seasonal diversification Many mountain ecotourism businesses arehighly seasonal activities. Often they workat close to overflow capacity during peaksummer seasons when alpine climatic con-ditions make access and activity conve-nient. In many locations this ‘high’ seasononly lasts for a period of 3–4 months.These operations then become almost dor-mant during traditional ‘shoulder’ andwinter seasons. This leads to low annualfacility utilization rates (often less than40%), which in turn translates into limitedfinancial sustainability for many opera-tions.

Given the willingness of many eco-tourism markets to travel at non-peak traf-fic periods, opportunities exist to developecotourism adventures during lower uti-lized times. For instance, many traditionalmountain ecotourism activities could beextended into the shoulder seasons andaugmented by activities surrounding theobservation of annual life cycle eventssuch as animal migrations, vegetationchange, as well as localized spring andautumn cultural festivities. For example,ecotourists in Switzerland can hike in theEngadine Valley and observe the changingvegetation in nearby mountain meadowsduring the shoulder seasons. Similarly,during the autumn season, environmen-tally friendly travellers visit the mountainstreams of North America’s coastal moun-tains to view the annual migrations ofPacific salmon.

Local communities have capitalized onlife cycle rituals by establishing festivalsdesigned to celebrate these events whileconcomitantly extending their tourism sea-sons. Ladakh in Kashmir Himalaya offers

opportunities for cultural tourism, andespecially for visits to Buddhist festivals inthe July–August period, when rains blockaccess to other parts of the Himalayas. Softadventure options are provided to visitorsof the Himalayas during the winter asanother way of addressing the problem ofseasonality. By diversifying the range ofexperiences provided, ecotourism opera-tions can create stronger capacity utiliza-tion and revenue generation levels neededto stabilize many businesses.

Upgrading product qualityEcotourists tend to be relatively knowl-edgeable and ‘footloose’ in their choice ofmountain destinations. Not bound to con-tinually return to any one place, they moretypically seek high quality products andplaces to experience on their trips. Productquality in this context tends to be associ-ated with the following criteria:

• range of activities available;• professionalism and knowledge of those

providing guiding/interpretation services;• hygiene, cleanliness and comfort of

accommodation available;• diversity, healthfulness and indigenous

attributes of foods provided; and• the extent to which these elements are

brought together in the form of seamlesspackages.

Unfortunately, as stated earlier, the qualityof mountain ecotourism products isuneven with respect to these criteria.While there are some outstanding exam-ples, many others do not meet the stan-dards expected by today’s sophisticatedtourists.

Steps are needed to publicize the bestexamples and to advise operators on howto improve their products (EconomicPlanning Group of Canada, 1999; Williamsand Budke, 1999). For instance, theCanadian Aboriginal Tourism Associationand British Columbia-based Native IndianEducation Centre have developed trainingresources designed to assist indigenousgroups in developing culturally appropri-ate tourism businesses. Many of thesematerials have been used to support the

Mountain Ecotourism 213

development of aboriginal ecotourism ini-tiatives in the mountain regions of westernCanada (White et al., 1998). In Asia, theupgrading of Kulu Dashera in the IndianHimalaya, by the government of HimachalPradesh, has enabled ecotourists to enjoy aunique experience when tribal gods andgoddesses descend from over 360Himalayan valleys for a colourful pageant(Singh, 1989). The event attracts a largenumber of domestic and foreign tourists,though continued growth could threatenthe quality of the product if not appropri-ately managed.

Packaging

Well-developed trip packages combine acore ‘experience’ with components such astransportation, accommodation, meals,guides and/or interpreters. Many excellentecotourism packages exist for travel tomountain destinations. For example,mountain ecotourism operators offer multi-day ecotourism packages to such exoticdestinations as the mountain volcanoes ofEcuador, the glaciers of Argentina andChile, and the Inca heritage sites of Peru(http://www.wildland.com). Typically, withthese packages, a portion of the trip’s costis invested in projects supporting localenvironmental or cultural resource man-agement initiatives (e.g. tree planting pro-grammes, conservation trusts, rainforestpurchases, etc.). Similar well-developedpackages exist for ecotourism adventuresinto Asia, including the practice ofecotrekking in Nepal’s SagarmathaNational Park.

For the most part, however, mountainecotourism packages do not meet the stan-dards of the best. Indeed, throughout mostmountain tourism regions, the packagesavailable are quite uneven in terms of qual-ity, the value they represent and the stan-dards to which they aspire. Moresignificantly, many operators only packagetheir products in a minimal way, if at all.Some who advertise as ‘outfitters’ do littlemore than run rental operations. Othersoffer only basic activities, devoid of the

transportation, accommodation, meals andother activities that are necessary for suc-cess. A number of other problems relatedto packaging include inadequate program-ming, a limited number of activity options,and a lack of cultural interpretation pro-gramming. To help remedy this situation,some ecotourism operations are developedin a collaborative effort with the host coun-try’s conservation organizations (e.g.http://www.treadlightly.com).

Establishing effective connections withthe marketplace is another area where localmountain ecotourism operators often fallshort. In some cases, difficulties arisebecause some products being offered arepoorly matched to the needs of the market-place. Others are priced too low to allowthe margin necessary to encourage theinvolvement of tour operators in the mar-keting of available products and services.In still other cases, due to a combination oflimited resources, geographic inaccessibilityand a lack of knowledge, mountain eco-tourism operators are simply unable toestablish links with suitable travel-tradepartners. Overall, there is a need toimprove the quality of existing packagesand to increase their availability in themarketplace.

Resource protection

To remain viable, mountain ecotourismmust be environmentally sustainable. Thisis an especially challenging task in moun-tain regions where climatic, topographic,vegetation and wildlife factors create frag-ile environments for most forms of landuse and economic activity. Ecotourismdevelopments must be fully aware of therealities when planning for the long-termprotection and sustainability of thesealpine ecosystems.

Indeed, situations already exist wherevarious forms of ecotourism developmentare being confronted with the challenges ofbalancing development with conservationand managed use (Price et al., 1997). Insuch areas, ecotourism operations are com-ing into conflict not only with other forms

214 P.W. Williams et al.

of alpine tourism (e.g. mountain biking,hunting, fishing and adventure tourism),but also with other resource sectors (e.g.forestry and mining) (Williams et al.,1998). In many cases this has led to signifi-cant increases in the stresses placed on nat-ural and cultural environments. However,in some instances, ecotourism has beenused in coordination with other economicsectors to help stabilize local economiesand secure more integrated land uses. Forinstance, in the southern Mexican State ofOaxaca, Zapotec communities have initi-ated a community-managed ecotourismstrategy. In their approach, revenues fromecotourism are combined with incomefrom a neighbouring community forestryproject to provide social security for thefamilies working in the enterprise.Ecotourism has also proved to be profitableenough to pay for a land survey, a first steptowards resolving long-standing problemsassociated with land tenure in the area(Suarez Bonilla, 1999). Similarly, in Peru,NGOs are playing an important role in sup-port of governmental agencies in protectedareas management. Through their effortsthey have attracted support from interna-tional conservation organizations andinvolve private and government organiza-tions in efforts to manage protected areasmore effectively. Emphasis has shiftedfrom strict preservation to sustainable useincluding ecotourism in appropriate areas(Suarez de Freitas, 1998).

More internally focused concerns havealso been raised about the field practices ofmany mountain ecotourism operators(waste and garbage disposal), the intensityof their resource use and the impact oftheir operations on wildlife and plant life(Herremans and Welsh, 1999). Lessons con-cerning best environmental practices andcodes of conduct in other mountain envi-ronments would serve to alleviate this con-cern (Hawkes and Williams, 1993; Wight,1999). For instance, in Asia, theAnnapurna Conservation Area Project inNepal presents a successful story in achiev-ing sustainable ecotourism through com-munity consultation and empowerment.The key elements in its success were multi-

ple land-use methods of resource manage-ment which combined environmental pro-tection and community development(Gurung and Coursey, 1994).

Conclusions

This chapter has focused on the four mainalpine regions of the world to illustratetrends and issues that pertain to the emerg-ing area of mountain-based ecotourism. Asin most other parts of the world, mountainecotourism is closely associated with pro-tected area systems. However, to a greaterextent than many other physical environ-ments, mountain ecotourism may be con-ceived as a form of tourism that hybridizesreadily with allied products such as cul-tural and adventure tourism. This con-tributes to a product base of unevenquality, which is problematic not only froma business standpoint, but also from theperspective of a physical environment thatis particularly vulnerable due to extremesof seasonality, slope, temperature, etc.

For those concerned with the sustain-able development of mountain regions,there are many challenges and opportuni-ties in balancing the local conditions ofindividual mountain regions and theircommunities with the demands of tourism.In this regard, mountain ecotourism devel-opment provides a useful option for help-ing to diversify mountain economies whilesustaining the resiliency of local communi-ties and their citizens. However, there aremany constraints and barriers that must beaddressed before this form of developmentcan be considered a truly effective contrib-utor to alpine regions. This chapter hasoutlined many of the more fundamentaland common challenges confrontingtourism operators interested in orchestrat-ing the delivery of mountain ecotourismexperiences.

To strengthen the viability and longer-term sustainability of mountain eco-tourism, a variety of strategic activitiesmust occur. While generally applicable tomost forms of small-scale tourismdevelopment, these proposed strategies are

Mountain Ecotourism 215

especially pertinent in a mountain eco-tourism context. They are as follows:

1. Enhancing product development by:• encouraging the exchange of experi-

ences and know-how regarding thedevelopment of ‘market ready’ moun-tain ecotourism products;

• developing consistent standards andcertification for ‘market ready’ moun-tain products.

2. Strengthening resource protection ini-tiatives by:

• developing local inventories ofunique and/or significant natural andcultural resources to be protected;

• encouraging operators and local com-munities to conserve and protectlocal natural and cultural resourcesthrough developing community-based codes of conduct;

• establishing community-based tech-niques for addressing priorities forresource use, resolving conflictsamong users and improving the man-agement of natural and culturalresources.

3. Encouraging human capacity building by:• identifying mountain ecotourism busi-

ness training needs and priorities;

• developing relevant training pro-grammes, resources and ‘how to’manuals;

• coordinating and providing access torelevant training opportunities.

Every mountain region includes a greatdiversity of stakeholders with specificinterests in the local economy and theresources on which it depends. Some ofthese interest groups are interested intourism while others are not. From amountain ecotourism perspective, the long-term sustainability of many operationsdepends on the support of those groupsthat make decisions affecting their activi-ties. As a corollary, these stakeholders can-not make informed decisions aboutecotourism developments without under-standing the diversity of multiple andchanging demands confronting these oper-ators. To address this situation, ongoingdialogue and collaboration between indus-try and community groups should occur.This chapter has presented some of the keyindustry priorities that should be central tothat dialogue.

216 P.W. Williams et al.

References

Banskota, K. and Sharma, B. (1995) Mountain Tourism in Nepal: an Overview. Discussion Paper MEI95/7, ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

BCMELP (1998) Commercial Recreation on Crown Land Policy. British Columbia Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia.

COFREMCA (1993) Pour un Repositionnement de l’Offre Tourisme-Loisirs des Alpes Francaises.COFREMCA, Paris.

Economic Planning Group of Canada (1999) On the Path To Success: Lessons from CanadianAdventure Travel and Ecotourism Operators. Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa.

Gerst, A. (1999) Yukon Wilderness Licensing Act: crafting legislation through consultation. In:Williams, P.W. and Budke, I. (eds) On Route To Sustainability: Best Practices In CanadianTourism. Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa and the Centre For Tourism Policy andResearch at Simon Fraser University.

Gill, A. and Williams, P.W. (1994) Managing growth in mountain tourism communities. TourismManagement 15, 212–220.

Gurung, C.P. and Coursey, D. (1994) The Annapurna Conservation Area Project: a pioneering ex-ample of sustainable tourism. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism: a SustainableOption? John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 177–194.

Hawkes, S. and Williams, P.W. (eds) (1993) The Greening of Tourism: from Principles to Practice – aCasebook of Best Environmental Practice in Tourism. Centre for Tourism Policy and Research,Burnaby; Simon Fraser University, in cooperation with Industry, Science and TechnologyCanada – Tourism Canada and Globe ’92.

Herremans, I.M. and Welsh, C. (1999) Developing and implementing a company’s ecotourism mis-sion statement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(1), 48–76.

Howe, J., McMahon, E. and Propst, L. (1997) Balancing Nature and Commerce in GatewayCommunities. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Kezi, J. (1998) Formulation of an ecotourism policy framework for Manitoba. Unpublished practicumreport, Masters of Natural Resources Management, Winnipeg.

Leitch, W. (1993) Parques Nacionales de Sudamérica. Guía Para el Visitante. Emecé Editores, BuenosAires.

Mallori, A.A. and Enote, J.E. (1996) Maintaining control: culture and tourism in the Pueblo of Zuni,New Mexico. In: Price, M.F. (ed.) People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, pp. 9–32.

May, V. (1991) Tourism, environment, and development: values, sustainability, and stewardship.Tourism Management 12(2), 112–118.

McConnell, R.M. (1991) Solving environmental problems caused by adventure travel in developingcountries: the Everest Expedition. Mountain Research and Development 11(4), 359–366.

Mountain Agenda (1999) Mountains of the World: Tourism and Sustainable Mountain Development.Centre For Development and Environment, Institute of Geography, University of Berne,Switzerland.

Muller, H. and Thiem, M. (1995) Cultural identity. The Tourist Review 4, 14–19. Price, M.F., Moss, L.A.G. and Williams, P.W. (1997) Tourism and amenity migration. In: Messerli, B.

and Ives, J.D. (eds) Mountains of the World: a Global Priority. Parthenon, London, pp. 249–280.Ritchie, J.R.B. (1998) Managing the human presence in ecologically sensitive tourism destinations:

insights from the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(4), 293–313. Rivas-Ortega, H. and Martínez-Coronado, J. (1989) La Carretera Austral: Un Espacio Incorporado al

Desarrollo Turístico. Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia.Schlüter, R.G. (1993) Ecotourism: a blessing or a curse? The case of San Carlos de Bariloche,

Argentina. World’s Eye-View 7(4), 8–11. Schlüter, R.G. (1997) Areas Protegidas y Turismo en Argentina. Ciet, Buenos Aires.Singh, T.V. (1989) The Kulu Valley: Impact of Tourism Development in the Mountain Areas.

Himalayan Book, New Delhi and Centre for Tourism Research and Development, Lucknow.Singh, T.V. and Kaur, J. (1985) In search of holistic tourism in the Himalaya. In: Singh, T.V. and Kaur,

J. (eds) Integrated Mountain Development. Himalayan Books, New Delhi, pp. 365–401.Sirakaya, E. (1995) Voluntary compliance of ecotour operations with ecotourism guidelines.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, Clemson University, South Carolina.Suarez Bonilla, A. (1999) Ecotourism: a basis for commitment to the land and opportunities for

young people. In: Mountain Agenda (ed.) Mountains of the World: Tourism and SustainableMountain Development. Centre For Development and Environment, Institute of Geography,University of Berne, Switzerland, p. 12.

Suarez de Freitas, G. (1998) Lessons from twelve years of NGO-government cooperation in protectedareas management in Peru. Environments 26(1), 58.

Thomlinson, E. and Getz, D. (1996) The question of scale in ecotourism: case study of two small eco-tour operators in the Mundo Maya region of Central America. Journal of Sustainable Tourism4(4), 183–200.

Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. (1992) National Parks and nature reserves in mountain environments anddevelopment. GeoJournal 27(1), 113–126.

UNEP (1994) Managing Tourism in Natural World Heritage Sites. Report of the InternationalWorkshop Held in Dakar, Senegal, November 1993. UNEP, Industry and Environment; UNESCO,World Heritage Centre.

Valaoras, G. (1999) Women’s co-operatives, rural renewal and conservation. In: Mountain Agenda(ed.) Mountains of the World: Tourism and Sustainable Mountain Development. Centre ForDevelopment and Environment, Institute of Geography, University of Berne, Switzerland, p. 16.

Walle, A.H. (1993) Tourism and traditional people: forging equitable strategies. Journal of TravelResearch 31(3), 14–19.

White, S., Williams, P.W. and Hood, T. (1998) Gearing up for aboriginal tourism delivery: the case ofFirstHost. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education 10(1), 6–12.

Wight, P. (1999) Catalogue of Exemplary Practices in Adventure Travel and Ecotourism. CanadianTourism Commission, Ottawa.

Mountain Ecotourism 217

Williams, P.W. (1999) Challenges and lessons on the route to sustainability. In: Williams, P. andBudke, I. (eds) On Route To Sustainability: Best Practices in Canadian Tourism. CanadianTourism Commission and Centre For Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University,Ottawa, pp. 1–4.

Williams, P.W. and Budke, I. (eds) (1999) On Route To Sustainability: Best Practices In CanadianTourism. Canadian Tourism Commission and the Centre For Tourism Policy and Research atSimon Fraser University, Ottawa.

Williams, P.W., Penrose, R.W. and Hawkes, S. (1998) Tourism industry perspectives on the Cariboo-Chilcotin CORE process: shared decision making? Environments: a Journal of InterdisciplinaryStudies 25(2 & 3), 48–63.

Yates-McGill, K. (1999) Valuing culture in a tourist economy. In: Mountain Agenda (ed.) Mountainsof the World: Tourism and Sustainable Mountain Development. Centre For Development andEnvironment, Institute of Geography, University of Berne, Switzerland, pp. 10–11.

Zimmerman, F.M. (1995) The alpine region: restructuring opportunities and constraints in a fragileenvironment. In: Montanari, A. and Williams, A.M. (eds) European Tourism: Regions, Spaces,and Restructuring. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 19–40.

218 P.W. Williams et al.

Chapter 14

Polar Environments

B. StonehouseScott-Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Introduction

Formerly renowned for their remotenessand cold, the two polar regions were forcenturies avoided by all but the hardiestindigenous people, explorers and exploiters.Now both are becoming popular touristvenues. Though fundamentally similar,they differ in interesting ways. Central tothe Arctic region lies the deep ArcticOcean basin, ringed by the northern shoresof Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Europe andAsia. A visitor to the North GeographicPole stands on slowly shifting pack iceclose to sea level. Central to the Antarcticregion lies the high plateau of continentalAntarctica. A visitor to the South Geo-graphic Pole stands on a plateau 2800 mabove the sea, on ice that is itself almost2800 m thick. Tourists may currently visiteither pole, travelling north by atomic ice-breaker or south in especially arrangedflights from South America. However, mostpolar tourism occurs in peripheral areas ofthe regions that are more readily accessibleand perhaps more interesting.

Both regions are cold and intensely sea-sonal, with long winter nights and longsummer days. Both have dry, anticyclonicclimates, frequently invaded by warm,moist air masses that bring snow, sleet orrain to their peripheries. The Arctic sup-

ports indigenous people who traditionallylive on its natural resources, hunting andgathering, fishing and herding reindeer.Arctic fringe lands have been hunted com-mercially for furs, and mined for metallicores and hydrocarbons. Arctic seas havebeen hunted for walrus ivory, seal skinsand oil, whales and fish. The Antarcticregion has neither indigenous humans,land mammals nor readily exploitable min-erals, but its coasts have been hunted forseals, its seas for whales and fish. Bothregions have proved resistant to civiliza-tion. Modern humans, children of the trop-ics, still find polar regions something of anadventure, and until the early 20th centuryboth remained free of industrial artefactsand pollutants. Tourism represents themost recent attempt by an industry toexploit these regions. What is polartourism? What resources does it exploit,and what are the chances of thoseresources being exploited sustainably?

Defining Polar Tourism

As Hall and Johnston (1995a) point out inthe opening chapter of their keynote sym-posium volume (1995b), the concept of‘polar tourism’ is subject to a conflictingrange of definitions, leading to confusion

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 219

when numerical comparisons are attempted.The two polar regions are defined in differ-ent ways for different purposes, and thereis no agreed use of the term ‘tourism’ thatgenerates comparable sets of statistics,either within or between the regions.

While Pearce’s (1992) general-purposedefinition of tourism as ‘journeys and tem-porary stays of people travelling primarilyfor leisure or recreational purposes’ servessuperficially for both the Arctic and theAntarctic, in neither is it rigorouslyapplied in segregating visitors with purelyrecreational motives. For the Antarctic,where since the Second World War govern-ment-sponsored research at scientific sta-tions has been the paramount activity, Hall(1992) defines tourism as ‘all existinghuman activities other than those directlyinvolved in scientific research and the nor-mal operation of government bases’. Thissatisfactorily includes both commercialtourism operations and recreational activi-ties of government personnel, and includesas ‘tourists’ the small but growing numbersof sky divers, parties ski-marching to andfrom the Pole, and others whose activitiesare neither scientific nor government-sponsored.

The Arctic presents a more complex pic-ture of indigenous populations minglingwith government servants, business visi-tors, and travellers with a variety of moti-vations. Incomers may be counted andassigned to statistical categories when theycross a political border, but residents whotravel for pleasure or recreation withintheir own state or province generallyescape the statistics. Hall and Johnston’s(1995a) definition of polar tourism as ‘alltravel for pleasure or adventure withinpolar regions, exclusive of travel for pri-marily governmental commercial, subsis-tence military or scientific purposes’addresses some but not all of these prob-lems.

Boundaries, Geography and Ecology

The polar circles (66°339 north and south),though boundaries of little ecological orpolitical significance, enclose equal areasand allow useful geographic comparisons.The Arctic Circle surrounds deep and shal-low oceans, lowland plains, forests, tundra,farmland, and towns and cities that sup-port a human population currently num-bering over 2 million. The Antarctic Circlesurrounds an almost entirely glaciateddesert continent ringed by coastal seas. Theland is without trees, shrubs or continuousground cover, and populated only by a fewhundred transient scientists and supportstaff.

Latitude for latitude, the southern hemi-sphere is uniformly colder than the north-ern, due mainly to the influence of the highcontinent (by far the world’s highest), ofwhich the ice cap rises almost to 4000 m.Winter and summer alike, surface air tem-peratures at the South Pole are 25–30°Ccolder than at the North Pole. Year-roundthe lowest Antarctic temperatures occurnot at the pole itself but at the highestpoint of the polar plateau. The inlandRussian station at Vostok each year recordsthe world’s lowest surface temperatures.Lowest Arctic summer temperatures occurhigh on the Greenland icecap, lowest win-ter temperatures in central Siberia, both ofwhich are remote from the North Pole andindeed from the polar basin.

In lower latitudes the southern hemi-sphere is more stable in temperaturethroughout the year, reflecting its higherproportion of ocean. Southern summers areslightly cooler, and winters slightlywarmer, than in equivalent latitudes of thenorthern hemisphere. In the far north thezonal pattern is disturbed by warm oceancurrents that carry heat into high latitudes,indeed well into the polar basin, providinga range of radically different climates. Themean temperature of the coldest wintermonth in Bergen, Norway, strongly influ-enced by the North Atlantic Drift, is 29°Chigher than at Okhotsk, Russian Federa-tion, in the same latitude, a differencegreater than the winter difference between

220 B. Stonehouse

Bergen and Acapulco, Mexico (Stonehouse,1989).

Biologists define polar regions not bythe polar circles, but by boundaries thatmore clearly relate to flora and fauna. TheArctic is defined by the tree-line, separat-ing boreal forest from forest tundra, theAntarctic by the Polar Front or AntarcticConvergence, a line in the ocean wherecold waters of polar origin disappear belowwarmer subtropical waters, separating dis-tinctive polar and sub-polar suites ofplanktonic plants and animals. As one is aland boundary and the other oceanic, it isdifficult to effect direct comparisonsbetween them. An alternative is the 10°Cisotherm for the warmest summer month,which effectively separates areas of warmand cool summers, on land or at sea.Defined by either of these boundaries, theArctic region covers almost twice the areacontained within the polar circles; theAntarctic region is almost twice as largeagain (Fig. 14.1).

Manned stations operate in or near thecoldest areas of both polar regions. Moretolerable living conditions occur mainly incoastal and low-altitude areas. While travelto either end of the Earth is possible all theyear round, nearly all scheduled tours arerestricted to three or four summer monthswhen weather is most congenial, andwildlife – a major attraction in both regions– is most accessible.

Exploitable Resources

Polar regions contain many naturalresources, both renewable and non-renew-able, that occur elsewhere in the world.Despite difficulties arising from distanceand inhospitable climates, many of thesehave already been exploited. Both polarregions have been subjected to whaling,sealing and fishing, generally to the seriousdetriment of stocks. North America andSiberia are important industrial sources ofmetal ores, petroleum and gas.

Tourism exploits both natural andhuman-based resources. Natural resourcesof particular interest to tour operators

include wilderness, scenic beauty andwildlife. Human-based resources includenative human communities, scientific sta-tions, and artefacts associated with the his-tory of exploration or exploitation, fromexplorers’ graves to abandoned mines, mil-itary installations and whaling stations.

Wilderness and scenery

Wilderness – loosely defined as landscapefrom which human artefacts and influencesare absent – is highly valued by touristsjaded by civilization. While both regionsinclude expanses of featureless marine orland ice, of little aesthetic appeal, Svalbardin the north and Antarctic Peninsula in thesouth especially are valued for their spec-tacular ice-capped mountains, tumblingglaciers, fjords, rocky headlands and islets.Volcanic action is rare in either region, butwhere it occurs, for example in centralIceland and Kamchatka in the north,Deception Island (South Shetland Islands)and Ross Island (McMurdo Sound) in thesouth, it emphasizes wilderness anddiminishes further the role of humans. Atone point on a well-trodden route in sub-Arctic Iceland, visitors may have theunusual experience of straddling one of theworld’s major geotectonic features, theMid-Atlantic Rift.

Terrestrial wildlife

Though neither polar area shows the vari-ety and density of plants and animals to beseen in most non-desert temperate or tropi-cal regions, Arctic visitors welcome thecolour and variety of summer and autumnvegetation, and both areas are rich in sum-mer wildlife. Arctic vegetation ranges fromforest-tundra, characteristic of the tree line,to tundra and polar desert, three biomesclearly derived by selective spreading fromcontiguous temperate lands, and represent-ing stages of impoverishment due toincreasing cold and aridity. Tundra, domi-nated by knee-high small shrubs, grassesand other flowering plants, with an

Polar Environments 221

222 B. Stonehouse

Fig. 14.1. Arctic (a) (above) and Antarctic (b) (opposite) regions, showing boundaries: the polar circles,10°C summer isotherms, northern treeline, Antarctic convergence.

understorey of mosses, liverworts andlichens, is protected in winter by blanket-ing snow. Polar desert, in the far north, isimpoverished by the loss of upstandingplants due to cold, aridity, lack of wintersnow, and strong winds, which only thehardiest, low-lying species can survive(Chernov, 1985).

As the winter snow melts, Arctic tundrabecomes predominantly green, then morecolourful with an outburst of spring flow-ers. Poor drainage, due to underlying per-mafrost (permanent ice in the subsoil),results in ponds, streams and bogs withemergent vegetation. Spring warming pro-

duces flushes of plant growth, soon fol-lowed by late-summer crops of berries andseeds that support browsing and grazingbirds and mammals. Abundant insectsincluding butterflies, moths, bees, beetles,and several species of mosquitoes and bit-ing flies, provide food for insectivorousbirds. Prominent among grazing birds aremigrant ducks, geese, swans and waders.Voles, mice, lemmings, hares and muskoxen are year-round tundra residents.Summer migrants include reindeer, caribouand moose that winter in the forests, andpolar bears which move into coastal landsfrom the sea ice (Sage, 1986).

(a)

Neither forest-tundra nor tundra occurin the Antarctic region. There is virtuallyno land to support them in the appropriatelatitudinal zone. Such peripheral islands asSouth Georgia and Iles Kerguelen supporttreeless floras of coastal tussock grass andupland fell-field, restricted in species duemainly to their isolation. The highAntarctic in summer remains icy (over95% of the coastline is ice cliff) or, in ice-free areas, predominantly brown, coveredby bare rock and scree, with thin polardesert vegetation. Not surprisingly, theAntarctic region has very few indigenousland birds, no indigenous land mammals,and no summer influx of terrestrialmigrants.

One reason for tourists to visit theArctic is to see the colourful spring array oftundra flowers, including gentians, dwarflupins and saxifrages. A relatively poorarea of Arctic tundra may support 50–60species of flowering plants, and polardesert at least a dozen species. By contrastthe whole Antarctic continent supportsonly two species of flowering plants, bothsmall and insignificant. South Georgia andother relatively mild islands of theSouthern Ocean, still within the 10°C sum-mer isotherm, have richer floras, though ofcuriously restricted composition, with fewflowering plants, and none of them colour-ful or striking.

Polar Environments 223

(b)

Marine and coastal wildlife

The Arctic Ocean basin supports little life.Even in summer, primary productivity of itssun-starved waters is low, and seabirds,seals and whales are scarce. Much richer arethe marginal areas around it, where sea icemelts in spring and winds and currents stirnutrients up from the depths. Polynyas –areas of sea kept free of sea ice in winter andspring by wind or currents – are especiallyrich. Surface waters support planktonic(floating) plants and invertebrates, notablycopepods and euphausiid shrimps thatbecome the main food of fish, inshore sealsand seabirds. Sub-arctic seas off Iceland andsouth-west Greenland, toward Svalbard,around North Cape, off Alaska, and east ofSiberia and Kamchatka, have long beenknown as good hunting grounds for whalesand seals. Their waters include some of theworld’s richest fishing and shrimpinggrounds, today supporting huge commercialfisheries. Seabirds, notably auks, guillemots,kittiwakes and other cliff-nesting species,return in their thousands every spring fortheir share of marine abundance.

The Southern Ocean is generally moredynamic, constantly exchanging waters

with other oceans, continuously stirred bywinds and currents. The Weddell and RossSeas, and some other near-continentalwaters have almost permanent coverings ofpack ice, and are biologically poor, thoughagain polynyas (see above) provide anom-alous patches of local enrichment. Otherseas, with seasonal pack ice, are richer insummer. Away from land between 35°Sand 55°S, where the ocean is relatively ice-free, surface waters are driven constantlyeastward by westerly winds. Where theirflow is diverted or interrupted, for exampleeast of the tip of Antarctic Peninsula anddownstream from the islands of the ScotiaArc, nutrients well up to the surface fromdeeper layers, creating enormous eddiesand patches of rich water where planktonproliferates. Squid, fish, birds, seals andwhales are attracted to these areas. Thebirds breed on nearby cliffs and strands,the seals breed on local beaches and seaice. The Southern Ocean supports some ofthe world’s largest flocks of seabirds,mostly petrels and penguins (Fig. 14.2).Both the 19th century sealing industry and20th century whaling drew their wealthfrom the same source.

224 B. Stonehouse

Fig. 14.2. Emperor penguins with chicks under the ice cliffs of the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Tourists visit thiscolony by icebreaker and helicopter (photograph: B. Stonehouse).

Human resources

The Arctic is home to a variety of humanpopulations, predominantly coastal orriverine, mostly nomadic hunters and gath-erers dependent on the meagre naturalresource base. Few of their modern repre-sentatives adhere strictly to traditionalways of life, but villages and camps ofAlaskan Indian trappers, Canadian Inuitfishermen and Scandinavian Saami rein-deer herders are of considerable interest totourists. Participation in hunting, herding,kayaking and other traditional activities(including shooting (under licence) ofbears and other game), are the focus ofmany organized tours throughout theArctic.

Of equal interest are historic artefacts,include the Viking settlements ofGreenland and eastern North America, thehuts, anchorages, graves and other evi-dence of early maritime explorers, thecamps, trails and settlements of 19th andearly 20th century prospectors and miners,and villages and townships that servicedthe early 20th century herring industry.More recent remnants of military, scientificand industrial installations, regarded bysome as rubbish to be cleared, by others aspotentially valuable industrial archaeology,are gradually acquiring historic interest.

Antarctica’s lack of indigenous popula-tion and short history of human occupationrestrict its human artefacts to a few 19thcentury sealing camps, late 19th and early20th century explorers’ huts, and the moor-ings, debris, hulks and derelict stations ofearly 20th century whaling. Of more gen-eral interest are the two to three dozen sci-entific stations currently in operation. Afew of these welcome tourist visits andprovide additional interest in the form ofnature trails and information. Most protecttheir research programmes by strictlyrationing visits, and diverting visitors awayfrom areas where research is in progress.

Sovereignty and Responsibility

Politically, Arctic lands and neighbouringseas are claimed by seven states: Canada,Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Norway,Russia, Sweden and the USA. Each owns,exercises sovereignty over, and takesresponsibility for lands and adjacentoceans within its sector. There are few dis-putes over sovereignty, and none currentlyaffecting tourism or its regulation. Throughthe mid-20th century, strategic implica-tions of the Cold War imposed severestrains on relationships between the Arcticnations. Most of these, however, have nowdisappeared, allowing for cooperation andconsultation, notably in areas of social,industrial and scientific development.

Each Arctic state exercises direct controlover polar tourism within its bounds, gen-erally favouring and encouraging the devel-opment of the industry, deploying someresponsibilities to local legislation andcommunities, and employing the kinds ofadministrative instruments that it uses inits non-polar areas. Remoteness of polartourist areas from seats of government mayplace them at a competitive disadvantage:non-polar areas are likely to be more acces-sible and more popular, to yield higher rev-enues and be better served and protectedby rangers and wardens.

Continental Antarctica too is claimed byseven states: Argentina, Australia, Chile,France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK.Claims of Argentina, Chile and the UKoverlap geographically: ownership of theseand other sectors is disputed by othernations, for example the USA and Russia,with interests in Antarctica. Governance iseffected through the Antarctic TreatySystem, based on a treaty to which 12nations agreed in 1961, and in which 26nations currently exercise ruling interests.The Treaty System operates within latitude60°S, but extends for certain purposes tothe Antarctic Convergence, the ecologicalboundary of Antarctica. Some peripheralislands within the Convergence remainunder national ownership and governance.Iles Crozet and Kerguelen are administeredby France, Macquarie and Heard islands by

Polar Environments 225

Australia, and South Georgia and the SouthSandwich Islands are governed by the UK,but claimed also by Argentina.

The prime concern of the AntarcticTreaty was to preserve the continent forpeace and science, objectives in which ithas so far succeeded admirably. The Treatycontained no references to tourism, butsubsequent instruments (collectively calledthe Antarctic Treaty System), notably theProtocol on Environmental Protection tothe Antarctic Treaty (HMSO, 1992),address a broad spectrum of environmentalissues, including those raised by tourism.Those most directly involved in adminis-tering the Antarctic Treaty System regardall problems arising from tourism as solu-ble within the terms of the System. Otherscan only hope that a Treaty System with nodirect capacity for wilderness managementor law enforcement may eventually suc-ceed in its self-appointed task of managingAntarctica, under the onslaught of a lively,expanding and diversifying tourist indus-try (Stonehouse, 1994a).

Hall and Johnston (1995a) assert that, atboth ends of the world, tourism is cur-rently being used to support territorialclaims. They cite as examples the creationof national parks and other protected areasalong the Northwest Passage by the govern-ment of Canada (procedures that are cur-rently mirrored by Siberian authoritiesalong the Northeast Passage), and the spe-cial interest shown by Australia, Argentinaand Chile in developing Antarctic tourism.Other ways in which these political issuesaffect management of polar tourism are dis-cussed more fully below.

The Industry at Work

Tourism has a relatively short history ineither polar region. In the Arctic, summercruises to Svalbard, Alaska and theCanadian north became popular during themid-to-late 19th century, for trophy hunt-ing and wilderness appreciation. Moderntourism has only recently developed to apoint where it begins to overtake moretraditional uses of natural resources: hunt-

ing, agriculture and mining. Tours areoperated both by indigenous groups, usu-ally small and locally based, and by majoroperators based far from the Arctic.Collectively they offer a wide and diversemenu of recreational experience, frombackpacking, skiing, dog-sledging andcanoeing to luxury cruising.

In contrast, Antarctic tourism beganonly in the late 1950s. In the absence ofindigenous people and settlements, itsoperators are based entirely outside thearea, and its development has so far beenmore limited in scope and variety.Currently over 97% of tourists that land inAntarctica are shipborne, using their shipsas mobile hotels and leaving them only forbrief visits ashore. The rest are airborne,landing for spells of camping, climbing orskiing from field camps. Recent develop-ments include overflights by aircraft fromChile and Australia, and cruises by linerscapable of carrying over 1000 passengers,neither of which release tourists ashore.

Forms of tourism

In its simplest forms, Arctic tourism pre-sents natural resources raw and unadorned.Outfitting and guiding small parties ofbackpackers, for example, are relativelysimple, low-cost operations, requiring littlecapital investment and yielding concomi-tantly low returns. More complex forms oftourism enhance the resources throughcapital investment, for example in roadsand airstrips that provide access, coachesand cruise liners that bring in more clients,and hotels that provide sophisticatedaccommodation and amenities of civiliza-tion on the wilderness fringe. Enhance-ments add value to the operations andprovide higher returns, but usually resultin greater impacts on the amenitiesexploited.

Antarctica’s remoteness and difficultiesof access prohibit such simple forms oftourism as independent backpacking.There is no infrastructure of roads andhotels: visitors must first be brought in bycruise ship, yacht or aircraft, all expensive

226 B. Stonehouse

forms of logistic support, involving sub-stantial capital investment and the possi-bility (as yet fortunately unrealized) ofsubstantial negative impacts.

Shipborne tourism, common to bothregions, includes both scenic cruising byocean-going liners, which to increasingextents include polar regions in theirworldwide itineraries, but do not normallyland passengers, and adventure cruising bysmaller ships, which operate coastally andmake a point of frequent passenger land-ings. Scenic cruising brings cruise linerswith passenger capacity of 1000 and moreto the fjords and waterways of Alaska, east-ern Canada and Svalbard, and has recently(2000) brought the first liner of this size tothe Antarctic Peninsula. Built for speedand comfort, few of these ships are ice-strengthened, and their scope for polar travelis limited to a relatively few safe routes.

Adventure cruising was devised by thetravel entrepreneur Lars-Eric Lindblad tolead clients away from the well-troddentourist paths. Particularly appropriatewhere there is no infrastructure of hotels orother amenities ashore, it is the main formof tourism practised in Antarctica, and is

becoming increasingly popular in theArctic: the same ships and cruise operatorswork three to four summer months alter-nately at either end of the world.Adventure cruising involves small, ice-strengthened ships carrying 50–150 pas-sengers (rarely up to 500), cruising for 8–15days and landing passengers once, twice orthrice daily, usually by inflatable boats(Stonehouse, 1994b). At each landing thepassengers spend 1–3 h ashore, then re-embark and move on to the next venue.Landings may alternate with sightseeing byboat and, in certain ships, with helicopterflights. Between cruises the ship returns toa gateway port to re-fuel, restock and takeon new passengers.

Both scenic cruising and adventurecruising offer opportunities for influencingpassenger activities and behaviour. Lindbladensured, through lectures and other on-board presentations, that passengers on hiscruises were well-briefed on environmentalprotection. This ethic particularly suitedthe prosperous, conservation-minded pas-sengers who made up his clientele, andstill characterizes adventure cruising inboth polar regions.

Polar Environments 227

Fig. 14.3. Ship-borne tourists enjoy calm seas and summer sunshine along the fjord coast of the AntarcticPeninsula (photograph: B. Stonehouse).

Numbers of tourists

From neither polar region is it easy forresearchers to wring the statistics and otheressential information needed to judge theimpacts of tourism. There is no singlelibrary with a comprehensive archive ofArctic, Antarctic or polar tourism, and nosingle authority responsible for recordingbasic statistics of the industry (Stonehouse,1994c).

Compared with similar-sized regionselsewhere in the world, neither regionattracts large numbers of tourists. Totalnumbers visiting the Arctic are impossibleto determine. Governments responsible fornorthern regions that include sectors of theArctic seldom distinguish ‘arctic’ from‘non-arctic’ areas of their regions. Whilefigures for Svalbard are reasonably accu-rate, those for northern Siberia are hard tocome by. Johnston’s (1995) tabulated fig-ures for Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard,northern Scandinavia, Alaska, Yukon andNorthwest Territories, for a range of yearsbetween 1988 and 1994, indicate an annualtotal of about 400,000, but emphasize thedifficulties of achieving even estimates. Incomparison with visitor figures for morepopular venues, and in relation to the enor-mous area involved, this is not a large total:individual national parks in Europe andthe USA receive more.

Reliable figures showing trends in num-bers are even harder to ascertain. MostArctic governments within the past 10years have sought to promote tourismwithin their sectors, and increasing num-bers of ships and aircraft each year carrypassengers to Svalbard, Iceland, Greenland,northern Canada and Siberia. Slow butsteady increases seem likely in all sectors.For the Antarctic, statistics are more reli-able and readily available. Commerciallyorganized cruises to Antarctica began in1958, and tours ships have visitedAntarctica every year since 1966 (Stone-house, 1994b). The industry has grownslowly and irregularly. Numbers of ship-borne passengers rose to a peak of over3500 in 1974/75, declined to fewer than1000 in 1980, and rose again by the mid-

1980s to over 2000. Figures for the past 12years, published annually by theInternational Association of AntarcticaTours Operators (IAATO), indicate a slow,erratic increase from 5000 to 9000 through-out the late 1980s and 1990s, and a currentvalue (1999/2000) exceeding 12,000. Num-bers of airborne passengers landing inAntarctica remain small in comparison,possibly amounting to 200–300 per year.

Fragility and Sustainability

Developments in tourism, as in otherfields, are deemed sustainable if they useresources in ways that meet the needs ofthe current generation without compromis-ing those of future generations. The naturalassets on which polar tourism so heavilydepend, notably scenery, wilderness andwildlife, are particularly vulnerable tohuman activities. Because of their relativeemptiness, polar regions are especially vul-nerable to changes, whether purposeful orunintentional, brought about by develop-ment. Scars remain far longer than in tem-perate or tropical latitudes.

Polar ecosystems have been character-ized as ‘fragile’, i.e. more susceptible tohuman disturbance, and less capable ofself-regeneration and recovery, than tem-perate or tropical systems. This concept, ofkey importance in the management of polartourism, contains elements both of truthand of ignorance. Changes occur all thetime in polar ecosystems, whether or nothumans are present. When the cause ofsome particularly striking change isunknown, the currently fashionable butanthropocentric view prevails that humansare to blame, and must be restrained.Ignorance can thus be used to restricttourist activities of all kinds, from visitingpenguin colonies to walking on vegetation.

Some ardent conservationists go so faras to argue that the ‘environmentalfragility’ of polar regions demands nothingless than their complete, unconditionalprotection from all forms of human devel-opment. Others no less concerned withprotection perceive dangers in thus setting

228 B. Stonehouse

parts of the world off-limits to humanity.What we cannot visit, we are unlikelyeither to cherish or seek to understand.Areas excluded from human interest willeffectively be excluded from environmen-tal responsibility and protection, and per-haps vulnerable to clandestine andirresponsible development.

As our knowledge of polar ecosystemsincreases, the concept of fragility is givingway to an alternative view, that polarecosystems, existing in some of Earth’smost testing environmental conditions, aretough enough to withstand major perturba-tions, including many of those brought aboutby tourists. They have considerable naturalcapacity for regeneration, which maysometimes be enhanced or manipulated tospeed recovery. Invoking ‘environmentalfragility’ to protect polar environmentsshould be recognized as an admission ofignorance, for which the remedy is appliedresearch.

An example from polar soils

Polar soils and vegetation in particular areregarded by many as ‘fragile’: for a reviewof relevant literature and arguments seeStonehouse (1999, 2001). Walker et al.(1987) and Strandberg (1997), have createda terminology useful in considering distur-bance and damage to soil ecosystems,which can equally be applied to a range ofother ecosystems that, within the contextof tourism, are subject to human interfer-ence and damage.

• Disturbance denotes a change in condi-tions which displaces an ecosystembeyond its normal limits of variation, orinterferes with the normal functioningof a biological system.

• Resistance denotes the ability of a sys-tem to withstand displacement from agiven state.

• Resilience measures the degree, mannerand pace of recovery of an ecosystem toits original state after disturbance. Highresilience describes a system that recov-ers rapidly after disturbance, low

resilience, one that recovers slowly ornot at all.

• Recovery is the process by which anecosystem achieves biological and phys-ical stability following disturbance.Recovery potential is a measure of thecapacity of an ecosystem to recover.Complete recovery denotes recovery toan original state. Functional recoverydenotes recovery to stability at a leveldifferent from the original.

In these terms, ‘fragile’ ecosystems wouldbe those that demonstrate low resistance todisturbance, low resilience, and low ratesof recovery, perhaps only to a limited stateof functional recovery.

Mechanical disturbance of soils, bywalking, excavating or moving loads acrossthem, interferes with normal soil pro-cesses, but results in damage only if severeenough to overcome the soil’s inherentresistance and resilience, preventing eithercomplete or functional recovery. Inten-tional disturbance, for example by layingroads or erecting buildings, is usually sanc-tioned on grounds of expediency. It is,however, usually accompanied by inciden-tal disturbance, for example campsites,rubbish dumps and vehicular tracks acrossthe tundra, which is often responsible formore of the total damage.

Disturbance of either kind often leads tosubsequent damage by natural causes.Rutted roads may become drainage chan-nels, bulldozed surfaces extended by wind-stripping. Walker et al. (1987) present anindex of severity of disturbance, essentiallythe area of final disturbance, divided by thearea originally disturbed by human activ-ity. Their highest reported ratio, up to 2.6,resulted from mechanical stripping of soiland vegetation. Trampling by humans,often cited as a cause of severe environ-mental damage, generally produced ratiosof one or less, indicating no spread and anelement of natural recovery.

Polar soils and vegetation have evolvedin the presence of considerable non-humanor natural disturbances, including climaticinstability, landslides, trampling and scrap-ing by animals, and pollution by salt water,

Polar Environments 229

much of it far more disruptive than anthro-pogenic damage. Clearly, they have naturalmeans of recovery, which must be of inter-est to those who seek to repair man-madechanges. Walker et al. (1987), Crawford(1997) and Iskandar et al. (1997) havereviewed possibilities of remediation byenhancing the soil’s natural capacity forself-regeneration. Self-restoration occurs,though usually at rates that are too slow tobe generally acceptable. Artificial enhance-ment of natural processes, to speed upregeneration, is usually an option in practi-cal site management.

In managing areas where polar soils arelikely to be disturbed by humans, the firstconsideration must be conservation: wiseuse that, so far as possible, avoids damagealtogether. Where damage occurs, it is nec-essary to identify the source, if possible tohalt or abate it, alternatively to decide on alevel of damage that can be tolerated. Thismay require radical re-thinking of manage-ment policies or objectives. Then itbecomes necessary to monitor the rate ofdamage and, if the level of toleration isexceeded, to stop further disturbance anddecide on a level of rehabilitation. Shouldthe site be restored completely to its pris-tine condition, or partially to a point thatfacilitates functional recovery? Howquickly is restoration required, and whatintermediate stages are regarded as evi-dence of progress?

Much the same principles apply to otheraspects of polar environments wherehuman activities effect disturbance. Soundmanagement, based on understanding ofnatural processes, cannot fail to providemore effective environmental protectionthan invocations of ‘fragility’.

A model for development

Butler’s (1991) discussion of sustainabledevelopment in relation to sensitive envi-ronments is directly relevant to polarregions, and McKercher (1993) provides asimple model of development that isequally applicable. The concept of sustain-able development concedes that part of a

natural resource base may be expended inorder to create a man-made asset of at leastequivalent value. In McKercher’s model,should a natural asset of value V be modi-fied by development to create a man-madeasset of value M, leaving a residue of valueR, then the development may be deemedsustainable if M + R equals or exceeds V.

An example involving Arctic tourismcould be a wilderness area of particularbeauty, perhaps in Svalbard or northernAlaska, which is becoming increasinglypopular among backpackers and campers.In the absence of a designated campsite,visitors camp all over the area, spoiling theamenity for each other. Designating acampsite, however tactfully, forfeits someof the wilderness value and natural beauty,but enables campers to use the area with-out further loss of amenity. ApplyingMcKercher’s model, V represents the valueof the original area to mankind, M that ofthe campsite, and R the remaining beauty.If M + R equal V, the development is sus-tainable.

Should the demarcated site prove pooror ill-considered, then M + R falls short ofV, denoting a decline in value. Should noaction be taken to control the camping,then the original value V would decline asamenity deteriorated. Should the authorityprohibit camping, fewer people would visitthe site and V – the value to mankind –would decline accordingly. If both campingand visiting were prohibited, V would becompletely devalued. Should provision ofthe campsite allow more campers to usethe area without loss of amenity, then Vwould increase accordingly.

This simple model of sustainable devel-opment assigns no units to M, R and V, andis subject to abuse by conservationists anddevelopers alike. However, it contains animportant underlying principle. Conserva-tionists may fear that virtually any expen-diture of natural assets in the name ofsustainable development, without an eco-logical imperative, must sooner or laterdegenerate to non-sustainable develop-ment. Developers, including tour operatorswho provide facilities for people to traveland enjoy natural assets, are equally fearful

230 B. Stonehouse

that some aspects of their work – wilder-ness and adventure tourism especially –will be curtailed if the conservationist viewalone is considered. So McKercher’smodel, with all its limitations, is worthkeeping in mind when considering polartourism or any other form of developmentthat aspires to sustainability.

The model may be applied not only toareas of tundra and forest, but equally tohuman values and traditions. It is espe-cially relevant in Arctic areas wheretourism brings income to poor communi-ties. In Antarctica, tourists welcome a lackof infrastructure ashore: wilderness isexpected, and may be enjoyed withoutenhancement. In the Arctic, it would be anunwise operator who landed passengers ina simple fishing village without ensuringsome infrastructure – coaches, a coffeeshop, toilets, information or other ameni-ties – to soften impacts and bring compen-satory benefits to the hosts.

Managing Polar Tourism

Though polar regions at either end of theworld tend to be dominated by govern-ments, they tend also to be neglected polit-ically and starved of funds. Voters are few,and revenues for management are scarce.Earlier exploiters, whether whalers, sealersor mining consortia, worked virtuallyunhampered by regulation, with devastat-ing results. Some recent forms of develop-ment, for example provision of pipelinesfor transporting hydrocarbons in ArcticNorth America (though less so in Siberia),have been subject to stricter controls. Cantourism, the most recent and rapidly devel-oping industrial exploitation of polarregions, be managed effectively?

In the Arctic, every area of land andinshore water of interest to tour operatorscomes directly under the control of a sover-eign government that has both the respon-sibility and the capacity to regulate tourismwithin its boundaries. Drawing upon expe-rience gained in warmer latitudes, eachgovernment has set up national parks andreserves, providing appropriate legislation

and systems of governance. Several havepublished short-term and long-term strate-gic plans, including provision for tourism,based on established principles of wilder-ness management. All have provided somelevel of ranging and policing to ensure thatregulations are respected. However, rev-enues from tourist visits are small: evenwith subsidies, there is seldom provisionfor more than token field staff, to coverenormous areas of park or reserve and dealwith the many problems that tourists – par-ticularly naive, irresponsible or ill-managed tourists – can bring.

In Antarctica the claimant states haveeffectively surrendered sovereign rightsand responsibilities to the Treaty System,including rights to set up and managenational parks and reserves in whichtourism might effectively be controlled.Governments that are signatory to theTreaty can control the activities of theirown nationals in Antarctica under domes-tic legislation drawn up in accord withTreaty deliberations. Neither individuallynor collectively can they directly manageareas that are being visited annually bythousands of tourists, areas that, in theArctic or elsewhere, might be judged to beat risk. In a few instances this has beenover-ridden by common sense. NewZealand does not permit tourists to enterthe historic huts of British explorers Scottand Shackleton, dating from the early 20thcentury and lying within its sector, exceptin the presence of a government-appointedwarden.

Development of self-regulation

Absence of legislation during the earlydays of Antarctic tourism produced aninteresting form of self-regulation. Whenship-borne tourism began, almost simulta-neously with the Antarctic Treaty, princi-ples of management were developed by thetour operators themselves, notably by Lars-Eric Lindblad (see ‘Forms of tourism’above). As the industry grew, cruise opera-tors (again inspired by Lindblad) formed acoalition, the International Association of

Polar Environments 231

Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), whichissued guidelines and codes of conductboth for its members and for their clientsashore. Later the Treaty issued recommen-dations for visitors and similar guidelinesof its own. However, it was the industry,not the regulating body, that first rose tothe occasion.

While accepting the overall authority ofthe Treaty System and working consis-tently within it, the industry in practicecontinues to exercise both self-regulationand a keen sense of environmental respon-sibility. The more forward-looking com-panies go beyond the IAATO guidelines inproducing their own manuals of good prac-tice, conforming to Treaty regulations andwhere possible anticipating future legislation.

Self-regulation and sovereignty

In theory at least, Arctic tourist areas undersovereignty should be better protected thanAntarctic areas under a well-intentionedbut clumsy international regime. Self-regu-lation by an industry must be preferable toanarchy, but regulation by a sovereignpower must surely be better than either. Isnot Svalbard, for example, better protectedfrom impacts of ship-borne tourism thanthe Antarctic Peninsula? In practice it maynot be. Svalbard is well endowed withparks for recreation and reserves for envi-ronmental protection, which land-basedtour operators, on the whole, respect.However, not all of its ship-borne touroperators follow the Lindblad pattern ofindoctrinating their clients, or subscribe toIAATO-style guidelines and codes of con-duct. During recent visits to landing sitesin Svalbard I have met tourists who havebeen put ashore from cruise ships withoutbenefit of education or briefing, seen litteron beaches, and witnessed disturbance ofbird nesting colonies, all rare occurrencesin Antarctica.

The government of Svalbard has powersto police its beaches, and provides bothrangers and law enforcement officersthroughout the tourist season. Yet numbersof ships, cruises and tourists are increasing

rapidly: already the archipelago receivesalmost three times as many tourists annu-ally as the Antarctic Peninsula. A small corpsof enforcement officers, even one equippedwith zodiacs (inflatable boats) and a heli-copter, cannot be everywhere at once.

In this respect at least, Antarctica seemsbetter protected under guidelines drawn upby a responsible industry and endorsed bya government that lacks powers of enforce-ment, than Svalbard under sovereign legis-lation with inadequate powers ofenforcement. A recent initiative by WorldWide Fund Arctic (Humphreys et al., 1998)has sought to remedy this situation, draw-ing up guidelines and codes of conduct forArctic tour operators similar to those thathave proved successful in Antarctica.

Conclusion: a Principle forManagement

This example illustrates a general problemin development of polar tourism. Polarregions are ripe for development, butthinly populated. In well-regulated com-munities and in wilderness, entrepreneursof tourism consistently force the pace onregulating authorities, far outstripping thecapacities of government servants to mod-ify legislation, or field officers to provideeffective policing.

While responsible self-regulation in thetourist industry is a blessing, it cannot berelied on entirely to protect polar regions.Not all tour operators follow codes of con-duct, even their own. Self-regulation in thebest companies does not compel goodbehaviour among the less responsible, andcowboys, though generally held at bay byhigh costs, may move in at any time.Should we even consider leaving regula-tion largely to the industry, when for everyLindblad there are a dozen opportunists?

Management of polar tourism cannot beadversarial: developers and regulators needto find roles that are complementary, anddivide responsibilities as even-handedly aspossible between them. The essential rolefor tour operators, whether ship-borne orland-based, is to draw up sensible guide-

232 B. Stonehouse

lines and codes of conduct for themselves,that reflect the best and most effective prac-tices within their industries. It is best thatthe entrepreneurs themselves, or very well-informed and experienced third parties,draw up the codes, for they alone havepractical knowledge of what is needed. It isin their interests to produce sound rules,and to abide by them. If they do not, theymay be sure that governments will draw upalternative rules, designed to suit their ownconvenience of administration, with littleinsight into working practices.

The role for regulating bodies is equallyclear. They need to scrutinize and criticallyendorse the operators’ codes of conduct,ensuring that they are consistent with legis-lation, and to provide inspection to ensurethat the codes are fully and properlyobserved. Fears that this policy gives toofree a hand to the operators, and withholdstoo much responsibility from the regulators,are unfounded. A code of conduct mustnecessarily conform to existing law, and theregulating body has the right to confirm thatit does. Inspection, rather than policing,then becomes the rational follow-up.

Is there a role for enforcement? Whilefew would dispute the need, policing theseextensive and thinly populated regions isbarely practicable, and less to be relied onthan responsible self-regulation. In theArctic police and rangers are few and farbetween: under existing legislation theyhave no equivalent in the Antarctic. Effec-tive enforcement is a professional business,which cannot be left to amateurs.Collecting evidence of violations requiresknowledge and skills equal at least to thoseof good defence lawyers.

As we have witnessed elsewhere in theworld, tourism is a substantial force withstrong powers for good or evil.Responsible as they are for vulnerableenvironments and communities, polarauthorities and tour operators alike needto take it very seriously, and harness itspowers as efficiently as possible for good.The lessons they learn from managing thisnew and burgeoning industry may well beapplicable in other fields of development,from which neither end of the Earth islikely to be immune in the very nearfuture.

Polar Environments 233

References

Butler, R.W. (1991) Tourism, environment and sustainable development. EnvironmentalConservation 18(3), 201–209.

Chernov, Yu. I. (1985) The Living Tundra. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Crawford, R.M.M. (ed.) (1997) Disturbance and recovery in Arctic lands. Proceedings of the NATO

Advanced Research Workshop on Disturbance and Recovery of Arctic Terrestrial Ecosystems,Rovaniemi, Finland, 24–30 September 1995. NATO Advanced Science Institutes, Series 2, Vol.25. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Hall, C.M. (1992) Tourism in Antarctica: activities, impacts and management. Journal of TravelResearch 30(4), 2–9.

Hall, C.M. and Johnston, M. (1995a) Introduction: pole to pole: tourism impacts and the search for amanagement regime in polar regions. In: Hall, C.M. and Johnston, M. (eds) Polar Tourism:Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 1–26.

Hall, C.M. and Johnston, M. (eds) (1995b) Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and AntarcticRegions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

HMSO (1992) Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, with Final Act of theEleventh Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting. Cmd 1960, Miscellaneous No. 6.HMSO, London.

Humphreys, B.H., Pedersen, Å.Ø., Prokosch, P.P. and Stonehouse, B. (eds) (1998) Linking tourismand conservation in the Arctic. Proceedings from Workshops 20–22 January 1996 and7–10 March 1997, Longyearbyen, Svalbard. Norsk Polarinstitutt Meddelelser No. 159, pp. 49–58.

Iskandar, I.K., Wright, E.A., Radke, J.K., Sharratt, B.S., Groenevelt, P.H. and Hinzman, L.D. (eds)(1997) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Physics, Chemistry and Ecology ofSeasonally Frozen Soils, Fairbanks, Alaska, 10–12 June 1997. CRREL Special Report, pp. 97–100.

Johnston, M. (1995) Patterns and issues in Arctic and Sub-Arctic tourism. In: Hall, C.M. andJohnston, M. (eds) Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, pp. 27–42.

McKercher, B. (1993) The unrecognized threat to tourism: can tourism survive ‘sustainability’.Tourism Management 14(2), 131–136.

Pearce, D.G. (1992) Tourist Development, 2nd edn. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, UK.Sage, B. (1986) The Arctic and its Wildlife. Croom Helm, Beckenham, UK.Stonehouse, B. (1989) Polar Ecology. Blackie, Glasgow.Stonehouse, B. (1994a) Tourism and protected areas. In: Lewis Smith, R.I., Walton, D.W.H. and

Dingwall, P.R. (eds) Improving the Antarctic Protected Areas. IUCN, Cambridge, pp. 76–83.Stonehouse, B. (1994b) Ecotourism in Antarctica. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism: a

Sustainable Option. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 195–212.Stonehouse, B. (1994c) Polar tourism: do library resources meet researchers’ information needs? In:

Walton, D.W.H., Mills, W. and Phillips, C.M. (eds) Bipolar Information Initiatives: Proceedingsof the 15th Polar Libraries Colloquy. Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, pp. 25–28.

Stonehouse, B. (1999) Biological processes in cold soils. Polar Record 35(192), 5–10.Stonehouse, B. (2001) Remediation and restoration of frozen ground: a terminology. Polar Record 37,

(in press).Strandberg, B. (1997) Vegetation recovery following anthropogenic disturbance in Greenland. In:

Crawford, R.R.M. (ed.) Disturbance and Recovery in Arctic Lands. Proceedings of the NATOAdvanced Research Workshop on Disturbance and Recovery of Arctic Terrestrial Ecosystems,Rovaniemi, Finland, 24–30 September 1995. NATO Advanced Science Institutes, Series 2, Vol.25. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 381–390.

Walker, D.A., Cate, D., Brown, J. and Racine, C. (1987) Disturbance and Recovery of Arctic AlaskanTundra Terrain. CRREL Report 87–11, Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

234 B. Stonehouse

Chapter 15

Islands and Coasts

E.A. HalpennyNature Tourism Solutions, Almonte, Ontario, Canada

Introduction

The presence of ecotourism in coastal areasand islands has grown rapidly during thelast 30 years, in concert with the progres-sion of the field and the explosive growthof tourism. This chapter explores the phe-nomenon of ecotourism within these twosimilar and yet unique environments. First,coastal areas and islands will be defined,and the differences and similarities thatcharacterize ecotourism activity in thesetwo environments will be outlined. Anoverview of how these two environmentsdiffer from other environments where eco-tourism takes place will also be under-taken. This will be followed by anexamination of the spatial distribution ofecotourism within coastal and island set-tings, as well as an analysis of recenttrends in the growth and magnitude of eco-tourism in these environments. Finallyspecial attention will be paid to develop-ment issues arising from ecotourism’sappearance and expansion in coastal andisland destinations. This will include anexploration of the role of planning, financ-ing, marketing, product development, play-ers involved, and the challenge ofmaintaining or improving cultural, socialand economic integrity.

Characteristics of Coastal and Island Ecotourism

Coastal and island environments sharemany of the same challenges and opportu-nities. This understanding is reflected inArticle 25 of the Programme of Action fromthe United Nations Conference on theSustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States: ‘Sustainable develop-ment in small island developing Statesdepends largely on coastal and marineresources, because their small land areameans that those States are effectivelycoastal entities’ (1994). These shared char-acteristics play a leading role in determin-ing the success of ecotourism in suchsettings.

Shared characteristics

Islands and coastal areas share a maritimetradition, and the most dominant forceaffecting them is the sea, be it an ocean,coastal estuary, or large inland lake.Historically the dominant human activitiesin these settings have been extractive activ-ities such as fishing and forestry and thetrade and shipping that followed. In thelatter part of the 20th century, coasts andislands became preferred venues for sun,

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 235

sand and sea tourism. This more venerableform of tourism can often come into con-flict with ecotourism, one of the mostrecent activities that has arisen as an alter-native livelihood for island and coastalcommunities.

Both islands and coastal areas can belabelled as critical, vulnerable environ-ments. They both face similar challenges.Coasts, situated on an island or mainlandreceive all the runoff and waste frominland sources such as manufacturing,extractive and agricultural industries.Rivers flowing out to sea carry sedimentsand pollutants that can have a profoundimpact on the health of coastal ecosystems.Coastal elements such as coral reefs andsea grass beds are under increasing pres-sure from these land-based sources of pol-lution. Sea-based threats, for instanceillegal dumping of waste from cruise shipsand accidental oil spills, play an equallysalient role. Direct negative impacts bymarine recreationists, for example scuba-divers breaking off coral, have been welldocumented but play a relatively minorrole when compared with the threat posedby activities such as dynamite fishing orimproperly treated sewage outflows fromtourism centres and cities.

Coasts and islands are also impactedupon by maritime sources. Storms aremajor builders and destroyers of coasts.This natural process in recent years seemsto be accelerating, as exhibited by larger,more frequent and prolonged storm sys-tems. Many believe that this may be a trendresulting from global warming, a phenome-non that puts coasts and islands underincreased threat and perhaps eventualannihilation as polar ice caps continue tomelt, contributing to rising sea levels.Popular ecotourism destinations are underthreat from this phenomenon. For example,Shah (1995) states that 70% of theSeychelles land area may be lost due to cli-mate change.

Overuse and contamination of naturalresources on islands and mainland coastsare other common concerns. Water is avaluable and vulnerable commodity forboth islands and coasts. Coastal areas have

become a popular destination not only tovisit but also to settle and work. A highportion of the world’s population liveswithin 100 km of the world’s coastlines.Depletion of surface and undergroundsources is an especially serious and preva-lent concern, particularly in areas of lowrainfall. Depletion of island aquifers canlead to salinization of the groundwater.Freshwater aquifers can also be contami-nated by human waste from undergroundwaste-management systems. Contaminationby waste products not only ruins potablewater, but can result in nutrient loadingproblems for coastal features such as coralreefs through underground migration ofwastes to the ocean. Some tourism destina-tions are taking steps to address theseissues. One example is in Akulmal,Mexico, which is the gateway to the south-ern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Here,above-ground, hydroponic, human wastetreatment facilities called ‘created wet-lands’ are being used by residents andhotels as local geology makes undergroundwaste-management facilities such as septicsystems a danger to coastal marine systems.

Differences between islands and coasts

In general, islands face a greater threat totheir natural resources than mainlandcoasts, as island resources are generallymore limited in number and size. In theSeychelles, a popular ecotourism and masstourism destination, water is collectedfrom rainwater catchments and wells. Thegroundwater aquifer on many of the coralislands is in the form of a lens-like bodywhere fresh water which has percolatedthrough the island rock floats on the moredense saline sea water beneath. Excessiveuse of the freshwater can lead to sea waterintrusion. Within the archipelago theisland of Coetivy has experienced this dis-aster (Shah, 1995).

Islands exhibit further dissimilarities, orperhaps more accurately, special character-istics which make them different frommainland coasts. This in turn of courseaffects their ability to host ecotourism sus-

236 E.A. Halpenny

tainably. As indicated above, islands sufferfrom limited resources, and the balance ofresource use can be much more criticalthan that found in mainland coastal envi-ronments due to isolation. Islands are alsocharacterized by limited space. They alsofeature fewer ecosystems and speciesdiversity than mainlands. However, a highdegree of endemism, characteristic of manyislands, has developed due to isolation(Hall, 1993). Species endemism or unique-ness, where animals and plants can befound nowhere else in the world, is themain attraction at ecotourism destinationssuch as the Galapagos and Madagascar. Forexample in the Galapagos 95% of the rep-tiles, 50% of the birds, 42% of the landplants, 70–80% of the insects and 17% ofthe fish live nowhere else in the world(Honey, 1999).

Spatial limitations on islands oftenencourage the development of ecotourismrather than mass tourism, as ecotourism’ssmall scale is more suited to this context.An example of this is the size of the airportlanding strip in Dominica. The short land-ing strip, in part due to lack of flat terrain,has contributed to the slow growth oftourism on the island and has encouragedthe development of niche market tourismrather than the more mainstream sun, sandand sea tourism. Limited space also plays abig role in the disposal of wastes onislands. Solid waste disposal is an espe-cially vexing problem as landfill sites areoften not possible due to financial or spacelimitations. Recycling, due to scales ofeconomy, is also not economically feasiblein most cases.

The limitations of diverse habitats orecosystems would seem to be an inhibitorto ecotourism success, but certain islandsare exceptions to this generalization. Forexample, the islands that make up NewZealand are famed for the diversity of theirnature tourism opportunities and for thehigh potential for quality ecotourism expe-riences, all within a small area. Continentalcoastal zones on the other hand generallyhave greater opportunity to provide a morediverse ecotouring experience, in part dueto transportation links with the inland. The

rise of Belize as an ecotourism destinationin the last 10 years exhibits this strength,combining excellent eco-diving opportuni-ties on its coasts with outstanding naturaland cultural itineraries in its interior.

Other differences between mainlandcoasts and islands can be linked to socio-economic considerations such as the preva-lence of commercial and industrial activityon mainland coasts. Hence, a greater poolof skilled workers is available on the main-land. Because of their size and lack ofindustrial development it can be theorizedthat it is easier to plan and implement inte-grated community and economic develop-ment programmes on islands. This ease ofplanning, in theory, and how this impactsthe development of ecotourism on islands,will be explored later in this chapter.

Finally, due to their isolation, islandsare particularly vulnerable to air travelrouting and multinational airline policychanges. The development of airports,nearby air transportation hubs, and com-pany policies all influence the success oftourism in island destinations. This isespecially true for small island developingstates, whose visitors generally come fromdistant destinations. For example thePacific Islands receive an estimated 95% oftheir tourist arrivals by air (R. Smithies,1998, Lanzarote, personal correspondence).

Spatial Distribution, Magnitude and Growth

In the 1960s and 1970s ecotourism wasvery much limited in distribution, and rep-resented only a small percentage of theinternational travel market. There wereexceptions such as the Galapagos to whichorganized ecotourism began in the late1960s (Honey, 1999) and East Africa,although many forms of safari tourism suchas hunting did not qualify as ecotourism.In the developed countries ecotourism wasa popular pastime domestically amongsmall, specialized groups of animal watchersor park visitors. Today, estimating the sizeof the ecotourism market remains a chal-lenge, and understanding the size and

Islands and Coasts 237

distribution of ecotourism in coasts andislands must be largely based on anecdotalreports and mainstream tourism data. Table15.1 reflects a summary of recent growthand distribution of ecotourism in coastaland island areas, based on selectedregional summaries (Milne, 1992; Hall,1993; Valentine, 1993; Weaver, 1993;Ayala, 1995; Fagence, 1997; Royle, 1997;Wilkinson, 1997; B.N. Devi, 1998, unpub-

lished; Lindberg et al., 1998; Weaver,1998a, b; Honey, 1999) and the author’sown observations.

In general, ecotourism experiences andfacilities need to be separate from main-stream mass tourism. Destinations in theCaribbean such as Dominica and the USVirgin Islands (USVI) are struggling to bal-ance visitation by cruise passengers andthe ‘stayover’ tourist market. Ecotourists

238 E.A. Halpenny

Table 15.1. The growth of ecotourism and mainstream tourism in selected island and coastal destinations1995–1999.

Selected island and coast Ecotourism growth Mainstream tourism Region ecotourism destinations (1995–1999) growth (1995–1999)

Sub-arctic and Greenland, Ellesmere, Moderate increase NoneAntarctica Campbell and Auckland

Islands, Macquarie, Heard Island, Iceland

Pacific Fiji, Solomon Islands, Increasing IncreasingPapua New Guinea, Hawaii, Midway, Micronesia, Palau, Samoa, Vancouver Island, Alaska, Russia’s eastern coast

Southeast Asia Bali, Lombok, Sulawesi, Increasing Moderate increaseKomodo, Sulu Sea, Cebu

Australia/New Great Barrier Reef, Western Increasing Moderate increaseZealand Australia

Indian Ocean and Seychelles, Mauritius, Moderate increase Moderate increaseAfrica Madagascar, Zanzibar,

Ghana, Red Sea

Caribbean Dominica, St Lucia, Nevis, Moderate increase DeclineTrinidad, Florida Keys, Texas Coast, Southern Quintana Roo coast, Mexico; Bay Islands, Honduras; Meso-American Reef, Belize; Kuna Yala, Panama; Bahamas, Guyana, Suriname

Mid and South Falkland Islands, St Helena, Stable NoneAtlantic Ocean Atlantic coast of northern Brazil

North Atlantic Sweden, Newfoundland, Canada; Increase IncreaseNew England, USA; Chesapeake and Eastern Shore, USA; Canadian maritime (east) provinces, Ireland, Portugal

are included in this latter category. TrunkBay in St John, USVI, is a classic exampleof this challenge. Cruise ship passengerstypically go to the park for a half-day visit,lying on the beach and exploring thenearby reef with its underwater trail. Billedas one of the most beautiful beaches in theCaribbean, the park is also popular withstayover tourists and locals. The US ParkService has invested a significant amountof money to harden the site at the park toaccommodate the estimated 10,000monthly visitors (M. Morrison, St JohnUSVI, 1998, personal communication).Clashes in desires will invariably arise asthese two visitor types mix, since their dif-fering expectations (e.g. tolerance ofcrowding and expectation of quality inter-pretation) are not easily combined. Thepristine and uncrowded conditions that anecotourist craves have long since evapo-rated from the site. Ecotourism destina-tions that face similar challenges ofaccommodating cruise ship excursions todelicate sites include Belize, St Lucia,Alaska and Dominica. Regional planningmust address this. In areas such asDominica and Samoa (Weaver, 1998b), eco-tourism is being used as an alternativedevelopment strategy to mass tourism. Inother island-states, both types of tourismare being pursued simultaneously. Forexample, mass tourism will continue in themain destination islands of Nassau andGrand Bahamas in the Bahamas, and VetiLevu, Fiji. However, ecotourism is beingencouraged as a strategy on some of thenaturally and culturally rich outer islandsof these archipelagos, as seen on Exuma,Inagua and Andros in the Bahamas andTaveuni and Kadavu in Fiji (Wilkinson,1997; Harrison, c.1998; Weaver, 1998b).

Due to their isolation, islands are morelikely to provide the remote experiencethat ‘hard’ ecotourists are looking for. Therecent development of ‘island trails’ in theUSA, Canada and the Pacific is a phenome-non that can be linked to this search forexclusive, pristine, peaceful destinations(Wylie and Rice, 1998). In Canada and theUSA these trails are organized and main-tained mostly by non-profit volunteer

groups. Trails ranging from Florida toAlaska are used by recreationists as well asnature tourists, many of whom are eco-tourists on self-guided expeditions oraccompanied by local tour operators. TheCascadia water trail in Washington state,USA, earned fame as a British Airways forTomorrow award recipient in 1999. In theAsia-Pacific region water trails are moreoften developed by ecotour entrepreneurs.However, the issues of management andoveruse are often neglected, sometimes tothe point of resource destruction, as illus-trated by the case of Sea Canoe’s pioneer-ing of Thailand’s Phang Nga Bay sea caves(Anon, 1999b; Rome, 1999). The issuesassociated with development of coastal andisland ecotourism destinations and prod-ucts will be explored in the followingsection.

Ecotourism Development Issues

Transport

Few islands are able to finance their ownnational airlines or build airports largeenough to receive large, long-haul passen-ger planes. The capacity of island airportsis based on factors such as length of run-way, refuelling facilities, lighting andnavigational aids (R. Smithies, 1998,unpublished). The type of airport, and thusaircraft, plays a major role in determiningthe type of tourism market that can bedeveloped for a particular island. Someislands choose to focus on high-endtourism, such as St Vincent and theGrenadines, which have seen extensivetourism development without buildingintercontinental airport structures. Otherschoose nature or ‘discovery tourism’, suchas Gomera in the Canary Islands (F. Vellas,1998, unpublished) and the Galapagos(both of which are accessible mainly byboat) and Dominica, which relies on asmall airport. Airport upgrades have beencompleted in recent years in the followingisland ecotourism destinations: Barbuda,Mauritius, Micronesia (Pohnpei), St Kittsand Nevis, Lucia, Seychelles, Palau

Islands and Coasts 239

(Koror), and Trinidad and Tobago. Howevermany air routes to these island-states sufferfrom low traffic volumes, especially incountries where tourism activities are notwell developed. This can be an impedi-ment to the provision of viable airport andair navigational services, as the revenuesderived from user fees are not sufficient tocover local government costs of runningthe airports (International Civil AviationOrganization, 1999).

Small island governments want to seeprofitable airports as well as airlines.National airlines were once envisioned asan important alternative to internationalcarriers; a buttress against dependency. Atone time the subsidy for Air Nauru fromthe South Pacific was said to be one-quar-ter of the national budget. States can nolonger support airlines in this way. Manynational airlines have been privatized,including Air Jamaica and BWIA in theCaribbean (R. Smithies, 1998, unpub-lished). This privatization can lead to bene-fits such as an increased ability to attractcapital and the avoidance of politicallymotivated government requirements to per-form uneconomical services (R. Smithies,1998, unpublished). However, it alsoexposes the airline to the whims of theglobal economy and forces policy makersin local government and at the airline tomake tough choices regarding tourismdevelopment for the destination. Vellasexplores the choice of deregulation furtherin his 1998 report to the Congress onSustainable Tourism for Small IslandStates. He also examines the role of cooper-ation between airlines, and the choicebetween charter and regular air transport.

With the exception of atolls, and smallislands close to the mainland coasts thatrely on regular ferry services, land trans-port is essential for ensuring the develop-ment of ecotourism in coastal and islandsettings. Causeways, bridges and roads canhave a profound effect on coastal environ-ments, yet they are necessary to transportecotourists to the destination. Therefore,adequate impact assessment and planningmust accompany their construction.

A form of transport that is increasingly

used for nature and cultural tourism isexpedition cruise boats. This form of tour-ing has grown rapidly in the last decade,but has had a long history in areas such asthe Galapagos. The ability of small sail andcruise boats to slip in and out of anchor-ages in remote, wilderness areas gives eco-tourists access to pristine, uniqueenvironments. Many of these companiescombine this experience with education oftourists, including extensive interpretationprogrammes and calls to environmentalaction. However, some ecotourism propo-nents still debate their ecotourism status,as less revenue is generated by boattourism for coastal and island destinationsthan terrestrial forms of tourism. InEcuador, the boat company LindbladSpecial Expeditions is trying to addressthis by initiating a donation programme fortheir clients, in addition to the US$100park fee that they pay to enter theGalapagos National Park. In its first 2 yearsthe Galapagos Conservation Fund collectedUS$400,000 for the Galapagos islands andits inhabitants. This year the companyplans to invite other tour boat companiesin the region to participate in the fund pro-gramme (O’Brien, 1999; T. O’Brien, KotaKinabalu, 1999, personal communication).

Finance

The development of infrastructure such aslodges or roads, or skills such as natureguiding expertise or hospitality training,can all be linked to the availability of capi-tal. Yet, this is one of the major hurdles todeveloping ecotourism, since such alterna-tive forms of tourism have often beenshunned by private and public investors asbeing too risky or elusive. In general therehave been two main sources of funding forecotourism development in island andcoastal areas: (i) private entrepreneurs,using their own or family money; and (ii)aid programmes run by multilateral orbilateral donors. The former was and isused to finance small businesses such asecolodges or in-bound tour companies. Thelatter provides capital to mainstream

240 E.A. Halpenny

tourism products such as airports or is tiedto biodiversity conservation or communitydevelopment programmes in less devel-oped countries. Ecotourism was and still isthought to be a more benign use of naturalresources, and a potential source of incomewhich can support further sustainabledevelopment efforts in coastal and islandenvironments. In the 1980s and 1990s buy-in by the donor community was mixed.Some development assistance agencieschose to ignore ecotourism entirely whileothers flirted with the concept, generally inrainforest settings. With the increasedurgency attached to preserving coral reefsand fishery stocks in the mid to late 1990s,donor agencies also finally injected moreaid and investment packages into islandstates and coastal areas in developingcountries. Today nearly all internationaldevelopment agencies, such as The WorldBank Group, United Nations DevelopmentProgram, USAID, and UK Department forInternational Development (DFID) provideaid or investment packages to developingcountries or non-government organizations(NGOs) and large- to medium-scale naturetourism entrepreneurs who are working inthese environments. The main objective ofthis financing remains biodiversity conser-vation and community development(Halpenny, 1999).

A successful example of bilateral aid toan island state for ecotourism developmentcan be found in the Solomon Island’sMarovo Lagoon. The New Zealand OfficialDevelopment Assistance Programme enableda strategy developed by the communitiesfrom the Marovo Lagoon region to developsmall-scale industries, including eco-tourism, as an alternative to logging. Since1993/94 when proposals were first draftedand 1996 when the Marovo LagoonEcotourism Association was formed, ninerustic lodges have been built with a com-bined capacity of 84 guests along with 20bungalows providing sweeping views ofthe lagoon and its outer islets. Visitors aregiven the opportunity to participate in awide range of activities including bushwalks, snorkelling and birdwatching (B.N.Devi, 1998, unpublished). Despite the posi-

tive beginning the programme still facesmany challenges. Simple logistical arrange-ments and communications continue to beproblematic, and upgrading hospitality andbusiness training is an ongoing process(B.N. Devi, Madrid, 1998, personal commu-nication). Ensuring the success of this pro-ject will be a 10–15 year investment oftime and funding.

The players

Those involved in coastal and islands eco-tourism are not essentially different fromthe stakeholders in other ecotourism set-tings. They include governments, donors,industry, NGOs, communities, schools andacademics. In the past, as with other set-tings, individuals and companies ratherthan government strategies have often pow-ered ecotourism in coastal and islandareas. Destinations have largely been devel-oped through the efforts of a handful oftour companies or hotels interested in theparticular region. As cited earlier, therehave been exceptions to this, such asDominica and Samoa with their ‘deliberate’ecotourism (Weaver, 1991, 1993, 1998a, b)and Fiji and the Bahamas’ use of eco-tourism as a deliberate or complementarydevelopment strategy (Wilkinson, 1997;Harrison, 1998; Weaver, 1998b). However,many researchers still warn that island andcoastal government officials often lack aclear understanding of tourism, let aloneecotourism (Ayala, 1995; Fagence, 1997).Some regional governments and their agen-cies have been grappling with the ques-tions of ecotourism for years. The GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority is oneof the more famous examples. The effortsof the states of western and southernAustralia to manage their coastal resourcesby balancing ecotourism with other uses isanother example (Commonwealth CoastalAction Program, 1997; Nature BasedTourism Advisory Committee, 1997;Wachenfeld et al., 1998; Western AustraliaTourism Commission, 1999).

As mentioned earlier, developmentorganizations have a profound effect on

Islands and Coasts 241

ecotourism development in island andcoastal settings in developing countries.Aid programmes pay for human resourcetraining, protected areas purchase, infra-structure development and marketing. Thechallenge remains to ensure that the devel-opment efforts are appropriate. A currentexample of the debate surrounding appro-priate development can be found in thePacific where it was recently announcedthat European Union aid for marketingtourism products in the Pacific would beeliminated. The money has instead beenslated for ‘‘‘human resource development”,private sector assistance and environmentpreservation projects’. The TourismCouncil of the South Pacific warned thatthis will have devastating consequences forthe islands ‘given the isolation and smallersize of Pacific nations’ (Pacific IslandsReport, 1999). Ecotourism will no doubtbenefit from the emphasis of funding onhuman resource development because ofits comparatively higher training needsthan mainstream tourism. Local communi-ties and small-scale entrepreneurs whocharacterize the ecotourism field oftenhave less market experience, fewer hospi-tality and business skills, and the eco-tourism product often requires highinformation content. The same can be saidfor ecotourism benefiting from contribu-tions to the private sector and environmentpreservation projects. However, this changein funding should not come at the expenseof eliminating all marketing efforts for aregion, as the announcement for donorsoriginally implied, especially for a long-haul destination such as the Pacific.

Industry plays a major role in develop-ing an island or coast as an ecotourism des-tination, and in managing the destinationas well as the experiences that visitorsreceive. To maintain the ecologicalintegrity of a destination, including bothsocio-cultural and natural aspects, touroperators, lodge owners, outfitters, andother ecotourism-related businesses musttake steps to reduce their footprint on localenvironments, and increase positiveimpacts. In the Galapagos, LindbladSpecial Expeditions agreed to adhere to a

set of sustainable harvest guidelines set bythe Marine Stewardship Council. The com-pany will buy only Council-certified localfish products, and runs a guest awarenesscampaign on fish harvesting practices.Sufficient time will be given to trainingand raising awareness among local fishersto ensure they are not penalized by thisnew standard (J. Novy, Washington DC,1998, personal communication; T. O’Brien,Kota Kinabalu, 1999, personal communica-tion).

NGOs have also played an importantrole in the development of ecotourism onislands and coasts. International NGOssuch as The Nature Conservancy andConservation International supply exper-tise and act as brokers for private investorsor donor organizations (see Chapter 30).International NGOs also lead travel pro-grammes to island and coastal ecotourismdestinations. Membership programmes arean important source of revenue for organi-zations such as World Wide Fund forNature, city zoos and university alumniassociations. These often utilize exotic,rich and diverse locations such as thoseprovided by coastal and island ecotourismdestinations to satisfy the educational andexperiential motivations which character-ize NGO members (Young, 1992).

Local NGOs such as the Marovo LagoonEcotourism Association in the SolomonIslands (J. Devi, 1998, unpublished), theAssociation of Galapagos Tour Operators inEcuador (Honey, 1999) and the AlaskaWilderness and Recreation TourismAssociation in the USA (AWRTA, 1999) allact as voices for responsible tourism, con-servation of biodiversity and communitydevelopment. Local organization aroundcommunity and conservation issues isessential for an island or coastal destinationif ecotourism is to be monitored and devel-oped sustainably. The National EcotourismAccreditation Program administered by theAustralian Ecotourism Association is anexcellent example of such an outcome. Theexistence of such organizations also playsan important part in giving ecotourismbusinesses a voice within the much largernational tourism sector.

242 E.A. Halpenny

Communities are another essential com-ponent of the equation that results in suc-cessful ecotourism in island and coastaldestinations. Benefits to local communitiesare an essential component of ecotourism.Achieving these benefits is often a greatchallenge. However, mechanisms such asparticipatory planning, socio-cultural impactassessments, enterprise development, hos-pitality skills training, and micro loan pro-grammes can be used to achieveecotourism-inspired benefits for local com-munities over a long period of time(Sproule, 1996; Ashley and Roe, 1998;Epler Wood, 1998; A. Poon, 1998, unpub-lished; Anon, 1999a). Some communitieschoose to isolate tourism from most of thedestination’s population (e.g. Maldives) ortake control of all tourism developmentwithin their territories (e.g. Gwaii Hanas,Canada or Arnhem Land, Australia). TheSan Blas islands in Panama provide a goodexample of community control of eco-tourism development. For more than 25years the Kuna Indians of the Kuna Yalaterritory have banned foreign ownershipand development of ecotourism or main-stream tourism products (Smith, 1998).The only current form of foreign-ownedtourism businesses have been the transientcruise ships that visit weekly for culturaland marine excursions. This policy has ledto a fairly stunted tourism industry, butone that has preserved the gem-like qualityof the region with its unsullied coral reefsand homespun cultural museum.

Finally, schools and researchers play animportant role in the development of eco-tourism on islands and coastal areas. Therole of academics and researchers is clear,with suggestions for their future actionsdetailed later in this book (see Chapters 40and 41). Schools on islands and coastalareas are still in need of improvement. Thisis especially true of training institutions inisland regions such as the Pacific andCaribbean, where hospitality and businesstraining are essential but often under-capitalized components of ecotourismdevelopment. In an example of the privatesector taking the initiative to find creativesolutions to this problem, Pacific-based

tour operator Sea Kayak Tonga made acommitment to their Tongan partners byobtaining a NZ$15,000 grant from thePacific Islands Industry DevelopmentScheme to provide further business skillstraining in New Zealand (D. Spence,Vancouver, 1999, personal communica-tion). An additional effort must also bemade at the primary school level to raiseenvironmental awareness among the nextgeneration and foster a deeper understand-ing of the tourism sector in general, asoften this sector is the dominant economicactivity in the region (Halpenny, 2001). Theecotourism industry is an essential partnerin this process, as are local governments.

Products: experiential and physical

The products that are associated withcoastal and island ecotourism are varied.They range from physical features, such asecolodges, canopy walkways and under-water trails to the experiential, such asemotions elicited or knowledge gainedfrom the visit. Box 15.1 and following para-graphs discuss these products briefly.Further information can also be found inChapter 17.

Overall these activities are growing at arapid, if unknown pace along with thelarger phenomena of nature and culturaltourism. Worldwide, there are more than15 million certified scuba-divers (DEMA,Anaheim, 1998, personal communication).

Islands and Coasts 243

Box 15.1. Coastal and island ecotourism activi-ties and products.

Sea kayaking and canoeingScuba-diving and snorkellingWildlife watching (including whales, birds anddolphins)Trails: underwater, coastal hiking and boatingMarine museums and interpretation centresCatch and release fishinga

Expedition cruising

a Ecotourism status is debated.

However, in the USA it has been estimatedthat 90% of these divers cease being activedivers (defined as at least one dive peryear) after 3 years, and growth in the sportin the USA has therefore levelled off.Elsewhere, especially in Southeast Asia,the number of divers is still increasingrapidly. Sea kayaking has also witnessedtremendous growth (see Table 15.2) as doc-umented in the North American-basedSpecialty Travel Index.

Animal watching is also at an all-timehigh. An example documented at theglobal scale is the estimated US$504 mil-lion generated through souvenir, hotel andtour sales associated with whale-watchingin 1995 (Hoyt, 1995). At a more local level,Butler and Hvenegaard (1988) found thatbirdwatching in Point Pelee National Park,Canada, generated CDN$3.8 million duringthe peak season month of May, 1987. Inter-estingly, a majority of birders, when askedabout expenditures, were willing to paytwice as much for their experience at theimportant migratory stopover, resulting ina net economic value of CDN$7.9 million.

The essential factor to hold in mind indeveloping ecotourism products in islandand coastal destinations is to take advan-tage of the setting, capitalizing on thestrengths of the coastal zone such as thepresence of endemic flora and fauna.Diverse activities such as scuba-diving andsea kayaking can be combined with inter-pretative shore hikes or coastal forest bird-watching.

Islands and coasts also present chal-lenges to the developers and users oftourism infrastructure. Hurricanes and

tsunamis are examples of the more extremechallenges that ecotourism infrastructurefaces. Some developers (such as StanleySelengut in the US Virgin Islands) havechosen to build semi-permanent structuressuch as the Concordia Eco-tents and MahoBay tents which may lose screens andmesh sidings during a hurricane but can berestored long before conventional hotelsreopen. This subject is explored in greaterdepth in Marine Ecotourism: Guidelinesand Best Practice Case Studies (Halpenny,2001).

Islands in a region must also seek todevelop complementary products, develop-ing ecotourism products and experiencesthat complement those of neighbouringislands (Weaver, 1991; Ayala, 1995). Forexample, Nevis’s hiking opportunities com-plement St Kitt’s more urban, historicalexperience. By creating a network of differ-ent island opportunities, visitors staylonger, leaving more money in the region.

Planning

Integrated planning is an essential compo-nent in ensuring the success of ecotourismin an island or coastal setting (Jackson,1986; Inskeep, 1987; Wong, 1993; Gunn,1994; Boyd and Butler, 1996; Common-wealth Coastal Action Program, 1997;Manidis Roberts Consultants, 1997).Planning must not only occur to ensurethat negative impacts on local environ-ments are mitigated, but also to ensure pos-itive impacts such as communitydevelopment and conservation of naturaland cultural elements. Planning alsoincreases the probability that ecotourismcan coexist with or act as a substitute forother land and water uses such as ship-ping, forestry, mari- and aqua-culture, aswell as mainstream tourism developmentssuch as golf courses and water recreationparks. Ecotourism businesses and destina-tions must plan and coordinate with otherecotourism providers to ensure that a con-sistent, quality product is available. Forexample, in the Galapagos a fixed numberof tourism boats is allowed to operate at

244 E.A. Halpenny

Table 15.2. Sea kayaking activity (Wylie and Rice,1998).

Trip venues (includes US states and international

Year Tour companies countries)

1991 25 351996 61 112

any one time. This ensures that the num-bers of tourists arriving at any particularisland in the Galapagos chain is limited,resulting in the best possible experience forthe visitor, and minimizing visitor impacts(Honey, 1999).

As mentioned earlier some islands andcoastal destinations such as Dominica andSamoa have actively planned the island’stourism development to be dominated byecotourism (Weaver, 1993, 1998b). Others,such as Fiji and the Bahamas treat eco-tourism more like a complement to themain island’s mass tourism product(Weaver, 1993, 1997, 1999; Harrison, 1998).Regardless of which path is pursued, alldestinations must employ various planningtools to ensure successful, sustainableimplementation of ecotourism. Some ofthese planning tools include zoning, limitsof acceptable change (LAC) (Stankey et al.,1985), the tourism optimization manage-ment model (TOMM) (Manidis RobertsConsultants, 1997) and the ecotourismopportunity spectrum (Boyd and Butler,1996). Two classic examples of pioneerefforts to balance tourism with othercoastal uses through the application of zon-ing can be found in Pulau Seribu,Indonesia (Soegiarto et al., 1984) and theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia(Wachenfeld et al., 1998). Both sites todayreflect the need to go beyond zoning andutilize additional methods such as enforce-ment, park fees, community enterprisedevelopment, mooring buoy programmes,environmental incentive programmes, andGIS-assisted view scapes assessments.Recent experimental applications of LACin the Lesser Antilles island of Saba (McCool,Vermont, 1999, personal correspondence),and TOMM on Kangaroo Island, Australia(Manidis Roberts Consultants, 1997) andGwaii Hanas, Canada (Wight, Vermont,1999, personal correspondence) have pro-vided valuable learning experiences on thechallenges of balancing community needsand wants with industry realities and gov-ernment abilities/jurisdiction.

Another essential ingredient for ensur-ing that ecotourism remains a sustainableactivity in a region is the development of

codes of conduct for tourists, and codes ofpractice for industry. Sometimes govern-ment will be involved in the developmentof these guidelines, as will communitymembers. In the formulation of codes ofpractice, it is essential that the ecotourismindustry is an integral player in the cre-ation of relevant guidelines. Gjerdalen’s(1999) examination of adherence to a codeof practice developed by and for whale-watching companies who operate orca(killer whale) tours within Johnstone Strait,British Columbia, Canada, provides a goodcase study. In this example, buy-in by allcompanies was essential to ensure self-enforcement by the industry.

Social, cultural and economic criteria and impacts

Cultural impacts resulting from tourismhave been well documented (Smith, 1989;McLaren, 1998). The danger that eco-tourism poses is perhaps even greater dueto its intimate nature as ecotourists travelto a destination to learn about and interactwith other cultures. The impact of thisinteraction can result in the theft of cul-tural property such as songs or plantknowledge, loss of cultural integrity andhomogeneity, and erosion of cultural val-ues with the introduction of the tourists’values. Leaders of the Maldives feel thatthese threats warrant the isolation oftourism activities to a select number ofislands, thereby maintaining culturalpurity throughout most of the Maldivesarchipelago. Ecotourism can also supportcultural integrity through the actions ofecotourists who demonstrate an interest inlocal culture, their valuing of local culturein turn instilling a sense of pride amongcommunity members. Ecotourism also pro-duces an additional reason for maintainingcraft traditions because the ecotouristwishes to learn how to make the localcrafts, or wishes to make an actual pur-chase. For example ecotourists visiting theMarovo Islands may learn from communitymembers how to fish using traditionalmethods (B.N. Devi, 1998, unpublished).

Islands and Coasts 245

Social impacts are just as difficult todecipher. The increased wealth generatedby tourism can unbalance traditional socialstructures. In some societies this could beinterpreted as a positive development asmany women begin to have greater oppor-tunities for financial freedom. In theGalapagos income generated by tourismhas created a magnet for Ecuadoreans fromthe mainland. In 1997 tourism in theGalapagos was directly or indirectly pro-viding income for an estimated 80% of thepeople living on the Galapagos Islands andgenerating 60% of all tourism revenuesearned by the Ecuadorean government(Honey, 1999). In recent years a majorinflux of non-Galapagos community mem-bers has taken up residence on the islandsto capitalize on the ecotourism jackpot.Many of these mainlanders do not sharesimilar cultural values and knowledge withnative Galapaguenos such as respectingharvesting limits of land and marineresources (Honey, 1999) and this hasresulted in some social unrest.

Often ecotourism has been looked to asa tool for achieving political strength andjustifying or reinforcing land or territoryrights. Many indigenous groups have beenworking, especially in Australia andCanada, to achieve self-government andreclaim tribal territory. Ecotourism is beingexplored as one of the new developmentstrategies that will make self-governmentand autonomy a reality (Anon, 1999a).Other coastal and island communities,whose traditional economies have col-lapsed, e.g. fisheries, are also looking toecotourism as a community developmentand autonomy building tool (Newfound-land: Woodrow, 1999; Western Ireland:White, 1999; Norway: Hallenstvedt, 1999;Texas: Richardson, 1999). The danger insuch an approach is over-reliance on eco-tourism; in all destinations ecotourismmust only be one of several economic andsocial tools for achieving sustainable devel-opment.

Economic impacts of ecotourism havebeen largely positive, but not large enoughin many instances. Aside from support forlocal communities, income from eco-

tourism can also be used to support pro-tected areas. The Galapagos National Parkis self-sufficient, deriving much of its rev-enue from tourist visitation fees and dona-tions (Vieta, 1999) whereas in the KomodosNational Park in Indonesia, Goodwin et al.(1997) found that the park covered only7.17% of its 1994/95 management coststhrough entrance fees. Further analysis,utilizing the idea that tourism should atleast pay for its related expenses such asvisitor management and infrastructure,found that in 1994/95, 109.05% of tourism-related expenditure by park managers wascovered by tourism revenues. In Saba andBonaire (Dixon, 1993; Dixon and van’t Hof,1997; Vieta, 1999) and Belize (J. Gibson,Belize City, 1999, personal communica-tion) visitor fees have been used to pay forstaff salaries, moorings for dive and fishingboats, maintenance of all park facilities andequipment, interpretative materials, localvolunteer groups, educational talks andlaw enforcement activities. Vieta (1999)stresses that a significant portion of eco-tourism revenue should be ‘“earmarked”for reinvestment into ecotourism productsand its natural, cultural and social supportsystems rather than being sent to a nationaltreasury for redistribution’. Visitor fees arenot only levied by protected areas. South ofNew Zealand, the Campbell and Aucklandislands charge a visitor fee for ‘manage-ment purposes’ (Hall, 1993). Other coastaland island destinations collect hidden visi-tor fees in the form of bed, airport and salestax (e.g. Belize’s PACT: B. Spergel, 1996,unpublished).

The challenge that all tourism destina-tions face is to retain as much revenue inthe country or region as possible. Whileleakage of tourism-generated revenue is amajor problem for regions such as theCaribbean, it is also thought to be lessprevalent with ecotourism as many of theproducts used to deliver ecotourism suchas building materials and foodstuffs arederived from local sources (Weaver, 1991).This debate is illustrated in Epler’s (n.d.)research which found that although thetotal value of tourism in the Galapagosislands equalled US$32.6 million in both

246 E.A. Halpenny

1990 and 1991, of which approximately85% was paid to vessels and airlines(mostly owned by mainland Ecuadoreansand foreigners), a mere 3% went to on-landhotels and park entrance fees. Other statis-tics collected by Epler show that 92% ofthe tourist dollar was spent on floatinghotels (most not owned by Galapaguenos)and only 8% on day boats and land-basedhotels (mostly locally owned) (as cited inHoney, 1999). Goodwin et al. (1997) foundthat in Komodo National Park, at least 50%of all visitor expenditure leaked out of thelocal economy because of importation ofgoods from outside the region (e.g. bottledwater). In addition, the transport system isin large part owned by the government orrun by external operators. However, in onetown leakage from revenue generatingactivities was found to be negligible, sincerevenue was based on the provision oflabour and primary produce. Much of therevenue remained in the village.

Marketing

Misuse of the term ecotourism in market-ing products that are unsustainable, bene-fiting neither communities nor the naturalenvironment, has been one of the greatestchallenges ecotourism advocates face.Another problem has been the preoccupa-tion of government and business personnelwith marketing, rather than the develop-ment of quality products (Ayala, 1995).

Islands and coastal destinations mustlearn to jointly market their ecotourismproducts with nearby competitors. This isespecially important for the tourism-inten-sive island nations in the Pacific andCaribbean (Fagence, 1997; Weaver, 1998a,b). Within nations there have been effortsto piggyback ecotourism on the mainstreamtourism marketing campaign, but withmixed results. Certainly the most inexpen-sive form of advertising, the Internet, mustbe better understood and utilized by devel-oping countries (Hokstam, 1999). Severalrecent shortfalls in donor and governmentfunding for marketing has created panic inboth the Caribbean (Hokstam, 1999) and

Pacific (Pacific Islands Report, 1999).Hokstam (1999) states that because regionalexperts have observed a decline inCaribbean tourist arrivals, which experi-enced a 20% drop in 1999 compared with1998, industry leaders such as theCaribbean Hotel Association are proposingmultilateral marketing efforts. This declinemay not be as sharp for the niche eco-tourism sector, as much of the Caribbean’stourism woes may be tied to a decliningmass tourism market as sun, sand and seadestinations lose appeal.

Conclusion

Coasts and islands as settings for eco-tourism are proving to be an excitingoption for both tourists and managers.Their many unique characteristics such asrich cultural traditions, high occurrence ofendemic species, remoteness and slower,holiday-paced atmosphere make coasts andislands ideal ecotourism destinations. Theunique environmental characteristics ofislands and coasts, such as their vulnera-bility to externally produced pollution andlimited natural resources, create greaterchallenges for coastal managers and busi-nesses charged with making ecotourism asuccess. Ecotourism’s potential as a tool forcommunity and economic developmentand its capacity for generating revenue forconservation and environmental awarenessamong visitors and hosts creates a positivefuture for ecotourism in island and coastalregions. As in other ecotourism destina-tions the challenge that government, indus-try, communities and NGOs now face inislands and coasts is the implementation ofecotourism in a sustainable manner, main-taining both socio-cultural and environ-mental integrity. This has been initiatedsuccessfully in select locations with innov-ative, collaborative and adaptive coastalmanagement tools, planning, infrastruc-ture, marketing and funding schemes.However, much more work needs to beaccomplished if ecotourism is to achieveits promise of sustainable development incoastal and island settings.

Islands and Coasts 247

References

Anon (1999a) Ecotourism, sustainable development, and cultural survival: protecting indigenousculture and land through ecotourism. Cultural Survival Quarterly Summer 1999, 23(2), 25–59.

Anon (1999b) Reaction: sea canoe controversy. Action Asia April/May 1999, 2(8), 9–11.Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (1998) Enhancing Community Involvement in Wildlife Tourism: Issues and

Challenges. Wildlife and Development Series No. 11, International Institute for Environmentand Development, London.

AWRTA (1999) Guidelines Newsletter. Alaska Wilderness and Recreation Tourism Association.http://www.alaska.net/~awrta/meminfo/newsletter/index.html

Ayala, H. (1995) From Quality Product to Eco-product: Will Fiji set a Precedent? TourismManagement 16(1), 39–47.

Boyd, S.W. and Butler, R.W. (1996) Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach.Tourism Management 17(8), 557–566.

Butler, J.R. and Hvenegaard, G.T. (1988) The economic values of bird watching associated with PointPelee National Park, Canada, and their contribution to adjacent communities. SecondSymposium on Social Science in Resource Management. University of Illinois, Urbana, 6–9 June1988.

Commonwealth Coastal Action Program (1997) Coastal Tourism: a Manual for SustainableDevelopment. Prepared for Tourism Council Australia, Australian Local GovernmentAssociation, Royal Australian Planning Institute, in collaboration with Portfolio Marine Group,Environment Australia Office of National Tourism. Based on a draft prepared by Southern CrossUniversity. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

Dixon, J.A. (1993) Meeting ecological and economic goals: marine parks in the Caribbean. AMBIO22(2–3), 117–125.

Dixon, J.A. and van’t Hof, T. (1997) Conservation pays big dividends in Caribbean. Forum forApplied Research and Public Policy Spring 1997, 12(1), 43–48.

Epler Wood, M. (1998) Meeting the Global Challenge of Community Participation in Ecotourism:Case Studies and Lessons from Ecuador. American Verde Working Papers Number 2. The NatureConservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Fagence, M. (1997) Ecotourism and Pacific island countries: the first generation of strategies. Journalof Tourism Studies 8(2), 26–38.

Gjerdalen, G. (1999) The Johnstone Strait Code of Conduct for Whale Watching: Factors EncouragingCompliance. In: Williams, P.W. and Budke, I. (eds) On Route to Sustainability: Best Practice inCanadian Tourism. Prepared by Industry Competitiveness, The Canadian Tourism Commissionand The Center for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University, Ottawa, pp. 15–19.

Goodwin, H.J., Kent, I.J., Parker, K.T. and Walpole, M.J. (1997) Tourism, Conservation andSustainable Development: Vol. 1, Comparative Report. Unpublished report for Department forInternational Development, UK.

Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis,Washington, DC.

Hall, C.M. (1993) Ecotourism in the Australian and New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands. TourismRecreation Research 18(2), 13–21.

Hallenstvedt, A. (1999) Marine recreation and integrated coastal management. Presented at the 1999International Symposium on Coastal and Marine Tourism, 26–29 April 1999, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.

Halpenny, E. (1999) The state and critical issues relating to international ecotourism developmentpolicy. Presented at the 1999 Ecotourism Association of Australia National Conference,Kingfisher Bay, Queensland, 13–17 October 1999.

Halpenny, E. (2001) Marine Ecotourism: Guidelines and Best Practice Case Studies. The EcotourismSociety, North Bennington, Vermont.

Harrison, D. (ed.) (c.1998) Ecotourism and Village-based Tourism: a Policy and Strategy for Fiji.Based on work prepared by Sawailau, Samisoni and Malani, Manoa. Ministry of Tourism andTransportation, Fiji.

Hokstam, M.A. (1999) Caribbean-tourism: concern as tourism figures dip. From Sustainable TourismListserve http://www.egroups.com/list/sustainable-tourism/ By Inter Press Service listed athttp:www.oneworld.org/ips2/june99/23_10_097.html

248 E.A. Halpenny

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Hoyt, E. (1995) The Worldwide Value and Extent of Whale Watching: 1995. Whale and DolphinConservation Society, Bath, UK. Presented as IWC/47/WW2 to International WhalingCommission (IWC) 1995 AGM, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 1–34.

Inskeep, E. (1987) Environmental planning for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 14, 118–155.International Civic Aviation Organization (1999) Sustaining Development of Air Transportation in

Small Island States. An addendum (E/CN.17/1999/6/Add.15) to Progress in the Implementationof the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States.Report of the Secretary-General for Commission on Sustainable Development Seventh Session19–30 April 1999. United Nations Economic and Social Council, New York.

Jackson, I. (1986) Carrying capacity for tourism in small tropical Caribbean islands. Industry andEnvironment January/February/March, 7–10.

Lindberg, K., Furze, B., Staff, M. and Black, R. (1998) Ecotourism in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issuesand Outlook. Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome Regional Office for Asia and thePacific, Bangkok and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, with The EcotourismSociety, N. Bennington, Vermont.

Manidis Roberts Consultants (1997) Developing a Tourism Optimization Management Model(TOMM): a Model to Monitor and Manage Tourism on Kangaroo Island, Final Report. SouthAustralian Tourism Commission, Adelaide.

McLaren, D. (1998) Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel: the Paving of Paradise and What You Can Doto Stop It! Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.

Milne, S. (1992) Tourism and development in South Pacific microstates. Annals of Tourism Research19, 191–212.

Nature Based Tourism Advisory Committee (1997) Nature Based Tourism Strategy for WesternAustralia. Western Australia Tourism Commission, Perth, 32 pp.

O’Brien, T. (1999) Ship-based marine ecotourism: itineraries, interpretation, and potential. Presentedat World Ecotourism Conference and Field Seminars: The Right Approach, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, Malaysia, 17–23 October 1999.

Pacific Islands Report (1999) European Union Tourism Decision Threatens Pacific Economies. FromSustainable Tourism Listserve http://www.egroups.com/list/sustainable-tourism/ By PacificIslands Report listed at http:pidp.ewc.hawaii.edu/PIReport/1999/July/07-22-04.html

Richardson, S.L. (1999) Balancing community and regional interests in tourism development: lessonsfrom the Texas coast. Presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Coastal and MarineTourism, 26–29 April 1999, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Rome, M. (1999) Shooting to kill. Action Asia Feb/March 1(8), 19–25.Royle, S.A. (1997) Tourism to the South Atlantic Islands. In: Lockhart, D.G. and Drakakis-Smith, D.

(eds) Island Tourism: Trends and Prospects. Pinter, London, pp. 323–344.Shah, Nirmal Jivan (1995) Managing coastal areas in the Seychelles. Nature & Resources 31(5),

16–33.Smith, V. (ed.) (1988) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism. University of Philadelphia

Press, Philadelphia.Soegiarto, A., Soewito and Salm, R.V. (1984) Development of marine protected areas in Indonesia. In:

McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K.R. (eds) National Parks, Conservation, and Development – the Roleof Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks,Bali, Indonesia, 11–12 October 1982. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Sproule, K. (1996) Community-based ecotourism development: identifying partners in the process.In: Malek-Zadeh, E. (ed.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts. Bulletin Series, YaleSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Number 99. Yale University, New Haven,Connecticut, pp. 233–250.

Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Petersen, M.E. and Frissell, S.S. (1985) The Limits ofAcceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. General Technical Report INT-176.US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation, Ogden, Utah.

Valentine, P.S. (1993) Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some recent develop-ments in Micronesia. Tourism Management 14(2), 107–115.

Vieta, F. (1999) Ecotourism and its Role in Socioeconomic Development and Environmental

Islands and Coasts 249

Protection. Background Paper No. 16 (DESA/DSD/1999/16) prepared by the United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs and Division of Sustainable Development for theCommission on Sustainable Development Seventh Session, 19–30 April 1999, New York.

Wachenfeld, D.R., Oliver, J.K. and Morrissey, J.I. (1998) State of the Great Barrier Reef World HeritageArea. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.

Weaver, D.B. (1991) Alternative to mass tourism in Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research 18,414–432.

Weaver, D.B. (1993) Ecotourism in the small island Caribbean. GeoJournal 31(4), 457–465.Weaver, D.B. (1995) Alternative tourism in Montserrat. Tourism Management 16(8), 593–604.Weaver, D.B. (1998a) Strategies for the development of deliberate ecotourism in the South Pacific.

Pacific Tourism Review 2, 53–66.Weaver, D.B. (1998b) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Western Australia Tourism Commission (1999) Environmental and Planning Guidelines for Tourism

Development on the North West Cape. Department of Environmental Protection and Ministry ofPlanning, Western Australia, Perth, 33 pp.

White, F. (1999) New perspectives on the role of tourism in marginal coastal communities in theWest of Ireland. Presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Coastal and Marine Tourism,26–29 April, 1999, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Wilkinson, P.F. (1997) Tourism Policy and Planning: Case Studies from the CommonwealthCaribbean. Cognizant Communications Corporation, New York.

Wong, M. (ed.) (1993) Tourism vs. Environment: the Case for Coastal Areas. Kluwer, Amsterdam.Woodrow, M. (1999) Fisher communities in Newfoundland: generating interpretation programs for

tourism. As presented at the Tenth Society for Human Ecology Conference, 31 May 1999,Montreal.

Wylie, J. and Rice, H. (1998) Sea kayaks as vehicles for sustainable development or coastal andmarine tourism. In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress onCoastal and Marine Tourism, 19–22 June 1996, Honolulu. Washington Sea Grant Program andthe School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington and Oregon Sea Grant College Program,Oregon State University, Seattle, Washington, pp. 131–138.

Young, M. (1992) Should international conservation organizations like WWF be involved with travelclubs? In: Weiler, B. (ed.) Ecotourism Incorporating the Global Classroom. Bureau of TourismResearch, Canberra, pp. 221–223.

250 E.A. Halpenny

Chapter 16

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs

D.B. WeaverSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to examinethe status of ecotourism within desert,grassland and savannah-type ecosystems.Other non-woodland environments, suchas tundra, alpine areas and polar deserts,are considered elsewhere in this section(see Chapter 13 and 14). While the bound-aries between these ecosystems tend to betransitional rather than sharp, each istreated as a discrete category for discussionpurposes. Figure 16.1 depicts the general-ized spatial distribution of these ecosys-tems as they are considered in this chapter.Various parameters of precipitation andrates of evapotranspiration have been pro-posed in the literature to differentiate thesebiomes. However, since it is the resultantvegetation cover that is more relevant toecotourism, this particular criterion will beused to make the distinction.

Each section of this chapter begins witha short description of the relevant biome,including its spatial distribution and con-dition (i.e. extent to which it has beenmodified by human activity). This leadsinto a discussion of the hypotheticalstrengths and weaknesses of each ecosys-tem as a venue for ecotourism, and theninto a consideration of its actual utilizationas such. This chapter does not take into

account ecotourism attractions that haveno direct relationship to the biome inwhich they occur. For example, the Undaralava tubes of northern Queensland(Australia) are popular geological attrac-tions that just happen to be located withina savannah-type ecosystem (Sofield andGetz, 1997). In contrast, some geomorpho-logical features form only under conditionsof extreme aridity, and thus should be dis-cussed under the category of ‘desert’.

Deserts

‘Deserts’ are often associated in the publicimage with a non-vegetated landscapedominated by sand dunes. However, thisstereotype, properly referred to as an erg, isjust one type of desert, occupying about30% of the Sahara and Arabian deserts, butonly about 1% of North America’s aridlands (Huber et al., 1988). More character-istically, deserts consist of rocky, sandy orstony lands hosting a discontinuous coverof short grass, cactus and/or shrubs. Treesare found only in oases, along permanentrivers, or in other areas where a reliablewater supply is locally available. A usefuldistinction can be made between ‘hot’deserts such as the Sahara, Arabian,Mojave, Atacama, Great Indian, Kalahari,

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 251

252D

.B. Weaver

Fig. 16.1. Generalized distribution of deserts, grasslands and savannahs.

Namib and the deserts of Australia (GreatSandy, Gibson, Simpson), and ‘temperate’deserts such as the Gobi, northernPatagonia, and much of the Great Basin ofthe western USA.

As a potential venue for ecotourism,deserts have the advantage of being largelyunaltered by direct human intervention.This is not due to some litany of enlight-ened attitude toward arid lands, but ratherto the more mundane reality that deserts,by their nature, are largely unsuited foragriculture or permanent human settle-ment. Having said this, there are significantareas of desert, such as in the south-western USA, that have been altered byirrigation, mining, military uses and urban-ization. This contraction, however, may beoffset by the desertification-inducedencroachment of arid ecosystems on adja-cent grasslands and savannahs. A secondinherent advantage of deserts might betermed the ‘visibility factor’, whereinwildlife is more likely to be sighted in asparsely vegetated landscape due to theavailability of a broad viewing range andthe lack of cover for larger animals.

On the negative side, deserts are com-monly perceived, at least in the Westernmind, as a lifeless and dangerous environ-ment beset by extremely high temperaturesand extremely low precipitation; it is use-ful to point out that the word ‘desert’derives from the Latin desertum, or some-thing that has been abandoned. Further-more, while endowed with a generousvisibility factor, the number of largeranimals that can be seen in most deserts isrestricted by low inherent carrying capaci-ties. The fauna that are present tend againto be stereotyped, especially by images ofunpleasant and dangerous reptiles andarachnids such as rattlesnakes, scorpionsand tarantula spiders.

Desert ecotourism

The above evaluation may lead one to sus-pect that ecotourism is rare or absentaltogether within arid ecosystems. This,however, is not the case, although desert

ecotourism does admittedly suffer by com-parison with more accessible and morevegetated ecosystems. In terms of attrac-tions, a cursory examination of currentdesert ecotourism activity shows a distinctpattern of association with seven factors:

1. Exceptional geological features associ-ated with arid climatic conditions; theseinclude the Grand Canyon (Arizona, USA),the ancient sand dunes of the SkeletonCoast (Namib desert, Namibia) and Uluru(Ayer’s Rock) in central Australia.2. Wildflower and other episodic floraldisplays; examples include the desertregions of Western Australia, CapeProvince (South Africa) and other areaswhere heavy rainfalls induce an ephemeralblossoming of desert flora.3. Ancient, large or unusual vegetation;examples include the 2000-year-oldWelwitschia plants of the Namib desert,and the giant saguaro cacti of the south-western USA.4. Caravans or other desert trekking; e.g.the Tuareg camel trek offered during theearly 1990s in Algeria’s Sahara desert by aprivate adventure travel company (Daniel,1993).5. Indigenous inhabitants; given that tradi-tional indigenous cultures are often inextri-cably linked to their surroundings, theymay constitute an ‘ecotourism’ attraction intheir own right, or at least in terms of theirinteraction with their surroundings. This ofcourse is a debatable point. Examplesinclude the above-mentioned Tuareg trek,and activity affiliated with Australia’s aridland Aborigines (as for example at Uluru),and the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert(Hitchcock, 1997).6. Oases; there are a growing number ofecotourism sites that are affiliated with lux-ury resorts situated in an oasis environ-ment. One of the best instances is theAl-Maha resort in the United ArabEmirates, which includes a 16 km2 naturereserve stocked with reintroduced Arabianoryx and sand gazelle.7. Protected areas; desert ecotourism is toa very large extent associated with formallyprotected areas (see below).

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 253

The first three of these factors reveal adirect ecotourism focus, with the first beingentirely predictable (i.e. the geologicalattraction is guaranteed to be there), andthe second being largely unpredictable (theappearance and quality of the wildflowerdisplay depends upon the occurrence andtype of precipitation). The next three fac-tors are more indirect given that they incor-porate ecotourism as a supplement toadventure, cultural and luxury resorttourism, respectively.

The final factor, association with pro-tected areas, is probably the most impor-tant and encompassing of all. As in otherecosystems, most desert ecotourism occurswithin accessible public or private pro-tected areas. These provide suitablyimpressive natural attractions retained in amore or less natural state, appropriate ser-vices and facilities (e.g. interpretive cen-tres, tracks, roads, infrastructure) andsometimes a high public profile associatedwith national park, world heritage, or simi-lar status (see Chapter 18). In a desert con-text, this phenomenon is best illustrated insouth-western USA, where federal pro-tected areas such as Grand Canyon, DeathValley and Joshua Tree each attract morethan 1 million visitors each year (see Table16.1). Not all visitors to these parks meritclassification as ecotourists, but an analysisof available services and activities suggeststhat ‘soft’ ecotourists probably constitute astrong majority. A typical pattern of activ-ity involves the use of private vehicles to

participate in ‘scenic drives’ that includeperiodic stops and, optionally, short inter-pretive walks and talks, at points of inter-est including interpretive centres. Hence,the pattern of visitor concentration that isso apparent in the more popular protectedareas worldwide is evident in desert parks.

A distinct variation of the desert pro-tected area is the relatively small site inwhich selected desert flora are planted anddisplayed for educational and scientificpurposes in a way that emulates their nat-ural surrounds. This is illustrated by theBoyce Thompson Arboretum State Parkeast of Phoenix, Arizona, which coversonly 120 ha, but hosted over 95,000 visi-tors during the 1997/98 fiscal year (per-sonal communication, L. Soukup, BoyceThompson Arboretum). A similar Australianexample is Alice Springs Desert Park,which opened in 1997 and expected100,000 visitors in 1999. (It should not beassumed, however, that all of these visitorsare ecotourists.) At the core of the 13 km2

site is a 50 ha core area that is meticulouslydesigned to display and interpret a varietyof Australian desert plant communities.The facility also engages in the captivebreeding of the resident reptiles, birds andmammals (Brown, 1999).

The USA and Australia (where UluruNational Park hosts approximately 300,000visitors per year) are the two countrieswhere desert ecotourism is best representedand longest established. Hence, they maybe described as the ‘top tier’ of desert eco-

254 D.B. Weaver

Table 16.1. Visits to major federal protected areas in desert ecosystems of the USA, 1998 (National ParkService, 1999).

State Protected area 1998 visitation

Arizona Grand Canyon National Park 4,239,682Arizona Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 182,126Arizona Petrified Forest National Park 816,506Arizona Saguero National Monument 716,160California Death Valley National Monument 1,177,746California Joshua Tree National Monument 1,410,312California Mojave National Preserve 374,378New Mexico White Sands National Monument 592,957

tourism. This status is explained by thepresence of high-profile desert protectedareas (such as those mentioned above) thatare accessible to affluent domestic popula-tions with a high proclivity to engage insoft ecotourism activities. In addition,inbound tourists also compose a significantcomponent of protected area visitors. Bycomparison, ecotourism in the deserts ofmost other countries is incipient. Amongthe best developed of these ‘lower tier’desert ecotourism destinations is Namibia,which accommodates some 35,000–40,000visitors each year in the Namib-Naukluftand Skeleton Coast Nature Reserves.Contributing to this relative maturity isproximity to the white South African mar-ket (which is similar in affluence and cul-ture to the USA and Australia), awell-developed national road and air net-work, and an extensive and well-servicedprotected area network in its desert areas.In addition, the deserts of Namibia arecharacterized by unique and interestingfeatures such as the ancient and highlyunusual dunes of the Namib desert, quiv-ertree (Aloe dichotoma) ‘forests’, the afore-mentioned Welwitschia mirabilis plants,and robust populations of larger and easilyobserved desert mammals (Weaver andElliott, 1996).

More typical of the lower tier is the sta-tus of ecotourism in the great belt of desertthat extends almost continuously fromMauritania in western Africa through theMiddle East and the former Soviet centralAsian republics to north-central China andMongolia. In the first instance, relativelyfew protected areas have been establishedwithin this desert belt. Countries domi-nated by desert tend to have among thelowest portion of land set aside for suchpurposes (e.g. as of 1997, United ArabEmirates and Iraq had 0%; Libya, 0.1%;Egypt, 0.8%; Kuwait, 1.4%; Mauritania,1.7%; Uzbekistan, 2.1%; Jordan, 3.4%;World Resources Institute, 1998). Secondly,those protected areas that do exist containfew if any facilities to accommodate softecotourists. Thirdly, the transport networknecessary to access these parks is rudimen-tary. Fourthly, the proclivity of domestic

tourists in these countries to engage in eco-tourism is minimal, as is the inflow ofWestern non-business tourists who wouldconstitute the most likely market for such aproduct.

Not surprisingly, desert ecotourism inmost of the lower tier destinations (excep-tions such as Al-Maha notwithstanding) isan informal ‘hard’ variety that intersectswith adventure tourism (see Chapter 5) andinvolves such disparate elements as scien-tific expeditions, exclusive adventure pack-ages, and individual ‘exploration’ byfour-wheel drive or other means. As anorganized activity, there does not appear tobe any history of ecotourism at all inUzbekistan or any of the other formerSoviet Central Asian republics that containsignificant amounts of desert (Sievers,1998). A very small amount of ecotourismappears to be occurring in the Egyptiandesert, where local oases are used as basesof operation for private companies offeringday-long or multi-day desert excursions.As part of its tourism diversification cam-paign of the early 1980s, consideration wasgiven to the development of the desert asan ecotourism destination. However, thiswas rejected in favour of the coastal 3S-type tourism after it was determined thatlittle market existed either domestically orinternationally for such a product(Cockerell, 1996). In the Tunisian desert,an international non-governmental organi-zation is incorporating ecotourism into aproject to develop the archaeological andhistorical resources of the Douiret townsite into a major tourist attraction (Ouessarand Belhedi, 1998).

Threats to desert ecotourism

In the top tier destinations of the USA andAustralia, the primary internal threat todesert ecotourism derives from the concen-tration of high visitor levels within certainportions of some public protected areas,which can lead to the deterioration of boththe natural resource base and the visitorexperience. A major external threat is theindiscriminant use of all-terrain vehicles,

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 255

which contributes to the degeneration ofnon-protected desert habitat and is directlydisruptive to the ecotourism experience.For lower tier destinations, the threats areentirely different. One significant internalthreat within the few protected areas thathave been established is the lack of propermanagement owing to resource scarcitiesand the low priority given to desert areas.Externally, unregulated ‘consumptive’activities such as big game hunting areincreasing in unprotected desert areas (andsometimes within the protected areasthemselves) because of their income-gener-ating potential. This is especially evidentin the former Soviet central Asianrepublics. While not inherently unsustain-able, problems can occur when huntingdepletes local wildlife populations or inter-rupts those attempting to pursue eco-tourism. An additional threat is warfare,the devastating environmental effects ofwhich were demonstrated in the wake ofthe Gulf War in both Kuwait and Iraq.

Grasslands

As the name implies, grasslands areecosystems dominated by a continuouscover of grasses and other non-woodyplants. Depending on the amount of mois-ture available, grasslands can range fromtallgrass to medium grass and shortgrasssubtypes. Major grassland ecosystemsinclude the North American Great Plains orPrairies, the Eurasian Steppe, the Sahel ofAfrica, the Pampas of Argentina, the SouthAfrican Veld and the grasslands ofAustralia. Unlike deserts, grassland ecosys-tems have been extensively altered for agri-cultural purposes, given the suitability ofunderlying soils for the cultivation ofgrains and other crops, or for supportinggrazing animals in marginal grasslandareas. The situation is especially critical inthe case of tallgrass prairie, which harboursthe most productive soil structures. TheAmerican state of Illinois typifies thedemise of tallgrass ecosystems. Once cover-ing 5 million ha, these grasslands havebeen reduced to 800 ha distributed among

a few scattered patches that do not allowfor the operation of a viable representativeecosystem (Robertson, 1999). Similarly,most of the world’s tropical lowland grass-lands have been destroyed because of theirsuitability for farming or grazing (Neldneret al., 1997). The status of medium grassprairie is less dire, although it has beenestimated that 82% of Canada’s nativemixed grass prairie have been converted toagriculture (Weaver, 1997). The situation isbetter for the shortgrass prairie, where theintroduction of grazing by domestic ani-mals does not often entail the removal ofnative plants, and does not automaticallypreclude ongoing grazing by nativewildlife.

Whereas deserts are perceived by manyas a dangerous environment, grasslands arehandicapped by the widespread perceptionthat they are nondescript and uninterest-ing. With a few exceptions, grasslands donot support the charismatic wildlife that isassociated with savannahs, rainforests oroceans. Furthermore, most visitors cannotreadily appreciate the subtle differencesthat often differentiate one grassland plantfrom another. It is the prevalence of suchattitudes, of course, that has facilitated theconversion of natural grassland to agricul-ture and pasture over the past two cen-turies.

Grassland ecotourism

It might be assumed from the abovedescription that the prospects and actualstatus of ecotourism in this ecosystem arehighest in the shortgrass areas, and lowestin the tallgrass areas. This pattern holdstrue to a large extent, but must be qualified.No doubt, the potential of ecotourism inthe tallgrass has been seriously curtailed bythe almost complete annihilation of thisbiome. However, this same rarity has stim-ulated an array of preservation and restora-tion initiatives. Concurrently, the public inareas such as the US Midwest is being edu-cated to appreciate the fragility and valueof the remaining tallgrass areas, a trendwhich is assisted by dramatic images of

256 D.B. Weaver

native plants growing 3 m in height orhigher. As a result, the ‘remnant gems’ oftallgrass prairie have become the objects ofconsiderable ecotourism interest, includingeducation and scientific research. TheLiving Prairie Museum in the Canadianprovince of Manitoba is an example of thisphenomenon. Because this 12 ha remnantof unbroken tallgrass prairie is locatedwithin the city limits of Winnipeg, theMuseum has become a major urban eco-tourist attraction. Another high profile ini-tiative is underway in the MidewinNational Tallgrass Prairie in Illinois, where6000 ha are gradually being restored to anatural tallgrass state on land that is beingmade surplus by the military. Unlike theWinnipeg site, the Midewin project is anexample of restorative ecotourism takingplace within the context of a modifiedlandscape (see Chapter 20). In 1998, 36escorted public tours with 850 participantswere conducted at the site, and it isexpected that ecotourism will eventuallyemerge as the major activity in this pro-tected area (Illinois Nature PreservesCommission, 1999). Europe’s tallgrass areasare just as fragmentary, although Hungary’slarge Hortobagy National Park does pre-serve a significant portion of the pusztaecosystem, and provides an array of eco-tourism opportunities to a growing numberof domestic and international visitors.

As mentioned above, the impact ofhuman settlement on shortgrass prairie hasbeen less traumatic, given its adaptabilityto grazing by domestic animals. In contrastto the tallgrass, a number of large protectedareas have been established in the short-grass areas of North America, albeit morerecently than in woodland or desert areas.Again, it is in North America that thistrend is most apparent. Shortgrass-dominated national parks in the USA suchas Theodore Roosevelt in North Dakota andBadlands in South Dakota are extremelypopular despite their relative remoteness,recording 448,226 and 1,021,049 visitors in1998, respectively. An incipient creation isGrasslands National Park in the Canadianprovince of Saskatchewan, which accom-modated less than 4000 visitors (essentially

all ecotourists) during 1997/98. Far morespatially extensive are the US nationalgrasslands, which are similar to the USnational forests in their multi-use orienta-tion. Established in 1960 as a vehicle forconserving and restoring degraded short-grass prairie, the 1.5 million ha of nationalgrassland include both public and privateproperty, and allow for grazing, mining andhunting, as well as ecotourism. From thelatter perspective, these areas are notablefor their thriving and easily observableungulate populations, which include ante-lope, mule deer and elk (USDA ForestService, 1999).

As with deserts, the prevalence of well-developed, grasslands-based protected areasystems, and associated ecotourism activ-ity, diminishes in the less developed coun-tries, including the former Soviet Union.One exception is southern Africa, whereecotourism is relatively well developed inthe public and private protected grasslandareas of South Africa, Botswana andNamibia, and especially in associated wet-land areas such as the Etosha Pan(Namibia) and the Okavango Swamp(Botswana). Among other less developedregions, the potential of Mongolia isnotable. This country contains some of theworld’s most extensive remaining naturalgrasslands, which support among otherwildlife over 2 million Mongolian gazelle,one of the largest herds of migrating mam-mals left in the world. Also of interest interms of incipient and potential ecotourismis the last wild population of Przewalski’shorse, located in the 89,000 ha KhustainNuruu Nature Reserve. To exploit thispotential, the Institute of MongolianBiodiversity and Ecological Studies hasbeen established with the support of theMongolian parliament to encourage eco-tourism in this and other Mongolian pro-tected areas.

Threats to grasslands ecotourism

Because most grassland areas are highlysuited for cropping and/or grazing, pro-tected areas’ managers will find it difficult

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 257

to avoid strategies that emphasize a multi-ple use approach to the management of rel-evant protected areas. However, concurrentactivities such as grazing, mineral extrac-tion and hunting could prove to be incom-patible with ecotourism under somecircumstances. Related threats include theencroachment of cropping on lands usuallyused for grazing, and the encroachment ofdeserts (desertification) in marginal areasas a result of inappropriate farming or graz-ing practices. The less developed countriesin particular are likely to face these prob-lems. For tallgrass and some medium grassprairie environments, a major threat in allparts of the world will be posed by the‘island effect’, wherein small remnants ofhabitat are too small to foster a viablegrassland ecotourism sector, and are partic-ularly vulnerable to invasion by exoticflora and fauna. More broadly, a smallerproportion of the temperate grassland (i.e.0.98%) is protected than any other biome,reflecting the extent to which such areashave been extensively modified (Green andPaine, 1997).

Savannahs

‘Savannah’ is a generic term that describestropical or semi-tropical grasslands that areinterrupted by a discontinuous cover oftrees. Where precipitation is relatively low,savannahs tend to be shortgrass, and treesfew and far between. At the other extreme,tallgrass savannahs with extensive treecover occur in humid regions adjacent tothe true forests. Major areas of savannahinclude the llanos of Venezuela, the cam-pos of Brazil, much of India and parts ofnorthern Australia. However, by far themost extensive and best known savannahsoccur in sub-Saharan Africa. With its largeand readily observable populations ofattractive large mammals (e.g. lion, leop-ard, elephant, giraffe, cheetah, rhinoceros),these savannahs offer an ideal potentialecotourism venue. Other savannahs areimpoverished by comparison. The abilityto attract ecotourists in all savannahs, how-ever, is influenced by the pronounced sea-

sonality of precipitation, which reaches itsextreme in monsoonal India. As an ecosys-tem, the African savannahs have been moremodified by human activity than those ofVenezuela or Australia, but less than thewidespread modification that has occurredin India.

Savannah ecotourism

The African savannahs, without doubt, arethe most developed in terms of existingecotourism activity. However, the distribu-tion within this region is uneven.Savannahs to the north of the Equator arenot currently being utilized for ecotourismto any great extent. Nigeria’s Yankari GameReserve, with about 30,000 visitors a yearin the late 1980s, is considered to be one ofthe major ecotourism sites in the westernAfrican savannahs (Olokesusi, 1990).Among the factors that account for thispaucity are the lack of accessible and ser-viced protected areas with a high profile,overall tourism sectors that are poorlydeveloped, and a relative paucity of highdemand wildlife compared with easternand southern Africa (Weaver, 1998).

But the pattern of uneven distribution isapparent even in the latter regions.Tourism in general is almost non-existentin Angola and Mozambique due to their30-year legacies of liberation struggle andcivil war. Most activity, in contrast, is con-centrated in a ‘safari corridor’ that extendsfrom the northern part of South Africa tosouthern Kenya (Fig. 16.2). Within this cor-ridor, the greatest amounts of ecotourismactivity occur in those southern and north-ern extremities, that is, South Africa,Botswana and Zimbabwe in the south, andKenya/northern Tanzania in the north.Smaller amounts of activity are found insouthern Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi.

It is within the northern and southerncore areas that one finds the savannah-based protected area ‘crown jewels’ wheresafari-based ecotourism is well repre-sented. The core southern parks with sig-nificant visitation levels include Kruger,Hwange and Chobe National Parks, while

258 D.B. Weaver

the north is represented by Amboseli,Masai Mara, Tsavo East and West, andSerengeti (Table 16.2). Several factorsaccount for the popularity of these parks asecotourism destinations.

• Large concentrations of ‘charismatic’wildlife such as lion, cheetah, elephant,hippopotamus, zebra and giraffe.

• High visibility factor due to the natureof the savannah landscape, the density

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 259

Fig. 16.2. The ‘safari corridor’ of the East African savannah.

of faunal populations, and the tendencyto concentrate predictably at certainlocations, such as waterholes; further-more, many animals have become habit-uated to being viewed from safarivehicles at a close distance (Roe et al.,1997).

• Strong public profile in major eco-tourism markets, due to the savannahimage disseminated by magazines suchas National Geographic and films suchas Born Free.

• Relatively good protection of theresource base and the implementation ofappropriate management practices tocope with tourist arrivals.

• Accessibility of these parks to majorurban centres such as Nairobi andJohannesberg, and to good accommoda-tions and other facilities and services.

• Relatively high level of political andsocial stability in countries offeringmajor savannah-based tourism opportu-nities.

In short, these parks offer the stereotypicalsafari experience that visitors expect, anddo so with a relatively high level of services.

The importance of these parks to theirrespective countries is illustrated by thefinding that 80% of inbound visitors toKenya and Zimbabwe are attracted primar-ily by the wildlife-viewing opportunitiesprovided mainly in these high-profile loca-tions (Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd, 1996).

Evidence further suggests that most eco-tourism activity in the northern and south-ern core is of the soft variety. This isapparent from a pattern of overnightaccommodation that emphasizes urban or3S resorts as well as luxury safari lodgescloser to the actual parks (Weaver, 1998).Also, most of the wildlife viewing takesplace in comfortable safari vehicles thattravel along a relatively small number ofroadways within the parks. Of over950,000 visitors to South Africa’s KrugerNational Park in 1997, only 4654 partici-pated in wilderness trail walks (Ferreiraand Harmse, 1999). The high profile publicprotected areas cited above are supple-mented by a growing number of privategame reserves that offer some ecotourismopportunities, but concentrate primarily ontrophy hunting (which is forbidden in thenational parks).

Outside the two cores (i.e. the middle ofthe corridor), there is significantly less eco-tourism activity. For example, Malawi’sfive national parks cumulatively hostedonly 17,136 visitors in 1989 (Burton, 1995),while Zambia’s most popular park, SouthLuangwa, hosted only just over 15,000tourists in 1995 (Table 16.2). Aside fromSouth Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe,Tanzania has some of the best prospects forbecoming a major ecotourism destination.This is due to the widespread view thatTanzania’s wildlife resources are more

260 D.B. Weaver

Table 16.2. Visitation to selected protected areas in the savannah corridor of Africa.

Protected area Country Year Visitors

Masai Mara Kenya 1995 133,000a

Tsavo East Kenya 1995 229,000a

Amboseli Kenya 1995 115,000a

Lake Nakuru Kenya 1995 167,000a

Kruger South Africa 1997 954,398b

Serengeti Tanzania 1998 20,000c

South Luangwa Zambia 1995 > 15,000d

Hwange Zimbabwe 1993 98,000e

a Kenya, 1996.b Ferreira and Harmse, 1999.c Honey, 1999.d Roe et al., 1997.e Potts et al., 1996.

extensive and more pristine than those ofKenya. Furthermore, Tanzania not onlyattracts a growing number of European andNorth American ecotourists from neigh-bouring Kenya, but is enhancing its statusas a destination in its own right throughimprovements in infrastructure and ser-vices (Anon, 1998).

The incidence of ecotourism withinsavannah regions outside Africa is morelimited. A notable exception, however, isAustralia’s 20,000 km2 Kakadu NationalPark, where a savannah and wetland-domi-nated landscape attracted about 230,000visitors annually during the early 1990s,the vast majority of whom could bedescribed as ecotourists (Australia, 1997).The high levels of management and ser-vices available at Kakadu attest toAustralia’s status as the only developedcountry with a significant area occupied bysavannahs.

Threats to savannah ecotourism

Persistently high levels of populationgrowth in countries dominated by savan-nah is a long-term threat to the viability ofthe ecosystem, and hence to ecotourismitself. These pressures are especially acutein sub-Saharan Africa, and may translatenot only into the conversion of unprotectedsavannahs into cropland and pasture, butalso to encroachments (both legal and ille-gal) on protected areas. Accordingly, it isessential that the revenue derived fromsavannah-based ecotourism (and otherforms of tourism) is substantial enough toconstitute a viable alternative to moredestructive land uses, such as cropping.The high visitor numbers recorded in manyof the higher profile parks suggests thatsuch levels are being attained at some sites.However, this in turn has resulted in vari-ous tourism-related internal threats to thenatural environment. As with virtually anyhigh profile protected area, visitation in theAfrican savannah park system tends to beconcentrated within just a few individualparks, and just in certain locations withinthose parks. In locations that have not been

appropriately site-hardened or otherwisemanaged, this has led to negative environ-mental impacts and a concomitant deterio-ration of the ecotourism experience.Well-chronicled problems in places such asKruger and Amboseli include landscapedegradation caused by off-road vehiculartravel, the congregation of wildlife atgarbage tips, traffic congestion, and the‘mobbing’ of cheetahs, lions and otherpredators by excessive and invasive num-bers of safari vehicles (Weaver, 1998;Ferreira and Harmse, 1999). In some cases,the stresses arise due to improper manage-ment practices that allow wildlife popula-tions to exceed normal carrying capacities.For example, Zimbabwe’s Hwange NationalPark cannot cope with its growing popula-tion of 30,000 elephants, which are wreak-ing havoc with the ecosystem in manyareas (Potts et al., 1996). Fortunately,savannah flora and fauna appear to haveconsiderable resilience in the face of suchproblems; research in Masai Mara andAmboseli showed that off-trail damage byvehicles was quickly reversed once thepractice was stopped, especially in the wetseason (Onyeanusi, 1986).

Discussion

While this chapter attempts to identify gen-eral patterns that apply to desert, grasslandand savannah ecotourism, one must neverlose sight of the fundamental diversity thatcharacterizes each ecosystem. Hence, animpact or strategy that applies to one par-ticular desert or savannah area might notbe applicable to another. Nevertheless,there are various patterns and managementissues that should be assessed as beingmore likely to pertain to these ecosystems.It is worth reiterating that deserts, grass-lands and savannahs all repeat the globalpattern whereby ecotourism, in its ‘soft’manifestation, tends to concentrate in alimited space within just a few high profileand more accessible protected areas. Allthree ecosystems also possess a high visi-bility factor that increases the likelihood ofsuccessful wildlife viewing, yet can also

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 261

negatively affect visitor satisfaction byincreasing the probability of viewing othertourists as well. The opportunity for bothsoft and hard ecotourism beyond these pro-tected spaces is influenced by the condi-tion of each ecosystem. Deserts tend to berelatively unaltered, whereas grasslands(and tallgrass in particular) have experi-enced the greatest amount of degradationand conversion; savannahs as a whole arein an intermediate position. Another influ-ence is the extent to which a market existsfor ecotourism in the protected areas andbeyond. As the domestic market for eco-tourism in less developed countries is gen-erally incipient, it is apparent thatdomestic ecotourists are significant as amarket only in North America (deserts,grasslands), Australia (deserts, grasslands,savannahs), the western grasslands ofEurope (e.g. Hungary) and, to a more lim-ited extent, in South Africa and Namibia.

With respect to management issues, thequestion of site-hardening and other strate-gies to deal with visitor concentrationswithin protected areas is as important todeserts, grasslands and savannahs as it is toall other ecosystems. A related issue isaccess to water, given that deserts andgrasslands are areas of inherent moisturedeficit, and savannahs are usually subjectto seasonal deficiencies. Similarly, man-agers of ecotourism in grasslands andsavannahs must cope with the reality of

fire as a normal part of ecosystem dynam-ics. Pertinent questions include the extentto which these can and should be initiatedand controlled by managers (as opposed tobeing left to the devices of nature), and towhat extent these will interfere with orenhance the ecotourism experience in boththe short and long term. The migratorybehaviour of many desert, grassland andsavannah larger mammals is also an impor-tant issue, since ranges often extendbeyond protected area boundaries. Thiscan lead to a re-assessment of wildlife aspests in those unprotected areas, or asobjects for consumptive tourism (i.e. hunt-ing). A sort of informal stratificationappears to be emerging in the safari beltwhere ecotourism is promoted in thehigher-order protected areas, while huntingis given priority in lower-order and privateprotected areas, as well as in communallands. Zimbabwe’s well-known and contro-versial CAMPFIRE programme illustratesthe continuing importance that is attachedto big game trophy tourism in the region(Butler, 1995). The issue is not whetherhunting is sustainable or not (this depend-ing on how it is regulated), but insteadwhether a peaceful coexistence betweenthe two sectors can be achieved, orwhether ecotourism interests will ‘concedethe field’ to consumptive tourism outsidejust a few of the crown jewels.

262 D.B. Weaver

References

Anon (1998) International Tourism Reports 1, 67–82.Brown, B. (1999) Desert Park defies belief. The Australian 7 July, p. 6.Burton, R. (1995) Travel Geography, 2nd edn. Pitman, London.Butler, V. (1995) Is this the way to save Africa’s wildlife? International Wildlife 25(2), 34–39.Central Bureau of Statistics (1996) Economic Survey 1996. Central Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi.Cockerell, N. (1996) Egypt. International Tourism Reports 2, 5–20.Commonwealth of Australia (1997) A Plan of Management in Respect of Kakadu National Park.

Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Daniel, J. (1993) The Buzzworm Magazine Guide to Ecotravel. Buzzworm Books, Boulder, Colorado.Ferreira, S. and Harmse, A. (1999) The social carrying capacity of Kruger National Park, South

Africa: policy and practice. Tourism Geographies 1, 325–342.Green, M.J. and Paine, J. (1997) State of the world’s protected areas at the end of the twentieth cen-

tury. Paper presented at the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium, Albany,Australia, 24–29 November.

Hitchcock, R. (1997) Cultural, economic, and environmental impacts of tourism among Kalahari

Bushmen. In: Chambers, E. (ed.) Tourism and Culture: an Applied Perspective. State Universityof New York Press, Albany, pp. 93–128.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Huber, T., Larkin, R. and Peters, G. (1988) Dictionary of Concepts in Physical Geography. GreenwoodPress, New York.

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (1999) Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. http://www.fs.fed.us/mntp/

National Park Service (1999) Recreation visits by State for 1998. http://www.aqd.nps.gov/stats/bystate

Neldner, V., Fensham, R., Clarkson, J. and Stanton, J. (1997) The natural grasslands of Cape YorkPeninsula Australia. Description, distribution and conservation status. Biological Conservation81, 121–136.

Olokesusi, F. (1990) Assessment of the Yankari Game Reserve, Nigeria. Tourism Management 11,153–162.

Onyeanusi, A. (1986) Measurements of impact of off-road driving on grasslands in Masai MaraNational Reserve, Kenya: a simulation approach. Environmental Conservation 13, 325–329.

Ouessar, M. and Belhedi, H. (1998) The role of NGOs in promoting drylands ecotourism: an ongoingproject in southern Tunisia. Aridlands Newsletter 43 (Spring/summer). http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln43/tunisia

Potts, F., Goodwin, H. and Walpole, M. (1996) People, wildlife and tourism in and around HwangeNational Park, Zimbabwe. In: Price, M. (ed.) People and Tourism in Fragile Environments.Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 199–219.

Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd (1996) The Conservation and Development Benefits of the WildlifeTrade. Department of Environment, London.

Robertson, K. (1999) The Tallgrass Prairie in Illinois. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~kenr/tallgrass.html Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997) Take Only Photographs, Leave Only

Footprints: The Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. HED Wildlife and DevelopmentSeries No. 10. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Sievers, E. (1998) The potential for ecotourism in Uzbekistan. Aridlands Newsletter 43 (Spring/summer). http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln43/uzbekistan

Sofield, T. and Getz, D. (1997) Rural tourism in Australia: the Undara Experience. In: Page, S. andGetz, D. (eds) The Business of Rural Tourism: International Perspectives. ITP Press, London,pp. 143–161.

USDA Forest Service (1999) Dakota Prairie Grassland. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/dakotaprairie/index.html

Weaver, D. (1997) A regional framework for planning ecotourism in Saskatchewan. CanadianGeographer 41, 281–293.

Weaver, D. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D. and Elliott, K. (1996) Spatial patterns and problems in contemporary Namibian tourism.

Geographical Journal 162, 205–217.World Resources Institute (1998) 1998–99 World Resources: a Guide to the Global Environment.

World Resources Institute, New York.

Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs 263

Chapter 17

Marine Environments

C. Cater1 and E. Cater21School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK;

2Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, UK

Introduction

Unity in diversity

The IUCN’s definition of the marine envi-ronment as ‘Any area of intertidal or subti-dal terrain, together with its overlyingwater and associated flora, fauna, historicaland cultural features’ (IUCN, 1991) reflectsthe enormous complexity and diversitypresent in this realm. This is hardly sur-prising since the area of sea and seabed isover two-and-a-half times as great as thetotal area of land masses of the world(IUCN, 1991). Marine ecosystems vary fromcoral reefs (the most species diverse of allmarine habitats, approaching tropical rain-forests in their species richness) to coastalmangrove wetlands; species range fromsperm whales to sea horses; and marinetourism embraces a multiplicity of activi-ties from whale-watching to scuba-diving.The purpose of this chapter is to highlightthe distinctive features of marine eco-tourism, while setting it into an overallcontext. It examines various forms ofmarine ecotourism for their key attributesof sustainability across various dimen-sions, and also discusses the role of differ-ent types of marine protected areas (MPAs).While over-generalization is counter-

productive it is evident that there are cer-tain recurring themes from across theglobe.

The context of marine tourism

If outer space is the ‘final frontier’, it maybe argued that the marine environment isthe penultimate, with advanced technologyenabling an increasing number of marinetourists to literally reach new depths.There is, however, an inherent danger ofmerely regarding marine ecotourism as oneof the latest developments in the never-ending search for new touristic experi-ences, thus isolating it from other forms ofeconomic activity. The context in which itis set as a process and as a principle is allimportant, because that context has a vitalrole to play in prospects for sustainableoutcomes.

To borrow the terminology of theSwedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, thereare marked spread (or positive) and back-wash (or negative) effects between the vari-ous sectors, levels and interests (Fig. 17.1).Indeed the relationships are not entirelyunrelated to his overall thesis as many ofthese interdependencies are bound up withcentre–periphery relationships; in this case

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 265

a result of patterns of dominance implicitin the international organization of thetourism industry. The spread effects frommarine ecotourism include raising environ-mental awareness and disseminating anunderstanding of the coincidence of goodenvironmental practice with advantages tobusiness. The backwash effects hingearound the fact that other, often competing,activities, are frequently prejudicial to thesuccess, if not the existence, of marine eco-tourism. It is also vital to consider the over-all, global context. The implications ofglobal climatic change for coral bleachingand consequent destruction of a significantmarine ecotourism resource is a case inpoint.

There are various levels to consider.First, it is imperative that marine eco-tourism is viewed in the context of marinetourism as a whole. Any one marine loca-tion is likely to host a variety of frequentlyincompatible recreational pursuits. Thereis, for example, conflict between scuba-div-ing and high speed watercraft. Even marinenature-based tourism may compromisegenuine marine ecotourism. Conscientiousoperators, such as SeaCanoe, may find theirefforts constantly thwarted by the unsus-tainable activities of other ‘nature’ touroperators whose businesses may be ecolog-ically based, but far from ecologicallysound. SeaCanoe began its kayaking opera-tions in the tidal sea caves of Phang Nga

266 C. Cater and E. Cater

Fig. 17.1. Spread and backwash effects in marine ecotourism.

Bay, Thailand, in 1989. The company haswon a number of awards for its low envi-ronmental impact/high local benefits cavekayaking experiences in Southeast Asia. InThailand, however, the very success ofSeaCanoe in an unregulated scenarioinevitably spawned unscrupulous imita-tors. Cave visitation has been taken to fourfigures a day, with dozens of kayaks wait-ing in line to beat the tide. Illegal extortionof tourist entry fees to the caves alsooccurs. Inevitably the caves have becomedegraded by these high volume, environ-mentally unaware entries (Gray, 1998a, b).

The second contextual level is that ofmarine ecotourism with respect to othertourism market segments which are depen-dent on, and consequently impact on, themarine environment. The development andoperations of coastal resorts, for example,have manifest implications for the successor otherwise of marine ecotourism, asindeed does the burgeoning growth of the cruise industry. As Milne (1998, p. 47)suggests:

in attempting to achieve more appropriateforms of tourism, it is also essential that westeer away from creating a dichotomybetween ‘alternative’ and ‘mass’ tourism.Such a division serves little real purpose anddiverts our attention away from theinterlinked nature of all types of tourismdevelopment.

Third, with regard to the overall pictureof sustainability, it is vital to consider theinteractions that occur with all other formsof economic activity. As Butler (1998,p. 34) asserts, ‘tourism is part of the globalsystem and cannot be tackled in isolation,spatially, economically or temporally’. It isvital that a move is made beyond atourism-centric view, as it is ‘inappropriateto discuss sustainable tourism any morethan one might discuss any other singleactivity … we cannot hope to achieve sus-tainability in one sector alone, when eachis linked to and dependent upon the oth-ers’ (Butler, 1998, p. 28). The interplaywith forest management, for example, isclear when it is considered that destructivelogging practices, which result in extensive

runoff from the land and consequent silta-tion of coastal waters, have serious reper-cussions for marine life and, in turn, formarine ecotourism.

There is also the vexed question of eth-nocentricity when the contextual aspect ofmarine ecotourism is closely examined; notonly do the needs of visiting tourists andhost populations frequently diverge, butalso foreign and domestic tourists oftenhave markedly different, incompatibleagenda. At Moalboal and Pescador Island,Philippines, for example, local divers prac-tise spearfishing, which obviously compro-mises both the safety and sensitivity ofthose who have come to appreciate theunderwater life. It is vital, therefore, thatall these areas of difference and potentialdiscord are identified at an early stage inthe planning for more sustainable out-comes.

The distinctive features of marine tourism

There are several distinctive features ofmarine tourism which have a bearing onprospects for sustainability. First is theopen nature of the marine environment,which brings with it considerable problemsof management. The high degree of connec-tivity in the seas facilitates the transmis-sion of substances and effects (IUCN,1991). Sea currents carry sediments, nutri-ents, pollutants and organisms through andbeyond a specific location. Consequently,actions taken in one locality, by whateverform of activity, tourism or otherwise,marine or terrestrial, may affect anotherhundreds of kilometres distant and oftennations apart. This openness also meansthat, despite designations of marine pro-tected areas, or indeed of territorial waters(while territorial limits are defined as 12km out, the United Nations (UN)Convention on the Law of the Sea givescoastal states jurisdiction over allresources, including living resources, in anexclusive economic zone that can extendup to 200 nautical miles from their coasts(UN, 2000)) there are few physical barriersto accessibility. This renders coastal

Marine Environments 267

waters, particularly in more remote loca-tions, notoriously difficult to police. Theassumption that oceans and seas are com-mon property resources further compoundsthe problem. They are considered to beowned in common by everybody, not sub-ject to individual or private ownership,and can therefore normally be used with-out payment. This is the ‘tragedy of thecommons’. Under such circumstancesthere is a positive incentive for individualusers to exploit the resource to the maxi-mum, even if destruction of marineresources is the inevitable result.

Second, marine tourism takes place inan environment in which humans do notlive, and consequently in which they aredependent on equipment to survive(Orams, 1999). While this dependence mayengender a sense of humility and respectfor the unfamiliar, it may, equally, result inserious physical damage from carelesshandling or inappropriate use of technicalsupport and facilities.

Third, increasing interest in the marineenvironment has meant that the growthrate of marine tourism exceeds that of mostof the rest of the tourism industry. Whale-watching, for example, has displayed aver-age annual growth rates of around 10%during the 1990s (compared with an aver-age annual 4.3% increase in world touristarrivals worldwide). Dive tourism toZanzibar more than doubled between 1990and 1995, with a concomitant increase ofdive operators from one to 11 over theperiod (Cater, 1995).

A key elements approach

Weaver (Chapter 5) sets ecotourism into thecontext of other tourism types, describingthe problems involved in defining eco-tourism on the basis of discrete categorieswhen the reality is one of a continuumwith considerable overlap and blurring ofboundaries. In particular, there is the ques-tion of scale of operation. While purist,ecocentric analysts would confine the defi-nition of marine ecotourism to small-scale,low volume, visitation, it has become

increasingly recognized that a spectrum ofparticipation and involvement can be dis-cerned (see Chapter 2). This spectrumranges from hard-core, specialist groupsundertaking scientific observation andresearch, to more casual marine-basedactivities such as snorkelling, glass-bottomboat observation or whale-watching. It isnot only irrational to deny the designationof ecotourism to large-scale marine tourismif it adheres to all the requirements of sus-tainable tourism, but also, as Weaver sug-gests, it neither makes economic sense noracknowledges the potent lobbying forceconstituted by increased participation. It isnot necessarily a case of ‘big is bad; smallis beautiful’. Nor is it a foregone conclu-sion that hard marine ecotourism is anymore sustainable than soft marine eco-tourism. It makes more sense, therefore, toexamine each case on its own merits ratherthan to attempt a heavy-handed allocationto broad categories of any crude, all-embracing definition. The key elementsapproach of Bottrill and Pearce (1995),therefore, has much to commend it as ameans of identifying and classifying eco-tourism ventures in the field. While thespecifics of these key elements are likely tobe open to debate, such assessment allowsa flexible approach which can take intoaccount scale and local circumstance. Ofcourse the questions of what constitutes areasonable standard and whether all, mostor just some of the elements are essentialqualifications for ecotourism, are debatableissues (Bottrill and Pearce, 1995). There isalso the question of ‘value added’. Oughtthere to be some way of measuring progresstowards more sustainable outcomes?

The specific examples of various marineecotourism activities described in thischapter are examined for their key attrib-utes of sustainability across the dimensionsof environmental responsibility; socio-cul-tural integrity; and economic viability(with the specific requirement to benefitlocal livelihoods). An essential part of thisexamination is also to draw attention toparticular constraints and problems thatoccur.

268 C. Cater and E. Cater

Scuba-diving

Snorkellers and divers as ecotourists?

Snorkelling and scuba-diving are, withoutdoubt, the most popular forms of underwa-ter visitation. Shackley (1998) suggests thatsnorkelling is a far less intrusive activitythan scuba-diving, but this is a dubiousclaim for several reasons. The number ofsnorkellers at any one location at any pointin time is likely to be higher than scubadivers; little or no training is required andsnorkellers are rarely given guidelinesabout responsible behaviour; snorkellers’activities are not normally monitored byeither the presence of a co-diver (buddy) ordivemaster; and snorkellers are far morelikely to come into physical contact withreefs, either through treading water or rest-ing.

Many might argue that the size of thescuba-diving industry, with estimates ofabout 14 million divers worldwide (Viders,1997, quoted in Shackley, 1998), meansthat it cannot be considered as a true formof ecotourism. Indeed, as Weaver shows inChapter 5, diving is an example of whatmay be considered ‘mass eco-tourism’since many of the participants are actually

on a 3S (sea, sand, sun) format holiday.However, if ecotourism is interpreted as aset of principles rather than being confinedto small-scale activities, scuba-diving maybe considered one of the original eco-tourism practices. Schuster (1992) con-tends that ecotourism is neither a newword nor concept in diving, as ‘from thebeginning dive travel has been a form ofecotourism since diving involves observingnature’. This contention, however, assumesresponsible behaviour, which is by nomeans automatic.

A growing pastime

There has been significant growth in thenumber of qualified divers over the last 30years. The world’s largest diving organiza-tion, the Professional Association of DivingInstructors (PADI), has issued in excess of8 million certifications since 1967 (Table17.1), with 779,967 new certifications(494,750 were the basic Open Water Diverqualification) in 1998 (PADI, 1999). PADItrains 55% of the world’s divers, whileother major global diving organizationsinclude BSAC, NAUI and SSI. In the UK alone PADI registered 56,000 new basic

Marine Environments 269

Table 17.1. Growth in PADI dive training certifications worldwide (PADI, 1999).

Certifications Cumulative Average annualYear per year certifications % increase

1967 3,226 3,226} 79.3

1972 51,842 135,904 7.1

1977 69,771 443,482}

15.3}1982 141,429 998,070

} 17.41987 315,468 2,203,079

} 13.81992 529,463 4,376,821

} 7.31997 753,157 7,728,695

1998 779,967 8,508,662

qualifications in 1996–1998, an annualaverage of just over 18,500. However, thetotal number of newly qualified UK diverseach year is considerably in excess of thisfigure as the UK is firstly BSAC (the BritishSub Aqua Club) territory, and many UKdivers also increasingly choose to qualifywhile on holiday abroad. The RecreationalScuba Training Council of Europe (RSTC)estimates that there are 3.2 million activeEuropean divers, and that an estimated825,000 of these travel to their diving desti-nations abroad while on holiday each year(RSTC, 1997). According to RSTC theexpenditure from this travel alone mayamount to $US3 billion.

Statistics from PADI show that 80% ofnewly qualified Open Water divers have acollege education, but this is not to say thatthey may be more ecologically aware.Instead it is more likely to illustrate thefact that diving is an expensive hobby, assuggested by Orams (1999). He contendsthat marine activities are patronized, rela-tive to land-based activities, by uppersocio-economic groups because of the sig-nificant cost of such pursuits. A typicalopen water training course might cost up toUS$200, and a day of diving about US$50.Both thus add considerably to the cost of aholiday.

The attractions of scuba-diving

What is behind this significant growth inthe numbers of qualified divers around theglobe? The reasons are many. On one hand,there are factors that have enabled accessto diving to a much broader population.The cumulative effects of global tourismhave brought dive operations to an increas-ing number of destinations, so the correctfacilities are more likely to be on hand,particularly the ‘safety net’ of a nearbycompression chamber. Schuster (1992)claims that eco-diving ‘could create a newwave of interest for potential divers andkeep certified divers involved in the sport’.On the other hand, there are a number ofpush factors that have led to the increasingpopularity of dive tourism. It has been

argued that tourists increasingly want morethan sights alone, they wish to ‘participatewith their own skins’ (Moeran, 1983).Diving is the only marine activity thatoffers complete immersion within the envi-ronment itself, as the alternatives mightonly be visual, as in submarines or glass-hull boats, or only partial, as insnorkelling.

In addition, scuba-diving is a primeillustration of a concept that has becomeincreasingly used in tourism literature(Ryan, 1997; Orams, 1999), that of flow,originally suggested by Csikszentimihalyi(1975), to explain the appeal of certainleisure activities. The nature of the flowexperience demands the setting of a chal-lenge, the meeting of this challenge and thecompletion of the task that leads to satis-faction with the experience. During theactivity there may be intense concentrationon the task at hand, often resulting in theloss of any sense of time, and feelings ofcompetency and satisfaction, both duringand after the experience. Diving clearlyprovides a challenge in so far as training isrequired to undertake such an activity.Also a typical dive offers a host of chal-lenges in a specific time frame, the comple-tion of which lead to feelings ofsatisfaction. These include donning all theequipment which also requires checking;following correct procedures for ascent anddescent; monitoring of gauges to ensureadherence to correct profiles and times;maintaining an awareness of locationunderwater relative to the boat; and find-ing, observing, and possibly photograph-ing, wildlife of interest beneath the water.All this assumes that these challenges canbe met by the diver, so there is an impor-tant element of matching skills and tasks. Ifthey are out of balance the diver may find adive either boring or, alternatively, toostressful, with the inherent danger thathe/she might not cope. In the latter situa-tion the presence of external factorsbecomes increasingly important, such asthe presence of more-experienced buddies,and the provision of advanced facilitiesmentioned above.

It is suggested that males find the oppor-

270 C. Cater and E. Cater

tunity for risk and adventure more attrac-tive than females (Orams, 1999). Thiscould be borne out by statistics whichshow that of PADI divers in 1992, 65%were male (PADI, 1994). However, thesefigures should be treated with caution, as itis undeniable that they are likely to evenout over time: diving holds appeal irre-spective of gender. Personal observationconfirms that, particularly in the initialtraining stages, diving is as popular withwomen as with men.

Diver behaviour

The fact that scuba training is necessary topractise the sport means that, unlike othermarine-based activities, it is much easier toeducate the participant in terms of sensi-tive environmental behaviour. One of themost important elements of diver trainingis that of buoyancy control, meaning thatthe diver can rest at any point in the divewithout either rising or sinking in depth.While ensuring that divers are able to con-trol themselves underwater, it is alsostressed, during the training, that this willminimize contact between divers and anysensitive marine life. In addition, all of thelarge dive agencies have environmentaleducation programmes which are inte-grated into the dive training programme,for example PADI’s Project AWARE(Aquatic World Awareness, Responsibilityand Education). Sometimes divers mayprovide an early warning of ecological cri-sis, as they are in a unique position toobserve the environment at close hand, andare encouraged to report anything unusualto local environmental protection agencies.

Diving procedures mean that diversalways dive in pairs as ‘buddies’. This isobviously for safety, but it also influencesdiver behaviour. The advantages whenobserving a marine environment are clear,as two pairs of eyes working together willfind a greater number of interesting thingsthan one pair. In addition, the continualmonitoring of another person reduces thelikelihood of damage to marine environ-ments, as buddies may be able to warn

each other of unintentional harm that anaction might cause to that environment.Examples might include hitting the reefwith a fin or oxygen tank, as it is difficultfor an individual to appreciate how muchfurther both these extend outside the bodyspace. Personal observation also highlightsboth buddy-to-buddy disapproval and theindividual guilt that such an incident pro-vokes within the diving fraternity. In addi-tion, most divers now demand a sensitiveenvironmental operation from the divecompanies themselves. With forces fromabove and below, most successful compa-nies will have sound environmental poli-cies, such as the establishment of sharedpermanent moorings off a reef by differentdive operators. While positive for the envi-ronment this also makes business sense asoperators can advertise their eco-creden-tials, often to significant effect.

Management of divers

Despite increased ecological awarenesspresent within the diving community, thecareful management of divers is extremelyimportant. Although aware of the fragilityof the underwater environment, an under-water holiday maker still has humancuriosity and the desire to make the 30–45min experience as worthwhile as possible.This leads to instances such as thatreported at Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, inMarch 1999, when an estimated 30 diverswere chasing one turtle. Clearly the poten-tial stress caused by such an incident mustbe avoided wherever possible, but the rela-tive invisibility of such an occurrence to allbut the participants makes it difficult topolice.

The most obvious method for doing sois to limit the numbers of divers at any onesite, though this requires the establishmentof thresholds. Dixon et al. (1993) showhow diver thresholds have been set for themarine reserve of Bonaire in theNetherlands Antilles. Results from inter-views with divers together with data oncoral cover and species diversity suggestthat the threshold stress level for any

Marine Environments 271

one dive site at Bonaire is between 4000and 6000 dives per year. Multiplying bythe number of individual sites gives anupper limit of maximum theoretical capac-ity within the park. This would still, how-ever, accommodate unacceptably highvisitation levels at the more popular sites,so this upper limit is then halved to give amore realistic threshold. However, eachlocation will have different capacity levels,meaning that these calculations need to betailored to the individual case, as shown byHawkins and Roberts (1992). In additionBonaire is fortunate in that it has been areserve since the early 1980s, and conse-quently there is a historical record of thecondition of the reefs. In many of the emerg-ing ecotourism destinations of the lessdeveloped countries, there is little scien-tific record of the marine environment, andmarine parks are often being set up wellafter the diving operations have been inplace.

Some of the difficulties of this ‘catching-up’ are highlighted by Shackley (1998) inher discussion of the world famousStingray City in the Cayman Islands. Atpresent there are no controls over the highvisitation levels to this site where diversmay hand-feed stingrays, as the area is out-side present marine reserves. There is littledata, beyond observation at the site, onhow the feeding may have influenced thenatural behaviour of the stingrays.

One of the more extreme measures takenin setting thresholds for a dive site is thattaken at Pulau Sipadan, off the easterncoast of Sabah, Malaysia. In early 1998 theMalaysian Ministry of the Environmentand Tourism introduced restrictions to thenumbers of visitors, many of whom weredivers, allowed to the island. Effective lim-its were set at a quarter of the previouspeak daily number (Cochrane, 1998).Restrictions have been enforced, ostensiblyto reduce the impacts that divers were hav-ing on this tiny island’s population of tur-tles and a dwindling supply of freshgroundwater. More cynical commentators,however, suggest that this radical actionmay be more related to a territorial disputeover the island between Malaysia and

Indonesia. Irrespective of the exact reason,the plan should have important implica-tions for the local marine environment,although the island now has a furtherdegree of exclusivity, with diver operationsraising their prices to over US$1000 for 5days’ diving.

Some marine parks pay for their man-agement through the use of fees, althoughthis is still a relatively untapped source ofpotential revenue. Evidence suggests thatdivers are willing to pay extra levies toensure the continued preservation of thereef ecosystems that they enjoy. The workcarried out by Dixon et al. (1993) showedthat 92% of respondents agreed that theUS$10 user fee in Bonaire was reasonable.A willingness-to-pay survey conducted inZanzibar yielded comparable findings,with 82% of divers prepared to pay US$10for visitation to an individual marine site(Cater, 1995).

It is important to note that the largemajority of dive schools are operated andstaffed by Western dive instructors.Frequently this is not a question of ability,but of cost and the difficulty of getting thecorrect training. A dive operator inZanzibar, lamenting that he would like totrain local staff, stated: ‘PADI do not pro-duce a training manual in Swahili’ (C.Golfetto, Zanzibar, 1995, personal commu-nication). However, while not overt, in anactivity such as diving where personalrisks may be higher, trust is likely to be anissue. Western tourists are likely to feelsafer with a Western instructor. Althoughthis picture is changing, it is importantwhen considering the local socio-economicimpacts of a dive operation in relation toother ecotourism ventures.

There are, undeniably, still far too manycases of degradation of marine environ-ments attributable to over-visitation andinsensitive behaviour in dive tourism. Afurther problem is the fact that the vastmajority of diving occurs within only0.025% of the marine environment, i.e.around coral reefs. However, it is suggestedthat scuba-diving may be at the forefront ofchanging attitudes and a more responsibleethos.

272 C. Cater and E. Cater

Whale-watching

While whale-watching as a commercialactivity began in 1955 along the southernCalifornian coast, there were still onlyaround a dozen countries conducting com-mercial whale-watching activities by theearly 1980s. This form of marine observa-tion accelerated during the 1990s, so thatby 1994, 5.4 million tourists went whale-watching worldwide, generating overUS$500 million in revenue. It is significantto note that this growth parallels the globaldecline in commercial whale hunting. Ithas been estimated that currently 295communities in 65 countries host whale-watching (Orams, 1999). High profile desti-nations include Tofino, British Columbia;Hervey’s Bay, Queensland; Kaikoura, NewZealand; and Puerto Piramide inArgentinian Patagonia. The last two loca-tions have registered a 15–20-fold increasein visitation over the past 10 years (Table17.2). Whale-watching has undoubtedlybrought an economic turnaround for smallcoastal settlements, such as PuertoPiramide’s 90 residents (Orri, 1995) and the3000-strong town of Kaikoura. However, itis undeniable that such a rate of growth hasbrought with it considerable problems ofmanagement, and there are reasons for con-cern in many areas. Duffus and Dearden(1993) describe the scientific uncertaintyand institutional inertia surrounding killerwhale viewing on the north-east coast ofVancouver Island which mean that eventhis high-profile marine mammal is inade-quately protected.

In the case of Kaikoura the situation isbeing closely monitored. The town wasbadly affected by recession during the1970s, and post-1984 restructuring resultedin the loss of 170 jobs in the town(McAloon et al., 1998). Commercial whale-watching began as a result of a partnershipbetween an American researcher and alocal fisherman; they established Nature-watch in 1988. The venture offered a rangeof whale-watching products from 2 h tripsto 3–10 day packages. In 1989 local Maoribegan trading as Kaikoura Tours. While the two operators worked well together,

Naturewatch sold out to Kaikoura Tours in1991, and the award winning Whale Watchwas born, which to this day holds themonopoly of sea-borne whale viewing inthe area (Horn et al., 1998). The operationhas evolved from an initial small-scaleoperation to large scale, carrying 60,000passengers in 1998. This scale of operationhas brought undoubted economic benefitsfor Kaikoura. A recent survey found that aquarter of respondents worked either fullor part time in tourism, and that 80.6% ofrespondents felt the ‘community as awhole’ benefits from tourism (Horn et al.,1998). Furthermore, through a range oftourist developments in Kaikoura, includ-ing Whale Watch, local Maori moved froma position of relative powerlessness, andlow socio-economic status, to become amajor employer and economic force in thecommunity (Horn et al., 1998). It has beenestimated that 70% of Maori in Kaikourahave been involved in tourism (Simmonsand Fairweather, 1998).

The level of visitation, however,inevitably raises the question of environ-mental change, but whale-watching at

Marine Environments 273

Table 17.2. The recent growth in whale-watching inArgentina and New Zealand (Orri, 1995; Vinas,1999, personal communication; Whale Watch,1999).

Total whale-watching visitors

Year Puerto Piramide Kaikouraa

1987 5,2141988 10,5191989 12,336 3,500b

1990 16,524 NA1991 17,446 c

1992 29,121 25,0001993 33,772 NA1994 44,829 NA1995 NA NA1996 NA 40,0001997 72,000 50,0001998 79,481 60,000

a Approximate figures only.b Kaikoura Tours.c Whale Watch established.

Kaikoura is regulated and closely moni-tored by the New Zealand Department ofConservation (DoC). They use the precau-tionary principle of not issuing any furtherwhale-watching permits at Kaikoura, andWhale Watch are also not allowed toincrease the number of trips that they oper-ate per day. Four other operations, how-ever, offer scenic flights to view whales anddolphins along the Kaikoura coast. Astrong regulatory framework is in place asall marine mammals around New Zealandare fully protected under the MarineMammals Protection Act 1978, amended in1990 to introduce regulations specificallyfor the control and management of marinemammal watching. These regulations werereviewed in 1992 when the Royal NewZealand Navy provided technical adviceon the impact of noise on whales and dol-phins. As a result a minimum set of condi-tions were established. Boats are requiredto approach a whale from a direction paral-lel to, and slightly to the rear of, the whale.No more than three (including airborne)vessels are allowed within 300 m of awhale at any one time and sea vessels arerequired to travel at a ‘no wake’ speedinside this distance. A minimum approachdistance of 50 m has also been set and ves-sels are required to keep out of the path ofany whale (Baxter and Donoghue, 1995).

However, whale-watching at Kaikoura isnot wholly without problems. Residentsrecognize the negative impacts that tourismbrings, the most commonly cited beingpressure on existing infrastructure includ-ing water, sewage disposal and car parkingspace. The monopolistic nature of WhaleWatch operations has been criticized asunfair. Maori use their position as Maori todefend their monopoly, which unfortu-nately adds a political and racial, focus tothis strategy, whereby any criticism of thisposition is construed as racist (Horn et al.,1998). The extent to which tourism canremain under local control as it grows hasalso been brought into question. Someobservers feel that outside investment isinevitable, but this, in turn, implies outsidecontrol. It is essential to maintain localownership and management of key facili-

ties, and to retain local control in decisionmaking (Horn et al., 1998; Simmons andFairweather, 1998). In terms of impact onthe whales themselves, the cumulativeimpacts of this burgeoning activity have,perhaps, yet to be realized. DoC recognizethat many questions remain unansweredabout the long-term effects of marine mam-mal watching. Driven solely by conserva-tional objectives, and not required tobalance commercial development againstthe protection of marine mammals, thedepartment is likely to continue to err onthe side of caution. It is not difficult to per-ceive a state of economic vulnerability onbehalf of the resident population.

Sea Kayaking

Within the past decade there has been asurge of interest in sea kayaking. Wylie andRice (1998) document how the number ofcompanies listed in the Specialty TravelIndex jumped from 25 (with 35 differentvenues) in 1991 to 61 (with 112 venues) in1996. While North and Central Americadominate the scene, with 72 different desti-nations listed in 1996, there is an increas-ing number of operations in Europe,Oceania and Asia.

Sea kayaking is potentially the mostenvironmentally benign of all marinetourism as, providing waste is taken back,it is non-polluting, ‘a canoe across waterleaves no trace’ (SeaCanoe, 1999). It also isless intrusive to wildlife: birds and animalstend to be curious rather than frightened(N. Johnson, North Uist, 1999, personalcommunication). As the infrastructuraldemands are low it also offers the consider-able potential for increased local input andconsequent benefits.

SeaCanoe is a pioneering example of asustainable combination of adventuretourism and ecotourism (Fennell, 1999). Ithas now extended its operations fromsouthern Thailand to northern Vietnam,the Philippines, Lao PDR and the SouthPacific. Local people are selected to staff,and eventually own, local operations(SeaCanoe Thailand is now majority

274 C. Cater and E. Cater

owned by local people and employs over50 staff). It is estimated that 90% ofSeaCanoe’s budgets stay in the host com-munities. Their human resources pro-gramme provides full benefits to allemployees, including training and educa-tion (SeaCanoe, 1999).

Underwater Observation

Technological change has facilitated rela-tively passive means of viewing the diver-sity of marine life below the surface. TheMilford Sound Underwater Observatory inHarrison Cove in Milford Sound, NewZealand (Fig. 17.2) was opened inDecember 1995. The north side of MilfordSound, where the observatory is located,was gazetted as a Marine Reserve, withWorld Heritage status, in 1993. The obser-vatory consists of a cylindrical, 450 t, view-ing chamber that is completely submergedbeneath a main reception area. Compre-hensive environmental impact assessments

were conducted between 1987 and 1995before permission from the various authori-ties was granted to the facility. The wholeethos behind the observatory is one of edu-cating the visitor about the complex ecol-ogy of the fjord environment, making theunderwater experience accessible to all,not just divers. An interpretation centre inthe reception area is complemented byclear species keys above each viewing win-dow, and visitors receive a talk from amarine scientist. As the observatory is in aMarine Reserve it complies with the strictenvironmental regulations laid down inthat designation. In the first 3 years of itsoperation the observatory received between41,000 and 55,500 visitors per year(Hamilton, 1999, Milford Sound, personalcommunication). Owned by a group ofSouth Island business people, and man-aged by Milford Sound Red Boats, theobservatory is accessible only by boat.

Underwater viewing of marine life isalso possible from glass-bottomed boats orfrom larger vessels with specially constructed

Marine Environments 275

Fig. 17.2. The Milford Sound Underwater Observatory, Harrison Cove.

underwater viewing galleries. The Kyle ofLochalsh based Seaprobe Atlantis, the UK’sonly such craft, began operations in July1998 (Fig. 17.3). It accommodates as manyas 24 passengers at a time on a variety ofexcursions ranging from short, 35 mintrips, to see seals and kelp forests, toextended tours at certain times of the yearto view dolphins. Two thousand passen-gers were carried in the few summermonths of operation in 1998, but before the1999 season, the craft was chartered for aspecial exercise in community educationby the Loch Maddy Marine Special Area ofConservation (SAC), North Uist, Scotland(M. Smith, Kyle of Lochalsh, 1999, per-sonal communication). The managementscheme for the SAC is being developed bythe local community and government agen-cies, and special legislation gives locals theopportunity to influence how the statuscan benefit them in terms of opportunitiesto develop business ventures such as eco-tourism. As part of this programme ofinvolvement, 281 local residents weretaken on half-hour trips in March 1999 toview the underwater ecology of this sealoch (A. Rodger, North Uist, 1999, personalcommunication). However, the degree of

local interest is still disappointingly low,illustrated by a lack of participation oflocal schools in the Kyle area (N. Smith,Kyle of Lochalsh, 1999, personal communi-cation).

Underwater observation from semi-sub-mersibles, such as Le Nessee in Mauritius,or from tourist submarines, is also rapidlygrowing. In 1985, the first tourist subma-rine was lauched, in Grand Cayman. By1997 there were 45 underwater vehicles inoperation worldwide, carrying over 2 mil-lion passengers and taking US$150 millionin revenue. As the average price of a dive isbetween US$65 and 85, underwater sortiesare accessible to an increasing number oftourists (Newbery, 1997). With over 15 sub-marines, Atlantis Submarines is theworld’s biggest tourist submarine operator,employing over 500 people and catering toalmost a million tourists each year inAruba, Grand Cayman Island, the Britishand US Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, StThomas, Cancun, Guam, Barbados andHawaii (Orams, 1999). There are justifiableclaims of environmental integrity as thetourist submarines are entirely non-pollut-ing, with battery-powered electric thrustersthat emit no effluent. They also operate at

276 C. Cater and E. Cater

Fig. 17.3. Kyle of Lochalsh-based Seaprobe Atlantis.

low speeds with high manoeuvrability sothey never come into contact with coralreefs or marine life. Indeed, many areapproved to operate in marine parks andreserves. They also arguably promote envi-ronmental stewardship; observing andappreciating marine life in its natural set-ting will motivate an increasing number ofpeople to protect the marine environment(Newbery, 1997). However, the practice ofunderwater feeding to attract fish (‘chum-ming’) by scuba divers swimming along-side the Atlantis tourist submarines,undoubtedly affects the marine ecology.Also the very considerable capital costs ofentry (a minimum of US$4.5 million for atourist sub), coupled with stringent mainte-nance and safety requirements, put thisform of entrepreneurship way beyond therealms of truly local involvement.

Marine Protected Areas

A symbiotic relationship

It is implicit, from the presentation of theresults of their British Columbian testcases, that Bottrill and Pearce (1995) followwriters such as Kutay (cited in Ziffer, 1989)in confining ecotourism to legally pro-tected areas. Indeed, such areas do consti-tute a popular if not exclusive venue forecotourism in most parts of the world (seeChapters 18 and 19). However, it is felt thatthis is too restrictive a criterion for marineecotourism, particularly as less than 1% ofthe world’s marine area is currently withinestablished protected areas (IUCN, 1991).Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a rela-tively new concept; most sites were estab-lished within the past two decades (WorldResources Institute, 1997). However, it isundeniable that a symbiotic relationshipcan more readily occur in such areas, withenvironmental protection resulting bothfrom and in enhanced local livelihoods,sustained visitor attraction, continued prof-its for the industry and revenue for conser-vation (Cater, 1997).

Colwell (1998) examines the role ofsmall-scale MPAs as an essential comple-

ment to the ambitious proposal by theIUCN, the World Bank and others to createa worldwide network of primarily large-scale MPAs to ultimately protect 10% of allmarine and coastal areas. He suggests thatsmall-scale MPAs may be particularlyappropriate in coral reef areas, wherenearby reefs can be managed not only bylocal communities and non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) but also by tourismentrepreneurs who have a vested interestin promoting abundant marine life, such asdive resorts.

Community-based MPAs

The small island of Balicasag in thePhilippines was the target of a community-based marine resource management projectin the mid-1980s which assisted the islandcommunity to establish a municipalmarine park through the local government.The community endorsed a sanctuary areaof 8 ha, and the entire coral reef wasincluded within a marine reserve stretch-ing to 0.5 km offshore. Guidelines wereadopted by the community to manage thesanctuary and reserve areas, while thePhilippine Tourism Authority initiated itsfirst ‘backyard tourism’ pilot project. Thisincludes a small-scale beach hotel forscuba-divers. Villagers are employed in theresort and involved in running it; the prof-its are directed at the maintenance of themarine park and divers are charged extra todive in the sanctuary area of the park.Overall there has been a significant netcontribution of marine tourism in terms ofenvironmental quality, raising communityawareness and increasing local incomes,although the distributional effects are notwholly equitable (White and Dobias, 1990).

The role of NGOs in MPAs

NGOs can perform a very important facili-tative role in not only raising local capacityto manage and benefit from MPAs, but alsoin their initial designation. The non-profitorganization Coral Cay Conservation (CCC)

Marine Environments 277

recruits paying volunteers to survey tropi-cal reefs in several locations across theglobe. The data and information collectedon reef ecosystems not only enhances localknowledge and understanding of thefragility of such systems but also furnishesan all-important base-line upon which tobase future decision making. It facilitatesthe identification of zones of particular vul-nerability and therefore points towardsthose areas where tourism and other formsof economic activity in the future will doleast damage. The data furnished by CoralCay were instrumental in the designationof the Belize Barrier Reef as a WorldHeritage Site in 1996, and in its subsequentmanagement. The conferral of that statushas had an undeniable impact on enhanc-ing the image of Belize as an ecotourismdestination. In the Philippines, 3 yearsafter CCC joined forces with the PhilippineReef and Rainforest Conservation Founda-tion to survey the coral reefs of DanjuganIsland, the island has become a world-classmarine reserve.

The organization responds to requestsfor collaboration and assistance from thehost country rather than imposing itself ona destination. This ensures that the local

populations are active participants ratherthan passive recipients. CCC’s aim of build-ing up local capacity so that the local pop-ulation can eventually run their ownprojects has already been fulfilled inBelize, where CCC ceased direct involve-ment in December 1998 (Raines andRidley, 1999). Since 1993, up to 50Belizeans a year have benefited from thejoint Belize Fisheries Department/CCCScholarship programme to provide crucialskills in scuba-diving, marine life identifi-cation and survey techniques. CCC alsoprovided the funds to build the MarineResearch Centre, which volunteers helpedto construct, on Calabash Cay (Fig. 17.4).This was handed over to the UniversityCollege of Belize at the end of 1998 as afully functioning and self-financing researchcentre.

Entrepreneurial MPAs

Many MPAs lack sufficient funding andmanagement, and therefore do not provideany real protection. Colwell (1998) suggeststhat in certain instances small-scale, com-mercially supported, entrepreneurial MPAs

278 C. Cater and E. Cater

Fig. 17.4. The University College of Belize Marine Research Centre, Calabash Cay.

may provide the best form of protectionand that such support may come from diveresorts, or similar commercial entities.Such entrepreneurs can, in certain circum-stances, act as the primary stewards of coralreef resources as managers of small-scaleMPAs, using tourism to achieve long-termeconomic and environmental sustainabil-ity. Among the essential features of trulysuccessful entrepreneurial MPAs are theinclusion of local stakeholders togetherwith the provision of necessary trainingand consultation to increase local capacity.

One such example of an entrepreneurialMPA is The Chumbe Island Coral ParkProject (CHICOP), Zanzibar, Tanzania.Reidmiller (1999) describes the long, uphillstruggle against bureaucratic and legisla-tive constraints from the inception of theproject in 1991 through to the arrival of thefirst marine ecotourists on Chumbe in1997. While CHICOP is not yet economi-cally viable, its achievements are consider-able. After commissioning ecologicalbaseline surveys on the flora and fauna toestablish the conservation value of Chumbeisland and its fringing reef, the reef sanctu-ary was gazetted as a protected area in1994. It became the first functioningmarine park in Tanzania. The seven visi-tors’ bungalows and the Visitors’ Centrewere all constructed according to state-of-the-art eco-architecture (rainwater catch-ment, greywater recycling, compost toiletsand solar power generation). Former fisher-men from adjacent villages have beenemployed and trained as park rangers byvolunteer marine biologists and education-ists (Reidmiller, 1999). The educationalcomponent of CHICOP is also important.Capacity building and the raising of localawareness has occurred via the training ofthe rangers and their ongoing interactionwith other local fishers. The project hasalso helped to raise conservation aware-ness and understanding of the legal andinstitutional requirements among govern-ment officials both of departments involvedin initial negotiations and of the threedepartments (Fisheries, Forestry andEnvironment) who continue to be repre-sented on the project’s Advisory Committee.

Free excursions are offered to local school-children during the off-season and aVisitors’ Centre provides information andguidelines for both day and overnightvisitors.

There have, however, been a number ofproblems. Substantial bureaucratic delaystripled project implementation from 2 to 7years. The innovative eco-architecture,coupled with considerable logistical prob-lems, extended building operations froman initially envisaged 1 year to 4. Thesedelays caused initial cost estimates toquadruple (Reidmiller, 1999). While theoverall investment may be lower thanwould have been the case with a donor-funded project through the governmentmachinery, cost recovery is an undoubtedproblem. The project is placed in the invid-ious position of having to attempt to mar-ket itself as an up-market location. Assuch, it is confronted with what is sug-gested to be ‘unfair competition’ fromunmanaged nature destinations, where nomanagement costs occur, or from donor-funded projects which effectively subsidizethe tourists and tour operators, with littleor no management costs being passed on(Reidmiller, 1999).

Conclusions

It is evident, from the foregoing discussion,that marine ecotourism embraces an enor-mous diversity of activities. These activi-ties are not only the expression of, but alsoimpinge upon, the interests of a range ofstakeholders at a variety of scales and frommarkedly different circumstances. Thereare, however, certain recurring themesfrom across the globe. One is, obviously,how sustainable operations are continuallyfrustrated in the absence of regulatory andlegislative frameworks. The contrastbetween whale-watching operations atKaikoura, New Zealand, and PuertoPiramide, Argentina, illustrates this point.Another is the pitfall of over-generaliza-tion. While it is evident that not all marinetourists are ecotourists, it is equally truethat they cannot be distinguished as such

Marine Environments 279

on the basis of income, socio-economicclass or education. A survey conducted offur seal visitation on the Kaikoura penin-sula, for example, found that visitors’behaviour could not be differentiatedaccording to socio-economic characteris-tics, and that most failed to read the on-siteinterpretation signs and thus failed to keep5 m from the seals (Barton et al., 1998). Afurther recurrent theme is that of the prob-lems faced by small-scale, locally basedoperations in marketing themselves. AsColwell (1998) suggests, while it is essen-tial to guard against surrendering too muchcontrol to commercial entities, it makessense to utilize the management potential,and indeed access to markets, of commer-cial partners. As with any partnership,however, the choice of the correct partnerto create a working relationship that recog-nizes the interests of all stakeholders iscrucial to success. Colwell describes thenon-profit conservation organization CORAL(the Coral Reef Alliance) in the US whowork with dive resorts, scientists, educa-tors, governments, conservationists andexperts in MPA and community-basedmanagement to promote small-scale coralreef MPAs in developing countries. CORALdevelops educational material, identifiesopportunities, determines the need fortechnical and material assistance and pro-vides necessary training and consultation.It also provides microloans of US$3,000–15,000 to support entrepreneurial MPAsand networks so that experiences andlessons are shared.

As described earlier, it is vitally impor-tant to examine marine ecotourism in con-text. Its prospects for sustainability,together with the contribution that it canmake towards sustainable development ingeneral are determined by a myriad of eco-

nomic, socio-cultural, political, ecological,institutional and technical forces. Theseforces are endogenous and exogenous aswell as dynamic. Thus there are veryimportant two-way relationships operatingat various scale levels, with the positivespread effects, as described earlier, ofmarine ecotourism ideally diffusingthrough the hierarchy. A prime example ofthis is the recognition that whale-watchinghas given considerable impetus, and eco-nomic rationale, to whale-watching asopposed to whale hunting as a commercialactivity. A similar scenario is emergingwith regard to an incentive for coral reefconservation, as nations such as thePhilippines and Indonesia recognize theloss of significant ecotourism resourcesthrough destructive fishing practices suchas blasting and cyanide poisoning. It isundeniable that negative backwash effects,of not only the activities of unsustainablemarine or coastal tourism but also those ofother economic activities, marine based orland based, which impinge on the marineenvironment, prejudice truly sustainableoutcomes (Fig. 17.1). The message for aholistic overview of the future of theoceans and seas of the planet is thereforeclear. The widely publicized InternationalYear of the Reef in 1997, together with thedeclaration of 1998 as the InternationalYear of the Ocean by UNESCO haverecently played an important role in raisingawareness of how much the human popu-lation depends on a healthy marine envi-ronment for sustainable livelihoods. Thequality of these livelihoods is also increas-ingly dependent on leisure opportunitiesthat allow us to appreciate, understand,and thus help to safeguard, the remarkablediversity of marine environments.

280 C. Cater and E. Cater

References

Barton, K., Booth, K., Ward, J., Simmons, D. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Visitor and New Zealand furseal interactions along the Kaikoura Coast. Tourism Research and Education Centre ReportNo. 9. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, New Zealand.

Baxter, A.S. and Donoghue, M. (1995) Management of Cetacean Watching in New Zealand (online).Department of Conservation, Auckland. http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/newzeala/manage/html

Bottrill, C.G. and Pearce, D.G. (1995) Ecotourism: towards a key elements approach to operationalis-ing the concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(1), 45–54.

Butler, R. (1998) Sustainable tourism – looking backwards in order to progress? In: Hall, C.M. andLew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK.

Cater, C.I. (1995) Dive tourism in Zanzibar: new depths. BSc dissertation, University of Bristol,Bristol, UK.

Cater, E. (1997) Ecotourism or ecocide? People and the Planet 6(4), 9–11.Cochrane, C. (1998) Sipadan’s last chance? Action Asia 7(1), 17–19. Colwell (1998) Entrepreneurial marine protected areas: small-scale, commercially supported coral

reef protected areas. In: Hatziolos, M.E., Hooten, A.J. and Fodor, M. (eds) Coral Reefs:Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Management. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Csikszentimihalyi, M. (1975) Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco. Dixon, J.A., Scura, L.F. and van’t Hof, T. (1993) Meeting ecological and economic goals: marine parks

in the Caribbean. Ambio 22(2–3), 117–125.Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1993) Recreational use, valuation, and management of killer whales on

Canada’s Pacific coast. Environmental Conservation 20(2), 149–156.Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Gray, J. (1998a) SeaCanoe Thailand – lessons and observations. In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (eds)

Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. University ofWashington, Seattle, and Oregon Sea Grant Program, Oregon State University, pp. 139–144.

Gray, J. (1998b) Update on SeaCanoe Wars. Trinet (online) 2 December 1998. http://www.caveman@seacanoe.com

Hawkins, J.P. and Roberts, C.M. (1992) Effects of recreational SCUBA diving on fore-reef slope com-munities of coral reefs. Biological Conservation 62, 171–178.

Horn, C., Simmons, D.G. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Evolution and change in Kaikoura: responses totourism development. Tourism Research and Education Centre Report No. 6. University ofLincoln, Lincoln, New Zealand.

IUCN (1991) Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.McAloon, J., Simmons, D.G. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Kaikoura: historical background. Tourism

Research and Education Centre Report No. 1. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, New Zealand.Milne, S.S. (1998) Tourism and sustainable development: the global-local nexus. In: Hall, C.M. and

Lew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK.Moeran, B. (1983) The language of Japanese tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 10, 93–100.Newbery, B. (1997) In league with Captain Nemo. Geographical Magazine 69(2), 35–41.Orams, M. (1999) Marine Tourism; Developments, Impacts and Management. Routledge, London.Orri, D. (1995) A Case Study in Patagonian Whale Watching (online). Hervey Bay, Encounters with

Whales Conference. http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/argentina/orri/cas.html PADI (1994) PADI Certification Statistics. PADI, Santa Ana, California.PADI (1999) PADI Certification Statistics. PADI, Santa Ana, California.Raines, P. and Ridley, J. (1999) Belize: twelve years of teamwork. Coral Cay Conservation Newsletter,

1999.Reidmiller, S. (1999) The Chumbe Island Coral Park Project. http://www.chumbe.island@raha.comRSTC Europe (1997) Facts and Figures. RSTC, Switzerland.Ryan, C. (1997) The Tourist Experience. Cassell, London.Schuster, B.K. (1992) What puts the eco in ecotourism? The Undersea Journal (1), 45–46. SeaCanoe (1999) ‘Eco’ Development (online). Thailand: SeaCanoe. http://www.seacanoe.com/

seamore2.html Shackley, M. (1998) ‘Stingray City’ – managing the impact of underwater tourism in the Cayman

Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(4), 328–338.Simmons, D.G. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Towards a tourism plan for Kaikoura. Tourism Research

and Education Centre Report No. 10. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, New Zealand.UN (2000) Oceans and Law of the Sea (online). United Nations, New York.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/los_mrl.htm Whale Watch (1999) Company Profile. Whale Watch, Kaikoura, New Zealand.White, A.T. and Dobias, R.J. (1990) Community marine tourism in the Philippines and Thailand: a

boon or bane to conservation? In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 1990Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. National Coastal Resources Research andDevelopment Institute, Newport, Oregon, USA.

Marine Environments 281

World Resources Institute (1997) World Resources 1996–1997. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Wylie, J. and Rice, H. (1998) Sea kayaks as vehicles for sustainable development of coastal and

marine tourism. In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress onCoastal and Marine Tourism. University of Washington and Oregon Sea Grant Program, OregonState University, Seattle, pp. 131–138.

Ziffer, K. (1989) Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance, Working Paper No. 1. Conservation International,Washington, DC.

282 C. Cater and E. Cater

Section 4

Ecotourism Venues

D.B. WeaverSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia

In addition to the type of biome thataccommodates ecotourism, it is also neces-sary to consider the generic venues thatplay host to this activity. As pointed out byLawton in Chapter 18, one particular kindof setting, the ‘protected area’, has attaineda virtual monopoly with respect to the pro-vision of ecotourism opportunities, at leastif the literature is any indication. This, per-haps, is not too surprising, considering thatmany of the over 30,000 protected areascurrently in existence facilitate the threebasic criteria of ecotourism by preserving ausually outstanding component of the nat-ural environment from activities that aredeemed harmful to this environment.Moreover, learning and appreciationopportunities are usually included in themandate of protected areas, which oftenoffer various services and facilities to expe-dite the activity of visitors.

However, Lawton’s description of eco-tourism as an activity that is highly con-centrated within and among theseprotected areas is something that must beconsidered in depth. If only a few areaswithin a few protected areas are accommo-dating most of the visitors, this could haveboth positive and negative implications formanagers. On one hand, high concentra-tions suggest the possibility that existing

site carrying capacities may be breached.However, as Lawton recognizes, these sameconcentrations offer economies of scalethat justify sophisticated site-hardeningmeasures as well as the comprehensive ser-vices and facilities that are desired by softecotourists. At a system-wide level, thesesame soft ecotourists tend to congregate inprotected areas that are accessible tocoastal resort areas and international gate-ways. This skewed pattern allows limitedresources to be focused on just a few parks,and creates opportunities for synergybetween ecotourism and resort or businesstourism. Yet, it also means that local com-munities throughout most of the countrycannot capitalize on the economic opportu-nities afforded by an appreciable influx ofecotourists.

The situation described by Lawton islikely to intensify further, given the rapidrate at which unprotected natural environ-ments are disappearing. In turn, this willlead to even greater pressures on cash-starved public protected area authorities.One increasingly popular response is theestablishment of private protected areas, asdiscussed by Langholz and Brandon inChapter 19. One general advantage of pri-vate protected areas is their provision ofenvironmental protection in a way that

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 283

does not require public subsidy. However,this same non-governmental role can meanthat the profit motive takes priority oversustainability, and that protected status cangive way to some other less benign landuse, should the controlling party deem thisto be warranted. In other words, the publicinterest may not be perceived as a para-mount consideration in a privately con-trolled protected area. Also, private reservemanagers may not have the skills or fundsto cope with such necessary tasks as polic-ing, providing services, etc. Yet, perhaps toa greater extent than in public areas, theprofit motive (or ethical motives in the caseof non-government organization run parks)may induce managers of private protectedareas to provide quality ecotourism experi-ences that will ensure the continued safe-guarding of the natural environments thatthey harbour.

An ideal arrangement may involve theestablishment of private protected areas asa buffer zone surrounding a publicly con-trolled core area, as long as this is imple-mented in a way that avoids competitionand encourages synergy. Such buffer zonescan experience quite a bit of change andmodification without causing seriousimpacts on the core, and are often the mostappropriate location for the establishmentof overnight accommodations and othertourism-related facilities and services.More generally, ecotourism planners needto pay greater attention to the possibility ofaccommodating ecotourism within spaces,whether controlled by the private or thepublic sector, that have already experi-enced modification to the extent that theycannot be classified as natural areas. Thisis the basis, for example, of Lawton’s rec-ommendation that ecotourism should bemore vigorously promoted in lower orderprotected areas under the IUCN system. InChapter 20, Lawton and Weaver carry thislogic further still by suggesting that highlymodified environments can provide high-quality opportunities for observing certaintypes of wildlife. Examples include the useof farm fields and landfill sites by migrat-ing waterfowl, the colonization of artificialreefs by marine life, and even the establish-

ment of peregrine falcon populations in thecentral business districts of large metropol-itan areas. The authors of this chapterargue that such extensions not only relievetourism pressures on vulnerable naturalspaces, but do so in a way that does notthreaten to undermine the already-modi-fied setting, and may even instil the desireto further enhance the capacity of suchareas to accommodate wildlife.

At the other extreme, there is consider-able debate about the appropriate role ofecotourism in wilderness settings. Hammittand Symmonds’ examination of this topicin Chapter 21 recognizes that wilderness isa subjective and largely Eurocentric con-cept, but usually entails the absence of sig-nificant levels of activity and modificationby non-indigenous groups. As such,wilderness can encompass vast tracts ofspace (as with Antarctica), or can exist aspockets in the midst of heavily settledlandscapes. From an ecotourism perspec-tive, the challenge is not just to ensure sus-tainable outcomes, but to accommodatelevels of activity that do not detract fromthe very qualities that define the area aswilderness in the first place. Hammitt andSymmonds illustrate some of the attendantproblems with examples from protectedareas in Africa and the UK.

The issue of using wilderness for eco-tourism, however, is complicated by thepresence of indigenous groups around theworld which have been vigorously assert-ing their traditional rights to a substantialportion of the world’s remaining naturalenvironments areas, furthermore, that theywould not consider to constitute ‘wilder-ness’. As this process continues, indige-nous people are emerging as one of themajor stakeholder groups in the ecotourismsector, as is already evident in areas suchas New Zealand, Australia and much ofCanada. Widely held ecotourism ideals ofenvironmental sustainability, as discussedby Hinch in Chapter 22, may not be com-plementary with the reality of indigenousculture and its special relationship withthe land, leading to disappointment, if notresentment, among some visitors. But evenif expectations cohere with the reality,

284 D.B. Weaver

growing numbers of satisfied ecotouristsmay inadvertently lead to negative socio-cultural impacts within these communi-ties. Despite the threat, indigenous peopleoften support this mode of developmentbecause it is perceived to be more benignthan the alternatives for raising muchneeded revenue, and because it may assistin attempts to establish political controlover their territories. To be successful,

Hinch refers to the centrality of communityempowerment in implementing ecotourismon indigenous lands, which includes hav-ing control over the land itself. As in allother venues, the hoped-for scenario ismutual benefit, wherein ecotourism pro-vides the incentive to enhance the environ-mental and socio-cultural sustainability ofthe destination, which in turn make forquality ecotourism products.

Ecotourism Venues 285

Introduction

A ‘protected area’ is defined by the WorldConservation Union (IUCN, 1994) as ‘anarea of land and/or sea especially dedi-cated to the protection and maintenance ofbiological diversity, and of natural andassociated cultural resources, and managedthrough legal or other effective means’.With their emphasis on preserving the nat-ural environment, protected areas haveobvious appeal to the ecotourism sector,which is based primarily on natural attrac-tions. Such areas, in practice, constitute byfar the most important venues for eco-tourism activities, a status that is reflectedin the ecotourism literature (e.g. Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996; Weaver, 1998; Butler andBoyd, 2000) and within this encyclopedia.The goal of this chapter is to outline theactual and potential relationships that existbetween ecotourism and protected areas,focusing only on those that are publiclycontrolled. The first section in this chapterintroduces the topic by outlining thegrowth, distribution and major categoriesof public protected areas. Subsequently,the compatibility between these areas andecotourism is considered. This is followedby a more in-depth discussion of the rela-tionship, which is based on the desire tomaximize tourism-derived revenues while

minimizing the environmental impacts.The final section examines a number ofissues that are particularly relevant to theevolving relationship between ecotourismand public protected areas. Examples fromall parts of the world are used to illustratethe content of this chapter.

Growth, Distribution and Types ofPublic Protected Areas

Although publicly protected areas havebeen in existence for at least 3000 years, itis only within the past century that theyhave accounted for a significant proportionof the world’s landscape. Yellowstone,established in 1870, is widely regarded asthe world’s first national park, and sincethen, the overall number of national parksand other protected areas has proliferated.By 1993, the World Conservation Unionestimated a global population of 8619 pub-lic protected areas, covering 792 million haor 5.9% of the world’s land area (IUCN,1994). This takes into account only thoseentities of at least 1000 ha. Just 4 yearslater, the number had increased by 20% to10,401, and the area to 840 million ha, or6.4% of the world land surface. If entitiesof less than 1000 ha are added, then thenumber and land area increase to 30,350

Chapter 18

Public Protected Areas

L.J. LawtonSchool of Business, Bond University, Gold Coast,

Queensland, Australia

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 287

and 1.32 billion ha, respectively (8.8% ofthe world’s land area) (Green and Paine,1997). The ubiquity of protected areas isreflected in the fact that only 11 countries(including Yemen, United Arab Emiratesand Syria) reported no such areas as of1997, while 38 had designated 10% ormore of their territory in this way. ForDenmark, the Dominican Republic,Ecuador and Venezuela, the proportion isin excess of 30% (World ResourcesInstitute, 1998).

The status of marine protected areas(MPAs) is incipient by comparison, withrelatively few established to date, and littledata available on characteristics and visita-tion levels. One recent estimate suggeststhe existence of approximately 1300 MPAs,a figure that is inadequate to achieve evenbasic conservation objectives (Boersma andParrish, 1999). The situation in Canada is acase in point. Of 29 recognized marineecoregions, only three were represented byMPAs as of 1999 (Parks Canada, 1999a).Several factors account for this neglect,including the limited state of knowledgeon marine ecosystems, lingering percep-tions that marine resources are limitlessand thus do not require protection, and thefact that most marine resources do not staywithin imposed administrative boundaries.Functional boundaries, therefore, are diffi-cult to establish, demarcate, and police. Inaddition, only a small portion of marinespace lies within the clear jurisdiction ofstates and dependencies, that is, geopoliti-cal entities which are in a position to estab-lish national MPA systems.

The above statistics, in any event, aremisleading for both land and marine envi-ronments, in so far as protected areas donot offer a single, homogeneous level of‘protection’, nor focus only on protectionas a management objective. According toGreen and Paine (1997), there are 1388 dif-ferent types of ‘protected areas’ in theworld. Because most jurisdictions tend touse their own idiosyncratic systems of clas-sification, the World Conservation Unionhas devised a standard international classi-fication system of protected areas, consist-ing of six categories (see Table 18.1). Such

a scheme, for example, appropriately dis-tinguishes the highly modified nationalparks of the UK (Category V) from thesemi-wilderness national parks of the USAand Canada (Category II). It should benoted, with some qualification, that higherlevels of allowable human intervention aregenerally associated with higher categorynumbers.

Compatibility of Protected Areaswith Ecotourism

Within the IUCN classification scheme, itis possible to assess the hypothetical com-patibility between various protected areatypes and ecotourism. Figure 18.1 providessuch a generalized assessment, taking intoaccount both hard and soft ecotourism (seeChapter 2) as well as other types of tourismactivity. Conventional tourism activitiesbecome more compatible in the higher-numbered categories, in line with theabove statement regarding allowable levelsof human activity. The status of ecotourismis more complex, with its soft and hardmanifestations displaying very differenttrends. Soft ecotourism is incompatiblewith Category I areas, but highly compati-ble with Categories II and III. For theremaining categories, the compatibility isreduced, but still high, given the nature ofthis type of ecotourism. Hard ecotourismhas a qualified place in Category I and, likeits soft counterpart, displays high compati-bility in Categories II and III. However, thisdeclines greatly in the remaining categoriesas a consequence of the high degree ofmodification that these categories allow. Ingeneral, low compatibility in the first threecategories is attributable to prohibitions oncertain types of activities, while low com-patibility in the next three categories owesto the unsuitability of the landscape. Thatis, there is nothing to legally prevent hardecotourism from occurring in a Category VIprotected area, but little incentive to usesuch spaces for that purpose. The linkagesbetween ecotourism and the IUCN cate-gories will now be considered in greaterdetail.

288 L.J. Lawton

Categories I–III

Category I protected areas, such as strictbiological reserves, with their strict prohi-bitions on human activity, accommodate atbest a small amount of ‘hard’ ecotourism.These are likely to entail scientific and/oreducational activities. In contrast, the

national parks of Category II and, to alesser extent, Category III protected areas,are highly compatible with ecotourism,and dominate the empirical literature ashigh profile ecotourism venues. There areseveral factors that have contributed to theclose relationship between Category II andIII protected areas and ecotourism, as follows.

Public Protected Areas 289

Table 18.1. IUCN (World Conservation Union) protected area categories.

Designation, number Category and area (1997) Description

Ia Strict Nature Reserve Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or 4389: 97.9 million ha representative ecosystems, geological or physiological

features and/or species, available primarily for scientificresearch and/or environmental monitoring

Ib Wilderness Area Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or 809: 94.0 million ha sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without

permanent or significant habitation, which is protectedand managed so as to preserve its natural condition

II National Park Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect 3384: 400 million ha the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for

present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation oroccupation inimical to the purposes of designation of thearea and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific,educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all ofwhich must be environmentally and culturally compatible

III Natural Monument Area containing one, or more, specific natural or 2122: 19.3 million ha natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique

value because of its inherent rarity, representative oraesthetic qualities or cultural significance

IV Habitat/Species Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for Management Area management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of 11,171: 246 million ha habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific

species

V Protected Landscape/ Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the Seascape interaction of people and nature over time has produced 5578: 106 million ha an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic,

ecological and/or cultural value, and often with highbiological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of thistraditional interaction is vital to the protection,maintenance and evolution of such an area

VI Managed Resource Area containing predominantly unmodified natural Protected Area systems, managed to ensure long-term protection and 2897: 360 million ha maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the

same time a sustainable flow of natural products and ser-vices to meet community needs

High level of protection, but allowance for tourism

While not as proscriptive as Category I, themanagement criteria for Category II and IIIprotected areas are still strict, and designedto ensure the maintenance of the area’s eco-logical integrity. Thus, with their largelyunspoiled natural environments, they pro-vide an extremely high quality venue forecotourism-related pursuits, and one thattolerates and even encourages such activ-ity. Moreover, by minimizing or prohibitingaltogether the presence of potentiallyincompatible resource users, and by estab-lishing a range of other environmental reg-ulations, there is greater assurance that abasic criterion of ecotourism, sustainabil-ity, is achieved (see Chapter 1). Anotherbasic criterion of ecotourism, i.e. educa-tional and/or appreciative interface withthe attraction, is also given a high priority.Category II protected areas, in particular,are better positioned to accommodate thedual objectives of tourism and environ-mental protection because of their size,which averages 118,000 ha, and because ofzoning provisions that allocate certainactivities to certain areas.

Special qualitiesDesignation as a national park or nationalmonument usually occurs because an areacontains some outstanding natural attributeor attributes in addition to the presence ofrelatively unspoiled surroundings. Theseinclude:

• outstanding natural scenery (e.g.Yosemite and Banff);

• exceptional representation of a particu-lar biome (e.g. the savannahs of Krugerand Serengeti);

• rare or unusual flora and/or fauna (e.g.the mature sequoia and redwood grovesof several California national parks, thepanda bear populations of certain pro-tected areas in China’s Sichuanprovince, the monarch butterfly over-wintering reserves in Mexico);

• rare and/or unusual geological features(e.g. Undara and Uluru in Australia, orthe gorges and caves of Malaysia’sGunung Mulu National Park).

The presence of such exceptional featuresmake national parks or national monu-ments even more attractive to ecotourists.

290 L.J. Lawton

Fig. 18.1. Compatibility of tourism and ecotourism with protected area categories.

Market awarenessWith their outstanding qualities, CategoryII and III protected areas are often wellknown as tourist attractions, and some-times even achieve iconic status withintheir destination countries or regions.Thus, Banff and Jasper are virtually syn-onymous with the Canadian Rockies,Kruger with South Africa, Mount Fuji withJapan, and Uluru and the Great Barrier Reefwith Australia. This iconic status is oftenapplied more generically to entire park sys-tems. Thus, most nature-oriented touristsvisit countries such as Costa Rica andKenya because of exemplary protected areasystems, rather than any one particularentity (Weaver, 1998). The public profile ofcertain protected areas has been furtherenhanced by the introduction of presti-gious international designations, the bestknown of which is the World Heritage Site.As of 1999, 145 Natural Heritage Sites (i.e.World Heritage Sites emphasizing a naturalattraction) had been established byUNESCO (WHIN, 1999).

Tourism facilitiesCategory II and III protected areas incor-porate tourism as an integral part of theirmanagement role, as indicated earlier.Given this, and the fact that managers oftenencourage tourism because of its revenue-

earning potential, these entities often pro-vide services and facilities, such as inter-pretation centres, hiking trails, campingfacilities, etc., that attract large numbers of‘soft’ ecotourists. However, the assumptionthat all park visitors are ecotourists mustbe avoided. In the absence of hard data,Fig. 18.2 proposes that the majority of visi-tors to Category II and III protected areascan be classified as ‘soft’ ecotourists, as inChapter 2. Hard ecotourists, in contrast,constitute a much smaller portion of visi-tors. The remaining non-ecotourist compo-nent consists of two main segments,namely other types of tourists, and localvisitors who do not meet the technicalthresholds that denote a ‘domestic tourist’even though they may consume ecotourismproducts. In the less developed countries, ahigher proportion of ‘other tourists’ can beassumed, since domestic visitors have lessproclivity to engage in ecotourism in com-parison to international visitors.

The actual number of park visitors, andhence ecotourists, is indeed formidable.While no statistics are available for theworld as a whole, the figures from individ-ual countries illustrate the importance ofCategory II and III protected areas as visitorattractions. For example, the US NationalPark Service (NPS, 1999) forecast 64.5 millionvisits in 2000 just to the nature-oriented

Public Protected Areas 291

Fig. 18.2. Visitor segments in category II and III protected areas.

component of its national park system. Themuch smaller Canadian national park sys-tem recorded over 15 million visitors dur-ing the 1998/99 fiscal year (Parks Canada,1999b), while Australian national parksaccommodated an estimated 17 millionvisits in 1991 (Carter, 1996).

Categories IV–VI

The remaining IUCN categories are notreadily associated with ecotourism, duemainly to the tolerance of significantlylarge amounts of potentially incompatiblehuman activity, the presence of landscapesthat are significantly modified by thoseactivities, and lower market awareness.However, there are many exceptions, giventhe heterogeneity of these categories.Examples of protected areas in these cate-gories that do accommodate significantamounts of ecotourism include thenational parks of England and Wales(Category VI), the Ngorongoro ConservationArea (Category VI) in Tanzania andInverpolly National Nature Reserve(Category IV) in Scotland. Beyond suchexamples, the status of ecotourism is moreone of potential rather than practice, as dis-cussed later in this chapter. But evenwhere ecotourism is known to exist inthese categories, visitation levels and theirimpacts are seldom monitored. In thissense, these IUCN categories are similar toMPAs.

Relationship between Ecotourismand Public Protected Areas

The historical relationship betweentourism and higher-order protected areas ischaracterized by an ambivalence that stemsfrom doubts about the actual compatibilitybetween tourism and environmentalpreservation. Many public park systems,such as those in Costa Rica, were foundedstrictly on a non-profit environmental man-date, yet are becoming increasingly relianton tourism-based revenues. The USnational park system, for example, gener-

ated US$3 billion in tourism revenues dur-ing 1991 (Norris, 1992). The irony here,and thus the essential basis of the ambiva-lence, is that the continued integrity of theparks is becoming dependent upon higherlevels of an activity that potentially threat-ens this integrity. Increasingly, the rev-enues from tourism are large enough toconstitute an incentive for maintaining theparks in the face of growing pressure fromcompeting resource users such as farmers,loggers, ranchers and miners. Yet, intensivelevels of tourism activity can result inimpacts that are equally detrimental, asdemonstrated by the overuse of AmboseliNational Park in Kenya, and ManuelAntonio National Park in Costa Rica(Weaver, 1998).

Short of prohibiting tourism altogetherand assuming reliance on alternativesources of funding, the logical solution tothis dilemma would be to ensure thattourism within the protected area is carriedout in an environmentally and socially sus-tainable manner. The ideal relationship isthen symbiotic, where parks provide ahigh-quality venue and freedom fromincompatible competitors to tourism, whilesustainable tourism (mostly in the form ofecotourism) provides the revenues to main-tain this quality, and the exposure to thepublic that contributes to continued popu-lar support. This, of course, is easier toachieve in theory than in practice, but it isvital that the goal of sustainability is pur-sued. In order to discuss appropriate pro-tected area management strategies, it ishelpful to imagine a hypothetical environ-mental carrying-capacity threshold for anygiven protected area that, if exceeded byvisitation levels, indicates an unsustain-able situation. The specific strategies thatare subsequently adopted to keep tourismbelow this threshold depend on whetherthe latter is perceived to be stable orflexible.

Stable carrying-capacity thresholds

In certain circumstances, it is appropriateto assume that environmental carrying-

292 L.J. Lawton

capacity thresholds are stable. This is auseful assumption, for example, if the car-rying capacities are unknown, or if nochanges are made to the area or infrastruc-ture of the park. In this case, an appropri-ate strategy is to establish and enforceconservative visitor quotas on an annual,seasonal, monthly, weekly, daily or hourlybasis, as warranted, and irrespective ofmarket demand (Fig. 18.3a). Although thiscan reduce potential revenues in situationswhere the demand is high, such policiesare justified on the basis that public pro-tected areas are not normally mandated togenerate profits, but rather to achieve somebroader public ‘good’, such as environmen-tal preservation. Hence, quota systems aremuch more prevalent in public protectedareas than in privately controlled sectors ofthe tourism industry.

It has become increasingly popular inrecent years to modify the quota principlethrough the introduction of escalating userfees (assuming that these increased rev-enues are used for the parks and not just toswell general government coffers). Thus,instead of prohibiting further entry oncethe quota is reached, visitation levels arecontrolled by a de facto quota based on thewillingness of the market to pay for the vis-itation privilege. Assuming that demand isrobust, this has the advantage of deriving alarger revenue intake from the same oreven a lesser number of users (Lindberg,1991). A danger, however, is the perceptionthat the site, presumably a public good, isavailable in practice only to the wealthyelite. The government of Costa Ricaaddressed this problem in 1988 by main-taining a nominal national park entry fee

Public Protected Areas 293

Fig. 18.3. Stable and flexible carrying-capacity thresholds.

for Costa Rican nationals, while raising thefee for non-nationals from about US$1 toUS$15 (Weaver, 1998). According to Dixonand Sherman (1990), such increases, wherethe base level is so low, provides almost nodeterrent to foreign tourists, who haveinvested several thousands of dollars intheir travel experience. The actual elastic-ity of these escalated entry fees can bequite impressive in situations wheredemand is high, as with mountain gorillaecotourism in Rwanda (Lindberg, 1991;Shackley, 1995), wildlife viewing in theGalapagos National Park (Weaver, 2000)and high peak climbing in Nepal(Robinson, 1994). In the case of Rwanda’sParc National des Volcans, visitationremained stable at about 6000 tourists peryear between 1980 and 1988 despite theescalation in entry fees from US$14 toUS$170 per person. However, it must alsobe borne in mind that the availability ofnew competing opportunities (e.g. the pro-vision of mountain gorilla viewing opportu-nities in Uganda and Congo) can suddenlyreduce demand and, hence, user willingnessto pay such high fees.

Flexible carrying-capacity thresholds

There is no inherent reason for assumingthat environmental or social carrying-capacity thresholds are inflexible, andmany scenarios can be cited in which anadjustment in such thresholds is war-ranted. Once these adjustments are made,then visitation levels can be increasedaccordingly (Fig. 18.3b). The opposite situ-ation, where the thresholds are increasedin response to increased visitation, is areactive approach that should be avoided.Two major strategies for effecting higherthresholds are site-hardening measures andconsumer education.

Site-hardening measures‘Site-hardening’ simply implies the estab-lishment of facilities, services, etc. so that alocation is capable of accommodating alarger number of users without detrimentto its environmental integrity. Walking

trails provide a good illustration. As a dirttrack, a particular trail might have a carry-ing capacity of 100 users per day, but iflined with cobblestones, that same trailmay safely accommodate 1000 users perday. At least two associated considerations,however, must be taken into account. First,the site-specific consequences of the site-hardening measures need to be assessed;extensive vegetation clearance and the useof chemical-laced paving materials, forexample, would not normally be deemedacceptable. Second, while the trail itselfmay be capable of accommodating muchhigher levels of use as a result of the site-hardening, these levels must adhere to thecarrying capacities of the surroundings, sothat resident nesting birds and other floraand fauna are not distressed. Returning tothe first point, a conscious decision may bemade to ‘sacrifice’ a 2-ha site for a modernwaste treatment facility, so that the effectsof contaminated effluents are minimized inthe remainder of the park. Other types offacilities that are amenable to site-harden-ing include viewing platforms or towers,parking lots, campgrounds, interpretationfacilities and fixed accommodations (e.g.ecolodges). While these kinds of facilitiesmay be seen as intrusive by ‘hard’ eco-tourists, they will serve to enhance theexperience and appreciation of the domi-nant ‘soft’ ecotourist segment.

Consumer educationEven if no site-hardening measures areimplemented, larger numbers of visitorscan be accommodated within a protectedarea if the behaviour of those visitors canbe modified to minimize their negativeenvironmental and social impacts. Forexample, park users may be required to beentirely silent in certain locations, to travelin small groups only, and/or to stay on cer-tain footpaths, and not walk within a cer-tain distance of certain sites. Well-trainedguides are usually required to ensureenforcement. Such restrictions may resultin a certain amount of visitor discontent,but as with escalated entry fees, these regu-lations are warranted in a publicly con-trolled site where the ‘common good’ of

294 L.J. Lawton

environmental protection takes priorityover the maintenance of client satisfaction.Moreover, the approach can be rationalizedfrom a commercial perspective by theextent to which the quality and ‘authentic-ity’ of the attraction is maintained, and byindications that these kinds of restrictionsare tolerated and even welcomed by anincreasingly ‘green’ tourist market (Poon,1993).

In practice, consumer education (i.e.modification of the market) is often com-bined with site-hardening (i.e. modificationof the product) in order to best effect a sus-tainable tourism sector within the pro-tected area. Similarly, the stable andflexible threshold options are not mutuallyexclusive, and can also operate conjunc-tionally. As depicted in Fig. 18.3c, a ‘stair-way’ effect occurs when carrying capacitythresholds are periodically increased inresponse to the implementation of appro-priate managerial tactics. This pattern isevident in many public protected areas,and the example of the Galapagos Islandsis illustrative.

The Galapagos Islands National ParkThe archipelago, most of which is pro-tected under several layers of overlappingprotected area status, is renowned for itsextremely high level of endemic flora andfauna. The area reflects the great paradox ofecotourism, which is that the rarest attrac-tions are simultaneously the most indemand and the most vulnerable to the vis-itation levels that stem from that demand.Park managers have attempted to compro-mise between the preservation of the archi-pelago’s ecological integrity and the needto obtain operating revenue by practising astrategy of incremental access similar toFig. 18.3c (Weaver, 2000). A visitor ceilingof 12,000 was established in 1973, but thiswas raised to 25,000 in 1981 and to 50,000in the early 1990s, as new areas were desig-nated to accommodate visitors. TheseIntensive and Extensive Visitor Zones, asappropriate, are site-hardened to withstandvisitor pressure. At the same time, quotas

are enforced on the number of visitorsallowed in any particular zone (i.e. 90 atone time in an Intensive Zone, and 12 in anExtensive Zone). Concurrently, the behav-iour of visitors is subject to a host of con-straints. For example, no tourist can goanywhere ashore without being accompa-nied by a licensed guide, must remainwithin a given distance from that guide,and cannot wander beyond a rigorouslydefined network of narrow footpaths.

On paper, the regulations that governtourism in the Galapagos National Park areamong the most stringent in the world, andthe authorities are generally praised fortheir management of the Park. Yet, manyproblems are still apparent. To someextent, the upward adjustment of visitorceilings is as much the outcome of politicalas ecological considerations, and eventhese have been frequently breached. Forexample, annual visitation levels in thelate 1990s have exceeded the 50,000 limitby anywhere from 5000 to 10,000 visitors.At a site level, the following problems havebeen observed.

• Nesting birds such as boobies suffer dis-tress even with the strict regulations.

• Some trails have been erroneously con-structed on highly erosive sandy soilsrather than nearby lava beds that arelargely impervious to erosion.

• No matter how high their environmentalstandards, tourism ships have beenidentified as a significant agent for theinadvertent dispersal of insects.

• Although visitor quotas are based on agiven inventory of visitor zones, manyof the latter are closed at any given time,increasing the pressure on the remain-ing sites.

• Underqualified local residents are some-times hired as guides for political rea-sons.

• Potentially incompatible activities suchas sport fishing have been introduced.

• Park authorities have been unable toprevent illegal incursions into the parkby local residents and others.

Public Protected Areas 295

Relevant Issues

The Galapagos case study is instructive indemonstrating the gap between sustainabletheory and practice, a situation that per-sists to a greater or lesser extent in virtuallyevery protected area, and hinders theattainment of the ideal synergy betweenthese entities and the tourism sector. Withreference to this broader goal, this chapterwill now focus on a number of issues thatwill significantly influence the evolvingrelationship between ecotourism and pub-lic protected areas.

Protected area configurations

The spatial configuration of protected areascan exercise a significant effect over thevariety and quality of the ecotourism expe-riences that they offer, just as it can affecttheir ability to safeguard the area’s ecologi-cal integrity. The ‘island effect’, for exam-ple, where small and isolated protectedareas are scattered throughout a region, iswidely regarded as a hindrance to themaintenance of biodiversity as well as sus-tainable and high-quality ecotourism prod-ucts (Fig. 18.4a). In recent years,considerable attention has been focused onthe re-configuration of individual protectedareas and protected area systems to opti-mize their ability to meet specified envi-ronmental objectives. Admittedly, tourismis usually a secondary consideration,

though the implications for the latter canbe significant.

Relevant strategies include the interre-lated concepts of clusters, corridors(MacClintock et al., 1977) and buffer zones(Wells and Brandon, 1993). It is widelybelieved that the effectiveness of individ-ual protected areas is amplified when theyare located adjacent to other protectedareas; potentially, the combination of con-tiguous protected areas can then functionas a single ecological entity. The concept isbeing operationalized in Costa Ricathrough the establishment of ‘ConservationAreas’, which are groupings of protectedareas that are divided into one or more‘core zones’ controlled by the state, andsurrounding zones consisting of privatelyor community owned protected areas(IUCN, 1992). The latter areas provide abuffer for more sensitive core zones. Forthe ecotourism sector, such clusters offer agreater range of attractions and activities,and the buffer zones are suitable for pro-viding accommodations and other services.This model illustrates how the public pro-tected areas can maintain a synergistic rela-tionship with their privately ownedcounterparts (see Chapter 19). At an inter-national level, the Biosphere Reserve pro-gramme of UNESCO, which involved 350Reserves as of early 2000, operates on simi-lar principles (UNESCO, 2000).

In some situations, protected areas orprotected area clusters have been con-nected through the establishment of corri-dors. One type of corridor is evident in theeastern part of Victoria, Australia, wherethe Alpine National Park is configured asfour major areas joined together by narrowtracts of land that are included in the parkjurisdiction. The result is a continuous 200km arc of public protected space. Such cor-ridors will facilitate long-distance walkingopportunities, given that walking trails onprivate property remain there only by thecontinued consent of the landowner.

In contrast to the island effect of Fig.18.4a, the spatial configuration generatedby the combination of clusters, corridorsand buffer zones presents, in principle, amuch more effective venue for achieving

296 L.J. Lawton

Fig. 18.4. Contrasting spatial configurations forprotected areas: (a) island effect; (b) clusters,corridors and buffer zones.

the dual directives of environmentalpreservation and the provision of tourismopportunities (Fig. 18.4b). Traditionally,international boundaries have been consid-ered an impediment to the formation ofsuch entities, but this is being redressed bythe increasingly popular concept of thetransboundary protected area (WorldConservation Monitoring Centre, 1999),which is really only a practicality whenthey involve state-owned rather than pri-vately owned lands. As of 1997, 136 trans-boundary protected area complexes hadbeen identified (Green and Paine, 1997).Costa Rica is again a pioneer in this regard,having established La Amistad Interna-tional Park on the border with Panama,which is also in the process of setting upan adjacent protected area.

Optimal utilization of protected area systems

Ecotourism is not only associated withCategory II and III protected areas, but alsowith only a few high-profile units withinmost of the national park systems thataccount for those categories. For example,just four parks in Costa Rica (Poas, ManuelAntonio, Irazu and Santa Rosa) account fortwo-thirds of all visitors. Similarly, the topfive parks in Kenya (Tsavo East, AnimalOrphanage, Lake Nakuru, Masai Mara andAmboseli) account for 62% of all park visi-tors in that country (Weaver, 1999). This‘drought–deluge’ pattern can lead to a situ-ation where the carrying capacity thresh-olds of some parks are being breached,while other parks are not even close to ful-filling their tourism potential. Hence,investigations into the feasibility andappropriateness of dispersing tourists morewidely are warranted in most countries.

This still leaves the question of visitorconcentration within the Category II and IIIunits. Beyond these relatively high profiledesignations, most jurisdictions contain anarray of more obscure protected areas thatcould, to a greater or lesser extent, accom-modate ecotourism-type activities. Thus, ifpressure is being brought to bear on higherprofile spaces, it is logical to explore such

options. Lawton (1993, 1995) has identified27 protected area designations that haveIUCN status in the Canadian province ofSaskatchewan. As depicted in Table 18.2,some of the categories have low potentialfor ecotourism because of user restrictions,the nature of the resource being protectedor, most commonly, the presence of poten-tially incompatible resource users. Theareas that have medium to high compatibil-ity with ecotourism comprise 57% of allpublic protected areas, or about 3.7% ofthe province. Of that amount, about one-half are accounted for by national andprovincial parks that accommodate, andare managed to accommodate, varioustypes of ecotourism activity. Yet, there areonly 23 such entities, compared with 390other compatible protected areas, indicat-ing that the latter are much smaller. Thepoint here is not to go into detail over spe-cific strategies for integrating these areasinto the ecotourism sector, but rather toemphasize their potential as ecotourismvenues in the face of increasing marketdemand and growing congestion in themore popular protected areas. An addi-tional factor is the potential of such areasto contribute to the regional dispersion ofecotourism-related revenues.

Integration with mass tourism

However much the ecotourism clientele isdispersed throughout a protected area sys-tem, and however much those systems areexpanded, one may anticipate that visita-tion pressure on public protected areas willcontinue to increase as global tourismmaintains its relentless rate of growth. Onecommon response to this pressure is toregard the tourist fundamentally as anenemy or a necessary evil, and the intro-duction of mass tourism as the worst fatethat can befall the protected area. Such atti-tudes among park managers are still sur-prisingly common, and owe not only to abiocentric tendency in training and philos-ophy, but also to a compelling body of evi-dence that documents the negative impactsof rapid tourism growth within protected

Public Protected Areas 297

298 L.J. Lawton

Table 18.2. Protected areas in Saskatchewan 1997 and their ecotourism compatibility (Lawton, 1993, 1995;N. Cherney, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, personal communication).

IUCN % of Ecotourism Category designation No. Area province compatibility

InternationalRAMSAR sites IV 2 12,700 0.02 high

FederalMigratory Bird Sanctuaries IV 15 56,851 0.09 highNational Historic Parks V 4 1,700 < 0.01 lowb

National Historic Sites V 7 177 < 0.01 lowb

National Parks II 2 429,487 0.66 highNational Wildlife Areas IV 34 21,254 0.03 highPFRA Pastures VI 64 708,091 1.09 mediumd

Federal/ProvincialCanadian Heritage River V 1 0 0 high

ProvincialEcological Reserves I 2 815 < 0.01 lowa

Game Preserves IV 24 108,859 0.17 highHistoric Sites V 8 22 < 0.01 lowb

Protected Areas III, IV, VI 21 4,996 < 0.01 mediuma,b

Provincial Community Pastures VI 56 249,375 0.38 mediumd

Provincial Heritage Property III, V 3 134 < 0.01 lowb

Provincial Parks (33) (1,130,544) (1.73)Historic V 9 271 < 0.01 lowb

Natural Environment II 11 677,263 1.04 highRecreation V 10 14,704 0.02 med. highe

Wilderness I 3 438,307 0.67 lowa

Recreation Sites V 150 42,147 0.06 med. highe

Wildlife Development Fund Land IV NA 54,277 0.08 mediumd

Wildlife Habitat Protection Land NA (1,365,334) (2.10) lowd

Act VI NA 1,311,477 2.01Regulation VI NA 50,856 0.08Policy VI NA 3,001 < 0.01

Wildlife Refuges IV 24 2,560 < 0.01 high

MunicipalMunicipal Heritage Property III, V 16 505 < 0.01 lowc

Regional Parks V 101 8,043 0.01 med. highe

Urban Parks V 5 7,878 0.01 lowc

Total 4,205,749 6.45

a Restricted to hard ecotourists.b Protects historical resources.c Urban location.d Open to potentially incompatible resource use (e.g. hunting, grazing).e Open to range of recreational activities.

areas. Park managers are often heard to saythat they do not wish to become anotherYosemite, Amboseli, Banff or Yellowstone.

Yet, it may be argued that such prob-lems are more a matter of mismanagementthan any inherent flaw with mass tourism.As argued elsewhere in this encyclopedia(see Chapter 5), there is no essential contra-diction between ecotourism and masstourism, soft ecotourism itself being ineffect a variant of mass tourism. Managersshould consider the revenue-generatingopportunities that arise from increased vis-itor flows, and concentrate their efforts onmanaging these flows in a sustainable way.Quotas, site-hardening measures and con-sumer education have already been out-lined as appropriate management strategiesunder such circumstances. Zoning isanother relevant strategy.

Combining these approaches, it is possi-ble to accommodate very large numbers ofvisitors in a sustainable and satisfying waywithin a very small area (say for example1%) of a protected area. Typically, the vastmajority of visitors in most of the moreaccessible protected areas already happilyconfine themselves to the 1 or 2% of thepark that is zoned for intensive visitor use.It is, after all, in the nature of the soft eco-tourist to prefer a high level of services andcomfort, and to enjoy mediated contactwith the natural environment such as pro-vided by well-designed interpretive centresand trails. These visitors rarely extendtheir visit into the 99% of the park that ismaintained in a more or less undisturbedstate. In essence, the message here is thatmany sustainably managed protected areasare already mass tourism venues or willbecome so, and that this scenario should beregarded as an opportunity rather than athreat that should be resisted at all costs.

Privatization

The notion of an unequivocally public pro-tected area is being challenged by anincreased tendency toward privatizationand private sector involvement (Charters etal., 1996). Only the most extreme free mar-

ket supporters advocate a complete privati-zation of protected areas, but a surprisinglylarge number of stakeholders accept theprinciple that at least some elements of theoperation are best left to the private sector.This assumes that the public sector doesnot have the resources or expertise to effi-ciently and sustainably manage all aspectsof a protected area operation, while con-currently providing a high level of visitorsatisfaction. This is especially true for lessdeveloped countries. The argument for pri-vate sector involvement also considers thesubstantial contributions already beingmade toward wildlife conservation, includ-ing the growing tendency toward the estab-lishment of private protected areas (seeChapter 19). Concessions, accommoda-tions, tour operations and services such aswaste collection are examples of areaswhere the private sector is already beingconceded a larger role. Areas of potentialexpansion include sponsorships, interpre-tation, policing and other facets of resourcemanagement.

While the concept of a partnershipbetween the public and private sectors issupported in the literature (e.g. Carter,1996), there are concerns that the profitmotive will take precedence over environ-mental sustainability in those aspects ofthe protected area controlled by the privatesector. Figgis (1996), for example,expresses concern over the level of degra-dation in Australia’s Kosciusko NationalPark and the Victorian Alps associatedwith the ski industry. The rapidly growingtown site in Banff National Park in theCanadian Rockies is another oft-cited illus-tration of private sector involvement runamok.

Relationships with local communities

It is often contended that the long-term sur-vival of protected areas and tourismdepends on the maintenance of communitygoodwill (Nelson et al., 1993). This is dueto the ability of disaffected residents to sab-otage both sectors through hostile anddestructive acts such as poaching, both

Public Protected Areas 299

within and outside park lands. The latter issignificant given the dependency ofwildlife on non-protected lands in someregions. In Kenya, for example, 60–75% ofwildlife are found in these areas at anygiven time (Honey, 1999). Yet, there arenumerous examples where ecotourism inpublic protected areas has contributed tothe alienation of adjacent local communi-ties through resentment caused by resourceuse restrictions, and/or the insufficientgeneration of alternative revenue throughinvolvement in ecotourism. The extent towhich ecotourism can foster a viable eco-nomic base for these local communities isoften exaggerated. For example, less than1100 of 87,000 working-age residents in thevicinity of Nepal’s Royal Chitwan NationalPark, one of Asia’s most visited protectedareas, are employed directly in park-relatedecotourism. In all, only 6% of working-ageresidents earned at least some incomedirectly or indirectly from this source(Bookbinder et al., 1998). Well-publicizedproblems have also occurred in theGalapagos National Park (Weaver, 2000)and in the Maasai communities adjacent tocertain protected areas in Kenya andTanzania (Honey, 1999).

Ecotourism, therefore, has not provenitself to be the godsend for local communi-ties that it is claimed to be by some sup-porters. This is a matter of great concern,given that the size and expectations oflocal communities, and hence the demandfor resources, is continuing to increasethroughout most of the world. An earliersection in this chapter emphasized thepotential importance of buffer zones to eco-tourism, yet these could become zones ofhostility to the sector, and to the publicprotected areas in general, if the issue ofcommunity involvement is not adequatelyaddressed. For national governments atleast, the issue is in part finding a compro-mise between the ‘good of the nation’ andthe welfare of local residents, which do notalways coincide. A special case, especiallywithin more developed countries such asCanada, Australia and New Zealand, is theinvolvement and interests of indigenouscommunities (see Chapter 22).

Conclusions

The area occupied by public protectedareas is continuing to expand at an impres-sive rate, at the same time as the total areaoccupied by relatively undisturbed landscontinues to contract. Hence, it is not diffi-cult to envisage a convergence in the next20 or 30 years wherein the world’s naturallandscapes will essentially be confined toprotected areas of one type or another. Oneimplication is that these spaces will evenfurther consolidate their status as the dom-inant venue for ecotourism-related activi-ties. The relationship between protectedareas and tourism, accordingly, is likely tobecome even more complicated andambivalent, as managers are compelled tomaintain the ecological integrity of theirparks while accommodating an ever-increasing level of visitor demand. Yet,these two objectives, both related to theattainment of the ‘public good’, are notmutually exclusive. In theory, ecotourismcan reinforce the environmental mandateof the parks by providing sufficient rev-enues and public support to fend off incur-sions from competing resource users. Thechallenge is to manage ecotourism so thatit remains ecotourism: educational, nature-based tourism that is environmentally andsocially sustainable. Relevant managementstrategies include the implementation ofescalating user fees, sustainable site-hardening measures and consumer educa-tion. Greater synergies between ecotourismand protected areas may also be achievedin other ways, including spatial reconfigu-rations that better facilitate the two objec-tives. In addition, protected area systemsneed to be better utilized. Currently, eco-tourism activity in many countries islargely confined to just a few, high-profileCategory II and III entities, despite thepresence of extensive Category IV, V and VIspaces that have great potential to accom-modate the softer varieties of ecotourism.Concurrent issues that will have to beengaged include privatization and theretention of positive relationships withlocal communities, including indigenousgroups.

300 L.J. Lawton

References

Boersma, P. and Parrish, J. (1999) Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution.Ecological Economics 31, 287–304.

Bookbinder, M., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H. and Rajouria, A. (1998) Ecotourism’s support ofbiodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12, 1399–1404.

Butler, R.W. and Boyd, S. (2000) Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications. John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, UK.

Carter, B. (1996) Private sector involvement in recreation and nature conservation in Australia. In:Charters, T., Gabriel, M. and Prasser, S. (eds) National Parks: Private Sector’s Role. USQ Press,Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 21–36.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas. World Conservation Union,Gland, Switzerland.

Charters, T., Gabriel, M. and Prasser, S. (eds) (1996) National Parks: Private Sector’s Role. USQ Press,Toowoomba, Australia.

Dixon, J. and Sherman, P. (1990) Economics of Protected Areas: a New Look at Benefits and Costs.Island Press, Washington, DC.

Figgis, P. (1996) A conservation perspective. In: Charters, T., Gabriel, M. and Prasser, S. (eds)National Parks: Private Sector’s Role. USQ Press, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 54–59.

Green, M.J. and Paine, J. (1997) State of the world’s protected areas at the end of the twentieth cen-tury. Paper presented at the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium, Albany,Australia, 24–29 November.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

IUCN (1992) Protected Areas of the World: a Review of National Systems: Neoarctic and Neotropical,Vol. IV. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN (1994) 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. World ConservationUnion, Gland, Switzerland.

Lawton, L.J. (1993) Protected Areas in Saskatchewan: a Statistical Report. Technical Report 93-2.Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, Regina.

Lawton, L.J. (1995) A Status Report of Protected Areas in Saskatchewan. Policy and PublicInvolvement Technical Report 95-1. Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management,Regina.

Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits.World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

MacClintock, L., Whitcomb, R. and Whitcomb, B. (1977) Evidence for the value of corridors and min-imization of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. American Birds 31, 6–16.

Nelson, J.G., Butler, R.W. and Wall, G. (eds) (1993) Tourism and Sustainable Development:Monitoring, Planning, Managing. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.

Norris, R. (1992) Can ecotourism save natural areas? National Parks 1–2(66), 30–34.NPS (1999) National Park Service forecast of recreation visits 1999 and 2000.

http://www.aqd.nps.gov/stats/forecast9920.pdf Parks Canada (1999a) National Marine Conservation Areas Program. http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/

nmca/nmca/program.htm Parks Canada (1999b) Parks Canada attendance 1994/95 to 1998/99. http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/

library/DownloadDocuments/DocumentsArchive/Attendance_e.pdf Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. CAB International, Wallingford,

UK.Robinson, D.W. (1994) Strategies for alternative tourism: the case of tourism in Sagarmatha (Everest)

National Park, Nepal. In: Seaton, A.V. (ed.) Tourism: the State of the Art. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, UK, pp. 691–702.

Shackley, M. (1995) The future of gorilla tourism in Rwanda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3,61–72.

UNESCO (2000) CI-UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Partnership – Biosphere Reserves. http://www.conservation.org/science/cptc/capbuild/unesco/reserves.htm

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Public Protected Areas 301

Weaver, D.B. (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research26, 792–816.

Weaver, D.B. (2000) Tourism and national parks in ecologically vulnerable areas. In: Butler, R.W. andBoyd, S. (eds) Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications. Wiley, Chichester, UK,pp. 107–124.

Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1993) The principles and practice of buffer zones and local participationin biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22, 157–162.

WHIN (World Heritage Information Network) (1999) World Heritage Newsletter. http://www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc/pages/sites/main.htm

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1999) Transboundary protected areas. http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/transboundary/index.shtml

World Resources Institute (1998) World Resources: a Guide to the Global Environment. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

302 L.J. Lawton

Chapter 19

Privately Owned Protected Areas

J. Langholz1 and K. Brandon21Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA;

2Hyattsville, Maryland, USA

Introduction

Privately owned protected areas continueto proliferate throughout much of theworld. Despite this expansion, there hasbeen little coverage of them in the litera-ture. Research into their ecotourismaspects has been even rarer. This chapterbegins to fill that information gap by: (i)describing the current state of knowledgeregarding ecotourism and private naturereserves worldwide; and (ii) highlightingkey issues and problems relating to privatereserves and ecotourism. Specific examplesof private reserves appear throughout thechapter. Our intent is to shed much neededlight on this little understood but increas-ingly important conservation trend. Givenlimited public resources available for bio-diversity conservation, and growing inter-est in both ecotourism and private sectorconservation initiatives, it is imperativethat we begin a systematic examination ofthis emerging partnership.

Background

Private nature reserves have been quietlyproliferating throughout the world, yetdescriptions and analysis of them havegenerally been indirect (e.g. Adams, 1962;

Zube and Busch, 1990; Sayer, 1991; IUCN,1992; Schelhas and Greenberg, 1993;Barborak, 1995; Murray, 1995; Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996; Uphoff and Langholz,1998). A few authors have conducted casestudies highlighting various aspects of spe-cific reserves (e.g. Horwich and Lyon, 1987;Horwich, 1990; Glick and Orejuela, 1991;Wearing, 1993; Echeverria et al., 1995;Alyward et al., 1996). Additional studieshave verified the private sector’s increas-ingly large role in biodiversity conserva-tion (Bennett, 1995; Edwards, 1995;Merrifield, 1996). Although the 63 reservessurveyed in one study were protectingmore than 1 million ha (Alderman, 1994),we still lack hard data on the number ofprivate reserves worldwide and the amountof land they are protecting. Even the WorldConservation Union, IUCN, has launchedprojects to learn more about this relativelynew conservation tool (Beltran, 1998, per-sonal communication). In effect, whatDixon and Sherman (1990) described as asmall but important development in pro-tected area management a decade ago hasevolved into a notable new direction inconservation.

While there is a standardized nomen-clature for protected areas (IUCN, 1994)(see Chapter 18) there is no widelyaccepted typology of private protected

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 303

areas worldwide. For the purposes of thischapter, we consider a private naturereserve to consist of lands that are: (i) notowned by a governmental entity at anylevel; (ii) larger than 20 ha; and (iii) inten-tionally maintained in a mostly naturalcondition. Langholz and Lassoie (unpub-lished) have proposed categorization of pri-vate reserve types based on theirobjectives, ownership patterns, and theconsiderable overlap among them. Types ofreserves include: formal parks, biologicalstations, hybrid reserves, farmer-owned for-est patches, personal retreat reserves, non-government organization (NGO) reserves,hunting reserves, corporate reserves and‘ecotourism reserves’, where nature con-servation is combined with tourism.Depending on definitions, indigenous andcommunity-owned reserves can also be inthe category of ‘private’ provided they meetthe criteria given above.

Reasons for the rapid increase in privateparks remain relatively unstudied. Langholz(1999a) has suggested three closely relatedfactors:

• government failure to adequately safe-guard biodiversity;

• rising societal interest in biodiversity;• ecotourism expansion.

The first factor, government failure, stemsfrom governments’ unwillingness or inabil-ity to meet society’s demand for naturerecreation and conservation. Despite thecreation of thousands of protected naturalareas, biodiversity continues to disappearat alarming rates (World ResourcesInstitute et al., 1998). Government failureto protect biodiversity has occurred bothoutside protected areas and in the poorquality of protection of lands designated asprotected. A large percentage of these latterareas are un- or under-protected ‘paperparks’ (e.g. Machlis and Tichnell, 1985;Amend and Amend, 1992; van Schaik etal., 1997; Brandon et al., 1998).

The second factor contributing to pri-vate nature reserve proliferation, risingsocietal interest in biodiversity conserva-tion, stems from biodiversity’s emergenceon to the world stage over the last two

decades, culminating in the 1992Biodiversity Convention. Supplementingthis legal mandate has been extensive doc-umentation of biodiversity’s value tohumanity. Values include ecological, genetic,social, economic, scientific, educational,cultural, recreational, aesthetic and others(e.g. Wilson, 1992; Heywood and Watson,1995; Kellert, 1996). Closely related to therising awareness of biodiversity loss hasbeen an awareness of scarcity of manyspecies. In many parts of the world, therehave been long-standing traditions of ‘pri-vate’ reserves or parks. These private areashave often been hunting grounds for titlednobility and elites. As recognition hasincreased that species numbers are dwin-dling, many private and undeveloped land-holdings have increasingly been left aswilderness areas to meet the owners’ desig-nated conservation objectives. For exam-ple, areas that an owner had purchasedwith the intent to log may be left forestedonce the owner becomes aware of theimpact of clearcutting on nearby lands. Inother cases, communities have turnednatural areas into community-managedreserves, often for combinations of reasons,such as keeping outsiders out, ensuringlong-term access to wildland resources,and generating income through projectsviewed to be compatible with local socialand environmental objectives. Ecotourismis often viewed in this final category.

The final interrelated factor behind theproliferation of private parks has been theecotourism explosion, as described in otherchapters. The relationships between eco-tourism and private reserves are oftenmixed. In some cases, nature conservationoccurs primarily as a vehicle for promotingprofit-motivated tourism. In other cases theopposite is true, and tourism occurs princi-pally as a means to support nature conser-vation. Occupying the middle groundbetween these extremes are reserves wherethe goal is to combine profit with conserva-tion. Lastly there have been numerous sitesworldwide where owners have viewed eco-tourism as an economically competitiveland use compared with conversion toother uses. In some cases, the revenue from

304 J. Langholz and K. Brandon

tourism alone has been sufficient to stopconversion of lands and resources to otheruses. In other cases, the potential forincome generation through multiple landand resources use has been a major factorin the establishment of private protectedareas (Brandon, 1996). For example, Africahas a long-standing tradition of using pri-vate lands for tourism as a supplement toagriculture, ranching and other activities.There are also examples of such mixed-useecotourism development in Latin America.Hato Pinero is a 170,000 ha Venezuelancattle ranch that includes an 80,000 ha sec-tion used for ecotourism and wildlife pro-tection. The reserve has a great diversity oflarge and readily observed birds and mam-mals. In the dry season from December toApril, when pools are drying, birds andcaiman concentrate at the remaining watersources, offering easy and spectacularwildlife viewing opportunities. The suc-cess of Hato Pinero has led to the openingof a new ranch called Chinea Arriba, just 4ha south-west of Caracas. The ranch covers1000 ha and is situated on the Guarico andOrituco Rivers. Costs in January 1993 for acombination of trail riding and birdingwere US$120 per person per day (Brandon,1996). Ecotourism has been shown to be aprofitable land use.

Prevalence of Ecotourism at PrivateNature Reserves

The level and type of ecotourism at privatenature reserves varies substantially fromsite to site. As noted in Langholz (1999),ecotourism reserves range in size and pur-pose from large resorts with a reserve as anadded attraction for guests, to small family-run lodges that depend exclusively ontourism revenues. The prevalence of eco-tourism at private reserves is highly cor-related with the type of reserve and itsobjectives. For example, a personal retreatprotected for the owner’s interest in biodi-versity conservation may have few, if any,visitors. Reserves managed by NGOs havehighly variable levels of tourism dependingon both site characteristics and the NGO’s

management and monetary objectives.There are no worldwide data on the preva-lence of ecotourism at private naturereserves by category. However, studieswhich have been done indicate that eco-tourism is an extremely common activity atmany privately owned protected areas.Alderman (1994) showed that in 1989tourism accounted for 40% of operatingincome among 63 private reserves in LatinAmerica and sub-Saharan Africa. By 1993,a follow-up study of the same privatereserves (Langholz, 1996a) showed thatthis dependency on tourism had increasedto 67% of their operating income. Nearlyhalf of all respondents (n = 15) said theydepended on tourism for 90% or more oftheir revenues, and slightly over one-third(n = 12) were completely dependent ontourism (Langholz, 1996b).

In a study focusing exclusively on pri-vate reserves in Costa Rica, Langholz(1999a) found that ecotourism was anextremely common activity, with morethan half of all reserves engaging in it onsome level. Sixty per cent of 68 reserveowners studied hosted overnight visitorseither ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’, and 46%hosted daytime visitors. Yet equally inter-esting was the finding that 40% of reserveshosted tourists ‘rarely’ or ‘never’. This sur-prisingly high percentage refutes a com-mon perception that all private reserves areinvolved in the ecotourism industry. It is asignal to policy makers that privatereserves can thrive even in the absence of awell-established tourism industry.

Emergence of NGO and Community-managed Reserves

As described earlier, there is an array ofcategories of private reserves. While ‘pri-vate’ is often thought of as equivalent toownership by a limited number of peopleor a corporation, it can also include landsowned by communities or indigenousgroups, provided that these groups are non-governmental. Throughout Latin America,there are numerous examples of privatereserves being established and maintained

Privately Owned Protected Areas 305

by NGOs or communities as a means toprotect biodiversity. This trend is of suffi-cient importance that it merits separatemention here. Three different kinds of pri-vate reserves, which all include ecotourismas a key component, are described. Thefirst is a large reserve managed by an NGOprimarily for biodiversity conservation.The second is a reserve created by contigu-ous small holders joining sections of theirlands to be managed in a common manner.The third category, an outgrowth of the‘community’ emphasis of joint smallholderplots, is of areas owned, leased, or man-aged through usufruct rights by a commu-nity as reserves, with the objective oftourism. The tourism represented in thisspectrum included a variety of types oftourists, from ecotourists, to those princi-pally interested in indigenous culture, orarchaeology, ethnobotany, and a few adven-ture tourists. What each of these threemodels of private reserves has in commonis that all tend to be supported by nationalor international conservation organizations.Examples of each category are given below.

One of the best known cases of a largereserve managed by an NGO primarily forbiodiversity conservation is the Rio BravoConservation and Management Area inBelize. An NGO called ‘Programme forBelize’ (PfB) legally owns and manages thislarge (92,614 ha) reserve, equivalent to 4%of Belize’s terrestrial area, in perpetuity forthe public good. PfB is a Belizean non-profit organization established in 1988 topromote the conservation and wise use ofBelize’s natural resources. Ecotourismdevelopment at the reserve has beenviewed as one of the primary mechanismsfor supporting the reserve’s managementcosts. By the end of fiscal year 1995, totalrevenues earned from tourism-relatedactivities in Rio Bravo covered 45% of theoperating expenses of PfB (Wallace andNaughton-Treves, 1998). Another well-known example of an NGO managedreserve is the Monteverde Cloud ForestReserve, established in Costa Rica in 1973and operated by the Tropical ScienceCenter in San Jose. Ecotourism to thereserve has been so high that the reserve

has been on the cutting edge of using pric-ing policies to regulate visitation (Churchand Brandon, 1995; Honey, 1999).

The Community Baboon Sanctuary,which is located in a rural community 53km north-west of Belize City, provides anexample of contiguous smallholders join-ing sections of their land for common man-agement. This reserve was established in1985 to protect the black howler monkey,Alouatta pigra, through the efforts of anexpatriate and 12 landowners. Locallandowners were asked to follow a land-use plan which would maintain a skeletalforest from which howlers and otherspecies could use the regenerating cutforests, while helping landowners reduceriverbank erosion and reduce cultivationfallow time. The sanctuary at the lastreport included over 120 landowners.Ecotourism has been a significant compo-nent of the programme, with over 6000tourists visiting in 1990. Yet the most sig-nificant programme impact has been toentice over 30 communities to undertake‘community-based ecotourism and resourcemanagement programs’ (Horwich andLyon, 1987). These range from ‘entirely pri-vate lands to private and public landmosaics to entirely public lands’ (Horwichand Lyon, 1987).

A survey conducted by The NatureConservancy in the Peten in Guatemalaand Belize identified ten community-basedtourism projects (J. Beavers, 1995, unpub-lished). What all of these groups had incommon was a desire to obtain economicbenefits from tourism through some site-based activity. Half of the groups were rent-ing the land that they used as theequivalent of a ‘reserve’. The majority ofthese areas were located in or near a pro-tected area, including archaeological sites.The majority of these groups desired tocapture economic benefits that they feltwere bypassing them, and created reservesthat drew in tourism (Norris et al., 1998).There are comparable examples, althoughmore limited in number, of indigenouscommunities in South Africa designatingportions of communally owned lands fortourism and conservation (Honey, 1999).

306 J. Langholz and K. Brandon

Non-tourism Activities at Private Reserves

As suggested above, ecotourism is not theonly activity occurring in many privatelyowned protected areas. It is simply oneland use among a broad portfolio ofoptions. There are virtually no broad-basedstudies of non-tourism activities at privatereserves, with the exceptions of the studiesthat follow. Alderman (1994) found thatranching and agriculture provided for 17%of reserves’ income. Non-governmentreserves such as those related to CAMPFIREin Zimbabwe, often rely on hunting as arevenue source (Metcalfe, 1993). Langholz(1999) showed that 84% of private reserveowners in Costa Rica said they usedreserves for their own ‘personal enjoyment’above all else, either ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’.Other common activities, in descendingorder of frequency, were: research projects(44%), harvesting logs for construction orartesanal products (25%), collecting fire-wood for home use (24%), harvesting deco-rative plants (24%), harvesting medicinalplants (22%), grazing cattle or horses(19%), and harvesting wild food plants fornursery or home use (19%).

Owners engaged in several additionalactivities, but to a much lesser extent.These additional activities included min-ing for rocks or sand, and harvesting wildfood plants or logs for sale. Note thatexcept for ‘personal enjoyment’, all of theactivities either produce revenue directlyor serve to avoid household expenditures.Likewise, many reserve owners in CostaRica are now receiving cash payments,technical assistance, property tax breaks,and other government incentives inexchange for carbon sequestration andother environmental services provided bytheir reserves (Langholz et al., 2000a). Theclear message from these data is that pri-vate reserve owners rely on a broad array ofrevenue-producing activities that can sup-plement or replace ecotourism revenues.

Profitability among Private Nature Reserves

Sustainability requires not just the mainte-nance of ecological integrity, but also atten-tion to social and economic factors.Regarding economics, Alderman (1994)showed 38% of reserves to have been prof-itable during the year preceding the datacollection (1988). Furthermore, her studygroup optimistically predicted a 26% risein profitability within the following 5years. Their optimism proved justified, butnot to the extent expected. Langholz(1996a) documented that by 1993 prof-itability had risen by 21% among privatereserves. Given ecotourism’s ongoingexpansion, it is unlikely that this trendtoward higher profitability will reverse.Wells (1997) correctly notes, however, thatthe profitability of such operations is diffi-cult to estimate, partly because these pri-vate businesses are under no obligation todisclose financial information, and partlybecause no serious effort has been made tostudy them from a financial or economicperspective. For a more detailed discussionof economic considerations at privatelyowned parks, readers are referred toLangholz et al. (2000b).

Many of the newer private reservesworldwide have been established to specif-ically cater to the increasing ecotourismmarket. One such ecotourism reserve inCosta Rica had cleared over US$1.4 millionin profit over its first 6 years in operation.The amount of profit would be even higherhad the owners not decided to pay off,ahead of schedule, the US$1.2 million bor-rowed to purchase the land. While the sen-sitive nature of such financial informationprecludes us from providing specificdetails on the reserve (e.g. name, location,owners), we can discuss several factorscontributing to this reserve’s high prof-itability. Important among them is the factthat the reserve provides a high-valuewilderness experience at a high price. Theguests who occupy the reserve’s 14 bunga-lows enjoy excellent luxury service andlodging within a jungle setting and paymore than US$160 per night. By catering to

Privately Owned Protected Areas 307

an upscale clientele, the owners assurefinancial viability while keeping to a mini-mum the number of tourists who use thereserve. Catering to the affluent also mini-mizes competition with most of CostaRica’s other private nature reserves.Although this particular reserve is excep-tional, it reveals the substantial revenuethat ecotourism can provide for a privatereserve.

Key Issues and Problems

Main problems at private nature reserves

Private reserves are subject to the overalltrends and prevailing conditions in thecountries in which they are located. Itseems apparent that the success of privateecotourism ventures depends on thetourist’s perception of general environmen-tal quality in the region. Like public parks,private protected areas face a wide varietyof problems. Alderman (1994) found thatbudget deficiencies, poaching and lack ofcooperation from government entities wereconsidered by owners to be the biggestthreats to their reserves. The results 4 yearslater (Langholz, 1996a) were similar, exceptthat budget deficiencies had dropped fromfirst to third place. This shift, combinedwith the increase in profitability discussedearlier, supports the assertion that privatereserves are experiencing improved finan-cial health. Other problems mentioned bylandowners included: political unrest inthe country, community opposition to lossof access to reserve’s resources, squatters,and community opposition to tourism.Ecotourism could provide some benefits byserving as a justification for combiningconservation and ecotourism with othermanagement objectives (Brandon, 1996).

Langholz (1999) examined the mostpressing problems faced by reserve ownersin Costa Rica. Based on poaching’s highranking in previous studies, this particulartopic was divided into three separate sub-groups: ‘poaching of birds’, ‘poaching oflogs’, and ‘poaching of other plants andanimals’. Such segmentation clarified this

important issue, with ‘poaching of logs’proving to be only a minor problem, rank-ing near the bottom of the list. ‘Poaching ofbirds’ presented more of a problem, rank-ing fifth overall. The most severe problemwas ‘poaching of other plants and animals’.According to owners, poachers take mam-mals mostly. Examples included: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), peccary(Tayassu tajacu and Tayassu pecari), agouti(Dasyprocta punctata), jaguars (Felis onca),pumas (Felis concolor), ocelots (Felispardalis) and, especially, a large rodentknown as the tepiscuintle (Agouti paca).

Problems specifically related to eco-tourism were mentioned by private reservesin Costa Rica, but were not common. Forexample, one reserve owner on the OsaPeninsula had problems with a visitor whowas an illegal wildlife trafficker in dis-guise. The ‘guest’ used his stay as anopportunity to capture exotic birds fortransport to the USA. Similarly, another‘ecotourist’ captured colourful winged insectsso he could photograph them. Capturedinsects were dropped into a bowl contain-ing hot water, causing them to open theirwings and allowing the photographer to getthe shots he wanted. Finally, an owner inSarapiqui reported that tourists were toblame for excessive trail erosion, a problemthat the owner should be able to prevent.

Fluctuations in the ecotourism market

Those reserves dependent on ecotourismare subject to vagaries of the ecotourismmarket. Although ecotourism continues toexpand globally, there is no guarantee thatthis trend will continue indefinitely. Those reserves located in politicallyunstable countries are especially vulner-able. Peruvian reserves, for example, suf-fered financially during the 1980s, whenthe Shining Path was actively terrorizingmany parts of the country. Reserve ownersin the Republic of South Africa wereuneasy during that country’s recent andpotentially explosive political transition.Similarly, war-torn Colombia remains unat-tractive as an ecotourism destination,

308 J. Langholz and K. Brandon

despite its incredible natural heritage andlarge number of private nature reserves.Most Colombian reserves, therefore,depend on the domestic tourism market oron other sources of financing. Clearly,political instability remains a troublesomewildcard for private reserves, a factor thatlies largely beyond their control yet greatlyinfluences their destiny.

If having too few ecotourists can be aproblem, then having too many is also aconcern. Rapid growth in tourism can leadto overly ambitious development of lodg-ing, thus causing a rebound effect when thesupply of ecotourism destinations outpacesdemand. This may have happened in CostaRica, where steady and dramatic tourismgrowth in the 1980s and early 1990s finallycame to a halt in the mid-1990s. The ensu-ing slump crippled several privatereserves, many of which have yet torecover. Compounding the situation wasthe kidnapping of a foreign tourist. Thekidnapping made headlines in the tourist’shome country, causing several thousandsof trip cancellations. Competition amongprivate reserves in Costa Rica is likely toincrease as more and more ecotourismreserves are established.

These and other fluctuations in thetourism market highlight private reserves’precarious position, and limits to theprivate-sector approach. In short, biodiver-sity conservation is such an important andlong-term endeavour that it should not besubjected to tourism’s short-term andpotentially lethal fluctuations. To theextent that they are dependent on eco-tourism, private conservation effortsshould continue to play a supplementaryrole to larger governmental efforts to pro-tect natural areas (see Chapter 18). Theyshould be relied upon as a supplement to anation’s conservation strategy, rather thanits mainstay.

Conflicts of interest

The single biggest challenge for ecotourismat private nature reserves lies with conflictsof interest. Reserve owners may be tempted

to cut corners, pitting profit versus protec-tion. This temptation appears to be rising,as newcomers, who are attracted to privatereserves as a financial investment, joinolder conservation-minded private reserveowners. The financial success of privatereserves runs the risk of attracting newentrants who are business people first, andconservationists second, people willing tomake conservation trade-offs in the interestof making or saving money. An example ofthis would be taking wildlife from a wildarea and transporting it to the reserve toaugment the reserve’s wildlife populations.Even worse, there are cases where wildlifehave been captured in protected areas andtransported to private reserves to establisha small zoo or penned area so tourists cansee and photograph the wildlife easily.Protected area and wildlife laws oftenmake such actions illegal. Similarly, lawsgoverning private reserves may includerestrictions as well; maintaining captiveanimals is strictly forbidden among mem-bers of Costa Rica’s network of privatenature reserve owners. However, with fewpark guards, wildlife agents, or othermeans to limit wildlife trade and capture,the response of tourists is often either a sig-nificant deterrent to, or determinant of,such behaviour, depending on the values ofprivate reserve owners (see Chapter 41).

While maintaining captive animals maybe a particularly egregious example of plac-ing economics above ecology, it is by nomeans the only one. Reserve owners canalso be tempted to overbuild facilities. Thisincludes constructing excessive roads,buildings and other infrastructure withinthe reserve. Quality is also an issue, interms of the type and amount of construc-tion. Roads, buildings, sewage systems andpower facilities all need to be built with aneye toward minimizing their adverseimpacts on the reserve. In places wherehunting serves as a revenue source, thereexists an immense temptation to harvestwildlife at unsustainable rates. Finally, thesheer volume of tourists visiting the reserveneeds to be carefully monitored. Largernumbers of visitors may mean greaterrevenue for the owners, but they can stress

Privately Owned Protected Areas 309

a reserve’s natural features by eroding trailsand frightening wildlife. Owners shoulduse existing tools to determine the humancarrying capacity of their reserves.

A related problem is ‘piggy-backing’ bynon-conservationists. As Yu et al. (1997)explain, ecotourism reserves can get awaywith doing little conservation. Owners canrely on an area’s conservation reputationwithout contributing to it. This is espe-cially possible in regions or countriesconsidered attractive as ecotourist destina-tions. In effect, owners can get away withprotecting only the surprisingly smallamount of habitat needed to stage a naturewalk, relying on a typical tourist’s inabilityto recognize substantially degraded habitat.As Yu et al. note, this presents a classicfree-rider situation that is not in conserva-tion’s best interest.

Similarly, private reserve owners mayallocate their lands into officially recog-nized conservation status for reasons otherthan biodiversity. In the Republic of SouthAfrica, for example, several wealthy whitelandowners placed their property into con-servation status as power transferred tothat country’s black majority. They wereconcerned not so much about protectingbiodiversity, but rather about losing theirlarge holdings to government land redistri-bution schemes (Brinkate, 1996). A similarphenomenon appears to be occurring inZimbabwe. Even in Costa Rica, some pri-vate reserve owners have joined conserva-tion programmes principally for economicreasons. These included improved market-ing and publicity resulting from being anofficially recognized conservation area(Langholz, 1999). Reserves owned by largecorporations, whose principal activitiesdegrade nature, sometimes fall into thiscategory. What better way for a mining, log-ging, or oil company to draw attentionaway from the nature it destroys than bycreating a token nature reserve, photos ofwhich can adorn the company’s newspaperadvertisements and annual reports? In suchcases, private nature reserves serve morefor green-washing than conservation.

Finally, successful private reserve ownersmay find it very difficult to sell their

reserve, including an ecotourism business,to new owners who will carry on theirvision. For example, owners of a successfulrainforest reserve with an ecolodge on theOsa Peninsula in Costa Rica have com-bined educational tourism, conservation,sustainability and responsibility to localcommunities. After 6 years of successfuloperations, they want to sell their preserveand lodge, but they want to ensure that thedelicate balance between rainforest protec-tion and tourism is maintained, and thatthere is strong cooperation with local com-munities. Legal protection to carry out thisvision is difficult; should much of the landbe turned over to the government andmerged with an adjacent park, even thoughthe government’s resources to manage it arelow? Should the owners sell the land alongwith the lodge in the hope the rainforestwill in fact be protected? What priceshould be charged, the fair market value ofincreasingly desirable property for hotel orhousing construction, or a vastly lowerprice typically reserved for ‘undeveloped’or ‘unmanaged’ land? As yet, there is virtu-ally no experience on how private reservesmanaged under one owner’s vision can besuccessfully transferred and managed byothers.

Competition with public parks

Privately owned protected areas tend to belocated directly adjacent to larger publicparks. Alderman (1994), for example,found 46% of the 63 reserves in her studyto be bordering public parks. In Costa Rica,an estimated 51% of private reserves areadjacent to public parks (Langholz, 1999).This close proximity has important ecolog-ical and economic implications, which aredetailed in Langholz (1999) and discussedin Chapter 18. From an ecological perspec-tive, private reserves abutting publicly pro-tected areas help to extend ecosystemfunctions and stabilize habitats. Being adja-cent can also enhance tourism. Thenational park can attract tourists to thearea, many of whom stay at the privatepark. Likewise, a well-known private park

310 J. Langholz and K. Brandon

can attract tourists to the area, who thenvisit the national park as well, creating rev-enue for the park system. A similarexchange occurs with respect to tourismactivities. An adjacent national park addsto the range of natural history optionsoffered by the private park (e.g. a museumor education centre). Similarly, a privatepark can add to the range of natural historyoptions available in the area (e.g. a canopywalkway).

However, private reserves can also drainbenefits from publicly managed parks. Forexample, a private reserve adjacent to alarge national park might be able to lurewildlife from the park, by having saltlicksor water holes. High fees for lodging,upscale tourism, and low managementcosts lead to high revenue. But this privatereserve may in fact draw visitors awayfrom national parks. Other examplesinclude the better potential of privatereserves to use outside tour operators andengage in more sophisticated marketingthan park management authorities. At thesame time, high visitation to privatereserves may be another way to demon-strate to governments that wildlife andwilderness areas have good earning poten-tial if properly structured and managed.For example, one study found that a pri-vate reserve, Monteverde Cloud ForestReserve, generates more income fromtourism than is generated by all CostaRican national parks together (Church andBrandon, 1995). A final problem is that pri-vate reserves which promote ecotourismmay not necessarily meet the criteria ofconservation and local benefits that mostecotourists would like to believe are takingplace. Honey (1999) provides an excellentreview of a variety of ecotourism projects.Her book highlights the difference between‘green lodges and ecotourism’ (Reichert inHoney, 1999). Such lodges adjacent toparks, even if classified as private reserves,may in fact compete with or drainresources from public areas.

Thus far, private nature reserves haveoperated largely in a vacuum. Most govern-ments do not even know how many privatereserves exist within their country, or

where they are located, let alone attempt tomonitor reserves’ performance. Privatereserves are often protected informally,with no official government recognition orregulation. This makes it especially diffi-cult to ensure that biodiversity conserva-tion is really occurring. It makes it easierfor landowners to cut conservation corners,as described earlier. Even if governmentsdid know of private reserves’ whereabouts,many developing country governmentshave difficulty maintaining and monitoringconditions within their public park sys-tems. Governments incapable of overseeingtheir public parks are even less likely toregulate private ones. As private reservesand ecotourism continue to expand, it willbecome increasingly important to ensurethat conservation is really taking place.

Conclusion

This chapter has explored the little-knownrelationship between privately owned pro-tected areas and ecotourism. It hasdescribed the current state of knowledgeregarding ecotourism and private naturereserves worldwide, and has highlightedkey issues and problems. We have empha-sized background information on privatereserves, the prevalence of ecotourism andother activities within them, and their prof-itability. For key issues, we have focusedon reserves’ problems, fluctuations in theecotourism market, conflicts of interest,relationships with public parks, monitor-ing and evaluation, and social impacts.

As ecotourism and privately owned pro-tected areas continue to expand throughoutthe tropics, it is increasingly important thatwe learn more about them. We have barelyscratched the surface in terms of under-standing their unique role and relation-ship. Fortunately, a follow-up study tothose of Alderman (1994) and Langholz(1996a) will be available soon, whichshould cast more light on this topic(Mesquita, unpublished). Even with theadditional perspective offered by the newstudy, however, we will still lack even themost basic information about private

Privately Owned Protected Areas 311

reserves and ecotourism. The conservationcommunity should initiate a systematicexamination of ecotourism and privatenature reserves, assessing not just their sta-tus and niche relative to public protectedareas, but also their key inherent strengths

and weaknesses as conservation and devel-opment tools. Given ongoing habitat loss inthe tropics and recent reductions in publicexpenditures for protected areas, such aneffort would make a major contribution toprotecting the world’s natural heritage.

312 J. Langholz and K. Brandon

References

Adams, A. (ed.) (1962) First World Conference on Parks. National Park Service, Washington, DC.Alderman, C. (1994) The economics and the role of privately-owned lands used for nature tourism,

education, and conservation. In: Munasinghe, M. and McNeely, J. (eds) Protected AreaEconomics and Policy: Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development. IUCN and TheWorld Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 273–305.

Alyward, B., Allen, K., Echeverria, J. and Tosi, J. (1996) Sustainable ecotourism in Costa Rica: theMonteverde cloudforest preserve. Biology and Conservation 5, 315–343.

Amend, S. and Amend, T. (1992) Human occupation in the national parks of South America: a fun-damental problem. Parks 3, 4–8.

Barborak, J. (1995) Institutional options for managing protected areas. In: McNeely, J. (ed.) ExpandingPartnerships in Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 30–38.

Bennett, J. (1995) Private sector initiatives in nature conservation. Review of Marketing andAgricultural Economics 63, 426–434.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approachto the Context. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Brandon, K. (1996) Ecotourism and Conservation: a Review of Key Issues. Global EnvironmentDivision, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 033. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Brandon, K., Redford, K. and Sanderson, S. (eds) (1998) Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and ProtectedAreas. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Brinkate, T. (1996) People and parks: implications for sustainable development in the ThukelaBiosphere Reserve. Presentation at The Sixth International Symposium on Society and NaturalResource Management. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Church, P. and Brandon, K. (1995) Strategic Approaches to Stemming the Loss of Biological Diversity.Center for Development Information and Evaluation, US Agency for International Development,Washington, DC.

Dixon, J.A. and Sherman, P.B. (1990) Economics of Protected Areas: a New Look at Benefits andCosts. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Echeverria, J., Hanrahan, M. and Solorzano, R. (1995) Valuation of non-priced amenities provided bythe biological resources within the Monteverde cloudforest reserve. Ecological Economics 13,43–52.

Edwards, V. (1995) Dealing in Diversity: America’s Market for Nature Conservation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Glick, D. and Orejuela, J. (1991) La Planada: looking beyond the boundaries. In: West, P. and Brechin,S. (eds) Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in InternationalConservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 150–159.

Heywood, V.H. and Watson, R.T. (eds) (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Horwich, R.H. (1990) How to develop a community sanctuary – an experimental approach to theconservation of private lands. Oryx 24, 95–102.

Horwich, R.H. and Lyon, J. (1987) Development of the community baboon sanctuary in Belize: anexperiment in grassroots conservation. Primate Conservation 8, 32–34.

IUCN (1992) Protected Areas of the World: a Review of National Systems, vol. 4: Neoarctic andNeotropical. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN (1994) 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

Kellert, S.R. (1996) The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Island Press,Washington, DC.

Langholz, J. (1996a) Economics, objectives, and success of private nature reserves in sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America. Conservation Biology 10, 271–280.

Langholz, J. (1996b) Ecotourism impact at independently-owned nature reserves in Latin Americaand sub-Saharan Africa. In: Miller, J. and Malek-Zadeh, E. (eds) The Ecotourism Equation:Measuring the Impacts. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Bulletin Series, No.99, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 60–71.

Langholz, J. (1999) Conservation cowboys: privately-owned parks and the protection of tropical bio-diversity. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Langholz, J., Lassoie, J.P. and Schelhas, J. (2000a) Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: Lessonsfrom Costa Rica’s Private Wildlife Refuge Program. Conservation Biology 14(6), 1735–1743.

Langholz, J., Lassoie, J., Lee, D. and Chapman, D. (2000b) Economic considerations of privatelyowned parks. Ecological Economics, 33(2), 173–183.

Machlis, G. and Tichnell, D. (1985) The State of the World’s Parks: an International Assessment forResource Management, Policy, and Research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Merrifield, J. (1996) A market approach to conserving biodiversity. Ecological Economics 16,217–226.

Metcalfe, S. (1993) The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for IndigenousResources (CAMPFIRE). In: Western, D., Wright, M. and Strum, S. (eds) Natural Connections:Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 161–192.

Murray, W. (1995) Lessons from 35 years of private preserve management in the USA: the preservesystem of The Nature Conservancy. In: McNeely, J. (ed.) Expanding Partnerships inConservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 197–205.

Norris, R., Wilber, J. and Marin, L. (1998) Community-based ecotourism in the Maya Forest: prob-lems and potential. In: Primack, R., Bray, D., Galleti, H. and Ponciano, I. (eds) Timber, Tourists,and Temples: Conservation and Development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala, andMexico. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Sayer, J. (1991) Rainforest Buffer Zones: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN’s ForestConservation Program, Gland, Switzerland.

Schelhas, J. and Greenberg, R. (1993) Forest Patches in the Tropical Landscape & the Conservation ofMigratory Birds, Migratory Bird Conservation Policy Paper No. 1. Smithsonian Migratory BirdCenter, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC.

Uphoff, N. and Langholz, J. (1998) Incentives for avoiding the tragedy of the commons.Environmental Conservation 25, 251–261.

Van Schaik, C., Terborgh, J. and Dugelby, B. (1997) The silent crisis: the state of rainforest naturereserves. In: Kramer, R., van Schaik, C. and Johnson, J. (eds) Last stand: Protected Areas and theDefense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 64–89.

Wallace, A. and Naughton-Treves, L. (1998) Belize: Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area.In: Brandon, K., Redford, K. and Sanderson, S. (eds) Parks in Peril: People, Politics, andProtected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Wearing, S. (1993) Ecotourism: the Santa Elena rainforest project. The Environmentalist 13, 15–135.Wells, M. (1997) Economic Perspectives on Nature Tourism, Conservation, and Development.

Environmental Economics Series, No. 55. The World Bank, Washington, DC.Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1992) People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local

Communities. International Bank for Reconstruction, Washington, DC. West, P. and Brechin, S. (eds) (1991) Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and

Strategies in International Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Western, D. (1989) Conservation without parks: wildlife in the rural landscape. In: Western, D. and

Pearl, M. (eds) Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford University Press, New York,pp. 158–165.

Western, D. (1993) Ecosystem conservation and rural development: the case of Amboseli. In:Western, D., Wright, M. and Strum, S. (eds) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 15–52.

Privately Owned Protected Areas 313

Western, D. and Pearl, M. (eds) (1989) Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Wilson, E.O. (1989) Conservation: the next hundred years. In: Western, D. and Pearl, M. (eds)Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–7.

Wilson, E. (1992) The Diversity of Life. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

World Resources Institute, The United Nations Environment Programme, The United NationsDevelopment Programme, and The World Bank (1998) World Resources 1998–99. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Yu, D.W., Hendrickson, T. and Castillo, A. (1997) Ecotourism and conservation in Amazonian Peru:short-term and long-term challenges. Environmental Conservation 24, 130–138.

Zube, E.H. and Busch, M.L. (1990) People-park relations: an international review. Landscape andUrban Planning 19, 115–132.

314 J. Langholz and K. Brandon

Chapter 20

Modified Spaces

L.J. Lawton1 and D.B.Weaver21School of Business, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia;

2School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Queensland, Australia

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to outlinethe actual and potential scope for eco-tourism within landscapes that have beenextensively modified as a result of humanintervention. The first section provides thetheoretical rationale for considering modi-fied spaces as an appropriate ecotourismvenue. Subsequent sections consider theactual and potential status of ecotourismwithin various categories and sub-categories of such space. All of the Earth’slandscapes, of course, have been modifiedto some extent by human activity, but thefocus here is on those spaces that havebeen fundamentally altered by relatedprocesses. Categories considered for dis-cussion purposes include agricultural land,urban and peri-urban land, artificial reefs,service corridors and devastated spaces.

The Rationale for Ecotourism inModified Spaces

Because ecotourism fundamentally relieson the natural environment for its attrac-tion base, it is not surprising that anemphasis is placed on relatively ‘natural’or ‘unmodified’ landscapes as the mostappropriate venue for ecotourism-related

activities. This linkage is perhaps mostapparent in the extent to which this formof tourism is associated with protectedareas (see Chapters 18 and 19). If, however,the attraction base of ecotourism is con-strued as including the natural environ-ment or some component thereof, thenthere is no inherent reason for neglecting,as a potential setting, spaces that have beenmore modified by various forms of humanactivity. Many species of wild animal, forexample, make extensive use of alteredenvironments, and it is this adaptabilityfactor that is a core element of this chap-ter’s focus on the suitability of modifiedspaces as viewing sites for such creatures.Ecotourism, then, does not have to berestricted to the context of a wild animal’snatural habitat. As illustrated in subse-quent sections, modified spaces can actu-ally harbour higher wildlife populationsand diversity than natural environments.Furthermore, modified spaces may providebetter opportunities and scope for viewingbecause of their greater accessibility topopulation concentrations.

Beyond the occurrence and visibility ofwildlife within modified spaces, thesespaces should also be considered moreseriously for ecotourism purposes for otherreasons. These include the fact that suchlands occupy a large and ever-expanding

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 315

portion of the Earth’s land surface (WorldResources Institute, 1998). Being alreadyaltered from their natural state, they havegreater resilience in terms of their carryingcapacity for accommodating ecotourismactivities. In addition, the mobilization ofsuch lands for ecotourism will serve toalleviate the pressure that is being exertedby this rapidly growing sector on the ever-shrinking inventory of natural landscapes.Ecotourism may even provide an incentivefor the restoration of modified spaces, or atthe very least for the management of theselands so that they remain viable as wildlifehabitat. Finally, it should be emphasizedthat most of the world’s population hasready access to open modified spaces, sothat ecotourism in such locations is lesscostly and effectively more egalitarian thanecotourism that is confined to natural envi-ronments, and wilderness landscapes inparticular.

The literature that considers the man-agement and status of wildlife within mod-ified spaces is extensive. However, despitethe rationale provided here, the literaturethat explicitly examines the actual orpotential linkages between such spaces andecotourism is negligible. This chapter isone of the first concerted attempts to ‘takestock’ of the issue, and is thus primarilyexploratory in character.

Ecotourism on Agricultural Lands

Lands used for agriculture account for overhalf of the world’s land surface, and there-fore constitute an important potentialvenue for ecotourism. (See Chapter 27 forfurther discussion of the link between eco-tourism and rural areas.) For discussionpurposes below, ‘agricultural land’ is sub-divided into croplands, grazing land andareas of shifting cultivation.

Cropland

‘Cropland’, which includes temporary andpermanent crops (including orchards andother tree crops), temporary meadows, and

market and kitchen gardens, occupiesabout 10% of the Earth’s land surface.However, such lands are spatially concen-trated, with just four countries (USA, India,Russia, China) accounting for 40% of thistotal (World Resources Institute, 1998).Although an extreme example of environ-mental modification, croplands are capableof sustaining significant wildlife popula-tions, especially when they are located inproximity to remnant or extensive naturalspaces that provide shelter and adequatebreeding habitat. Some types of wildlife,such as white-tailed deer, can even experi-ence significant population increasethrough the opportunistic exploitation ofagricultural landscapes.

Traditionally, the perceptions of cropfarmers toward wildlife have ranged fromambivalence to outright hostility. Whetheras a result of the trampling of maize cropsby elephants in Kenya, or the destructionof newly planted wheat by migratorywaterfowl in the North American prairie,some types of wildlife are regarded as peststhat inflict major crop damage. It is there-fore not surprising that 80% of US farmersreport crop damage each year, and that77% allow hunters access to their land.The ambivalence is indicated by the sup-plementary fact that 51% of US farmersundertake deliberate management practicesto attract or sustain wildlife, including theprovision of cover or water, and the prac-tice of leaving crop residue or unharvestedcrops in their fields. American farmers,cumulatively, invest an estimated 120 mil-lion h and US$2.5 billion in expenditureon such measures (Conover, 1998).

Although the tourism/recreation inter-face between cropland and wildlife has tra-ditionally been dominated by hunting,non-consumptive forms of activity arebecoming more important both in absoluteand relative terms. Recreational trends inthe USA, in fact, show a strong increase inparticipation among ecotourism-relatedactivities such as birdwatching, while thegreatest decline was recorded in the pro-portion of American adults who engage inhunting (Cordell et al., 1995).

It is premature to say whether these

316 L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

changes indicate that cropland-basedtourism is in a state of transition from aconsumptive to a non-consumptive empha-sis. However, hunting and ecotourism doappear to be occurring concurrently insome areas, leaving open the potential forconflict among the various types of partici-pants and landowners. Evidence for suchconcurrence is available from the Canadianprovince of Saskatchewan, where wildlifeviewing and hunting, respectively, are thetwo most popular client activities reportedby vacation farm operators. Of particularinterest are the 16 operations where bothactivities were regarded as ‘very important’client opportunities (Weaver and Fennell,1997). This research further indicated thatwildlife viewing occurred on lands thatwere farmed as well as in adjacent naturalareas. Because of seasonal limitations,viewing occurred mainly in the spring andsummer, and birds (perching species,migratory waterfowl and birds of prey inparticular) were the major observed types.However, despite the importance ofwildlife viewing, very few operators hadany background or training in ecotourism,while only about 20% had prior qualifica-tions in any aspect of tourism at all(Weaver and Fennell, 1997).

In one of the very few attempts to for-mally link heavily modified farmlandregions with ecotourism, Weaver (1997)has advocated the recognition of Sas-katchewan’s grain-growing ‘agriculturalheartland’ as a distinct ecotourism ‘contextzone’. This suggestion not only recognizesthe potential of such areas to accommodatea viable ecotourism sector, but acknowl-edges that such areas will be subject to dif-ferent management-related issues fromthose that affect protected areas and otherrelatively natural settings. These include:

• competition and coexistence with hunters,who will remain a significant user ofwildlife resources into the foreseeablefuture despite the pattern of decliningparticipation;

• the maintenance of remnant naturallands and habitat corridors as a means

for supporting viable local wildlife pop-ulations;

• a tenure pattern characterized by a largenumber of privately owned properties,as opposed to most higher-order pro-tected areas, which are wholly con-trolled by a particular government body;

• the transfer of owner/wildlife problemsfrom hunters to ecotourists; for example,the demand for compensation related towildlife crop damage will be re-focusedtoward non-consumptive wildlife-orientedtourists and organizations;

• attaining a coexistence between farm-related activities and ecotourism, whichcould be negatively affected by machin-ery noise, pesticide applications, preda-tory cultivation, etc.; and

• facilitating the involvement of decliningagricultural service centres in eco-tourism.

Depending on the specific geographiccontext, circumstances can be identified insome cropland-dominated destinations thatcould support the possibilities for eco-tourism. For example, the English country-side has an extensive network of publicfootpaths that are already heavily used fornon-consumptive recreational and tourismpurposes. Similarly, well-developed farmtourism networks in the UK and other partsof western and central Europe already offera form of accommodation that is comple-mentary to rural ecotourism. In terms oflandscape features that support wildlifepopulations in cropland environments, thehedgerows of England and France arenotable, as are the thousands of artificialfarm ponds that have been established inthe USA beneath the Central andMississippi flyways (Adams and Dove,1989). Some plantation landscapes in theCaribbean and in other parts of the lessdeveloped world are noteworthy for theirecotourism potential because of the extentto which they offer a forest-like setting forwildlife. The Asa Wright Nature Preserveon the island of Trinidad is a major eco-tourism facility that relies primarily onsuch plantations for its attraction base.

Modified Spaces 317

Grazing land

According to the World Resources Institute(1998), ‘permanent pasture’ is land occu-pied by natural or cultivated grasses thathave been used for at least 5 consecutiveyears as forage. An estimated 23% of theworld’s land surface is classified as perma-nent pasture under these criteria, withAustralia, China, the USA, Kazakhstan andBrazil accounting for about 40% of theworld total.

When converted from a grasslandbiome, grazing land differs from croplandin resembling more closely its former nat-ural state, especially if native rather thanexotic grasses are maintained for foragepurposes. This suggests an enhancedpotential to accommodate native wildlifespecies. A further advantage for ecotourismcan be termed the ‘visibility’ factor.Wildlife is more visible on grazing landsdue to the absence or sparseness of woodycover, which also allows the viewer toobserve a large amount of space in a singlegaze.

The body of literature that links eco-tourism-related activities to grazing land isnot extensive, though larger than thatwhich relates to cropland. Weaver andFennell (1997) found that native ungulatessuch as mule deer were an importantwildlife viewing resource on vacationfarms located within the range lands ofSaskatchewan. Bryan (1991) describes theincreasing importance of ecotourismwithin the guest ranch industry inWyoming, Montana and Idaho, which hasarisen through a combination of factors,including the need for economic diversifi-cation, recognition of the importance ofsustainable agriculture, and market shiftsaway from consumptive tourism. As withSaskatchewan’s vacation farms, the rev-enue obtained from ecotourism is not large,but in many cases makes the differencebetween continued viability and bank-ruptcy for the overall ranch operation.

The evidence is not confined to NorthAmerica. In South Africa, approximately10,000 of 60,000 commercial farmers qual-ify as ‘game ranchers’. According to Pauw

and Peel (1993), the animals are used fortrophy hunting, sport hunting, live salesand meat sales, as well as non-consump-tive tourism. A similar situation, althoughon a much smaller scale, pertains to thecommercial ranchlands of Namibia(Weaver and Elliott, 1996).

On semi-commercial and subsistence-based communal grazing lands in sub-Saharan Africa, the ecotourism/rancherrelationship is even more complicated. Insuch situations, wild animals have longbeen regarded as unwelcome pests thatcompete for forage with domesticated ani-mals and introduce disease, especially inlands adjacent to protected areas, whereintrusions by wildlife are more frequent.By one estimate, between 65 and 80% ofKenya’s wild animals may be found out-side of the country’s protected area net-work at any given time (JICA, 1994). TheKenyan government has long been aware ofthe problem, and has experimented with avariety of policies, including strict anti-poaching measures and compensation pay-ments. Tourism revenue-sharing is a morerecent innovation. Since wildlife huntingis currently banned in Kenya, the latter ini-tiative is almost entirely ecotourism-based,and has been implemented with some suc-cess in the Maasai-dominated grazingregions (Weaver, 1998).

In Zimbabwe, the wildlife/tourism con-nection on communal grazing lands is con-troversial due to the emphasis that thewell-known CAMPFIRE programme placeson hunting. Over 90% of all associatedcommunity revenues are derived from tro-phy fees, and ecotourism is widely per-ceived as an option that requires moreinvestment in infrastructure (Weaver,1998). The Zimbabwe situation, however,is unusual is so far as most grazing-ori-ented destinations (as with cropland)appear to be gradually moving away fromhunting, and toward ecotourism. The ten-sion between hunting and ecotourism thatseems to be present in most farming situa-tions is in turn indicative of a broadertrend away from farming activity in areasof more marginal production. According toHolmes (1996), the marginal range lands of

318 L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

Australia are undergoing a radical restruc-turing due to declining commodity values.He characterizes this restructuring as ashift from a productionist to a post-produc-tionist era in rural resource use. Less pro-ductive land, according to this argument, isnow surplus in terms of commodity out-put, but more in demand for its amenityvalues (i.e. meeting human needs andwants). These amenity values includetourism, recreation, biodiversity preserva-tion and Aboriginal land use. Within thetourism component, moreover, the non-consumptive element is more in keepingwith the post-productionist ethos, whereashunting is more complementary to the pro-ductionist mode. Europe has been experi-encing a similar transition within itsagricultural lands, in a process that hasbeen described as the ‘consumption of thecountryside’.

If the above thesis is true, then onemight expect not just the increased inci-dence of ecotourism on grazing lands, butthe possible conversion of commercialgrazing land back to its original state. Oneof the most audacious and ambitious pro-posals for range land restoration is theBuffalo Commons scenario that has beenput forward for the agriculturally marginalportions of the North American prairie(Gauthier, 1994). This idea suggests thatconventional commercial farming shouldbe abandoned altogether across a broadcontiguous swath of land large enough toaccommodate the reintroduction of thegreat buffalo herds and associated wildlife.Most versions of the scenario support eco-tourism as the economic activity thatwould be most suited to this re-created pre-European (but eminently post-modern)landscape.

Areas of shifting cultivation

By some estimations (e.g. Getis et al.,1996), shifting cultivation is practised to agreater or lesser extent on as much as one-fifth of the world’s land surface, and espe-cially within the tropical rainforest biome.The most compelling argument for eco-

tourism in these farming regions is the factthat most of the land base is occupied byvarious stages of forest succession at anygiven time. As a result, a variety of adja-cent niches is available to accommodate avery broad range of wildlife. Furthermore,the practice of shifting cultivation, if car-ried out in a sustainable fashion, offers aninteresting ancillary cultural attraction forecotourists. Some community-based eco-tourism sites in the tropical rainforests ofPapua New Guinea and Fiji incorporateareas of shifting cultivation, though the fullpotential of such areas is clearly not beingrealized.

Urban and Peri-urban Areas

As in farmland situations, the relationshipbetween wildlife and urban areas has tradi-tionally been perceived as one of incom-patibility. This is due in large part to theproblems created by proliferating non-domesticated animals such as rats, wilddogs and coyotes, starlings, bats andpigeons. However, in the post SecondWorld War era, the philosophy of urbanplanning in the more developed countrieshas increasingly emphasized the associa-tion between enhanced quality of life andthe provision of semi-natural environmentsthat accommodate desirable species ofwildlife (Laurie, 1979a). Accordingly, thefield of urban ecology has evolved consid-erably since the 1970s (Adams and Dove,1989), and substantial resources have beeninvested to make the urban environmentmore conducive to desirable wildlifespecies. In the USA alone, residents of met-ropolitan areas spend an estimated 1.6 bil-lion h and US$5.5 billion per year on urbanwildlife management (Conover, 1998).

While the notion of ‘urban ecotourism’may be considered an oxymoron by some,there is no inherent reason for precludingurbanized areas as legitimate ecotourismvenues, as long as the basic criteria for thisactivity are met (see Chapter 1). Reflectingthe resources that have been invested inwildlife management and other facets ofurban ecology, the modern city has much

Modified Spaces 319

to offer in terms of potential ecotourismsettings and attractions. Contrary to theirpopular image as ‘concrete jungles’, urbanareas in the more developed world areactually dominated by green space. Forexample, only 23% of the Japanese city ofChiba (population 800,000) is occupied byactual buildings and concrete, while 85%of the city of Waterloo, Canada (population90,000) can be considered ‘green’ (Dorney,1986). Only a small portion of this greenspace bears a resemblance to natural habi-tat, but this land nonetheless providesvaluable wildlife habitat and contributes tothe urban oasis effect in farmland or desertsettings. To this factor must be added thefact that urban areas usually attract largenumbers of tourists associated with VFR(visits with family and friends) and busi-ness tourism, as well as various historicaland cultural attractions. The potential forexposing these tourists to the semi-naturalspaces of the city is considerable.

To date, few efforts have been made torecognize and exploit the formidable eco-tourism potential of urban areas. Onenotable example is the Canadian city ofFredericton in the province of NewBrunswick, which is incorporating eco-tourism opportunities into its ‘RiverfrontMaster Plan’ (personal communication,Joel Richardson, New Brunswick Depart-ment of Economic Development, Tourismand Culture). In this case, however, muchof the emphasis is placed on relatively nat-ural lands beyond the built-up area thathappen to fall within the political bound-aries of the municipality. The discussionbelow, in contrast, emphasizes extensivelymodified settings within the built-up urbanenvironment per se, and similar urban-related settings within the urban–ruralfringe.

Parks

Urban parks are one of the more obvioussettings that have ecotourism potential, inpart because of their accessibility to thepublic. Where they occupy a large amountof space and are already well-known as

tourist attractions, this potential is alreadybeing realized, although the term ‘eco-tourism’ might not be explicitly used.Examples in North America include NewYork’s Central Park, High Park in Toronto,Griffith Park in Los Angeles, andVancouver’s Stanley Park. In Europe, thescope is even more extensive in some met-ropolitan areas due to the presence of largeforest parks (e.g. the Tagel and Grunewaldin Berlin and the Bois de Vincennes inParis). The same applies to the survivingurban ‘commons’ of England, which arenow used primarily for non-consumptiverecreational purposes (Laurie, 1979b).

Cemeteries

Urban cemeteries have also been recog-nized as a valuable wildlife habitat. To asimilar or even greater extent than parks,cemeteries are a ‘guaranteed’ green spacein which the vegetation is allowed tomature to a degree seldom encounteredoutside mature natural forests. Unlikeparks, however, wildlife viewing in acemetery setting is a ‘monopoly’ recre-ational activity that does not compete withother leisure pursuits or facilities. MountAuburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massa-chusetts has long been famous as a wildlifeviewing location for both tourists and localresidents (Adams and Dove, 1989).

Golf courses

Golf courses tend to be more of a peri-urban rather than strictly urban land use,and have long been criticized as environ-mental disaster zones because of theiremphasis on exotic vegetation and exces-sive applications of fertilizers and pesti-cides. However, in keeping with broadersocial trends in the direction of environ-mental sustainability, growing interest isbeing shown in the development of ‘natu-ralized’ golf courses that also serve as high-quality wildlife habitat. Admittedly, thistrend is also motivated by the obviouslong-term cost savings that are associated

320 L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

with the reduced use of pesticides and fer-tilizers, and with reductions in the area ofmanicured terrain.

The issue of golf courses as wildlifehabitat is not a trivial one, given that theaverage course occupies 54 ha, and giventhat the USA alone now hosts some 25,000golfing facilities, with one new course onaverage being opened every day. Legitimatequestions can be raised as to whethereither wildlife or golfers will be attracted tonaturalized courses. Threats to wildlifeinclude the potential danger from golf ballsand chemical pesticides that are used onremaining manicured areas. Possible prob-lems for golfers include the higher proba-bility of losing golf balls in rough terrain,and the presence of distracting and/or dan-gerous wildife (Terman, 1997). In addition,it is not clear how ecotourists would beaccommodated on golf courses, givenrestricted access to the latter and their pri-mary role of providing golfing opportuni-ties. In cooler climates, this possibleincompatibility could be resolved by usinggolf courses primarily for wildlife viewingduring the golf off-season.

Terman (1997) suggests that the numberof naturalized golf courses is still verysmall in proportion to the total number ofsuch facilities. Furthermore, there is noclear indication that these or other types ofgolf course are actually being used for eco-tourism to any extent. However, as to thequestion of whether naturalized golfcourses are attractive to both wildlife andgolfers (and thus constitute a viableoption), the Prairie Dunes Country Club inKansas provides some positive evidence.Three-quarters of the course (i.e. roughs,out-of-play areas, buffer zone) is being usedto re-establish native prairie grasses, andresearch has shown that the course sup-ports a species-rich bird population, and ahigher density of birds than occurs innearby natural areas. From a golfer per-spective, the course rates as one of themost popular in the country.

Sewage lagoons and stormwater control ponds

Sewage treatment facilities in most citiesinclude settling ponds that facilitate theremoval of solid wastes and other undesir-able materials. Later-stage settling pondsare often very attractive to birds and othertypes of wildlife, as demonstrated by theTinicum Marsh near Philadelphia (Adamsand Dove, 1989). With 118 recorded birdspecies, the Hornsby Bend settling lagoonin Austin Texas, on the Central flyway, is amajor site for birdwatching, including edu-cational field trips (Bonta, 1997).

Stormwater control ponds are anotherartificial water-retention facility that maybe conducive to ecotourism. According toTourbier (1994), there is an increased ten-dency to replace standard dry basins withpermanent ‘extended detention basins’ and‘wet basins’ as part of the changing percep-tion of stormwater as a resource rather thana nuisance. When augmented by naturalvegetation plantings to discourage erosionand encourage water retention and penetra-tion, and incorporated into urban greenwaysystems, such sites tend to be highly attrac-tive to wildlife. Adams and Dove (1989),for example, found that artificial stormwa-ter control ponds are actually preferred bysome species of duck over natural bodies ofwater.

Landfill and waste disposal sites

Active urban landfill and waste disposalsites are associated with wildlife pestssuch as gulls (as in North America) andsacred ibises (as in Australia), and in mostcases it is only the ‘retired’ sites that meritconsideration for their ecotourism poten-tial. A possible exception is the town ofChurchill, on Canada’s Hudson Bay, wherethe local garbage dump is considered to bea choice site for the viewing of polar bears.However, as this type of feeding activity ishighly questionable in terms of its implica-tions for environmental sustainability, itwill not be discussed any further as evi-dence of ecotourism.

Modified Spaces 321

The consideration of retired landfillsites as ecotourism venues has been givenimpetus by improvements made since the1970s in the technology for safe landfilldisposal and closure, which has increasedthe suitability of these sites as wildlifehabitat. One interesting example is theSaugus landfill site in Massachusetts. Theplastic liner that caps the landfill meansthat the area can only be rehabilitated asnatural grassland; however, as naturalgrassland is extremely rare in this part ofthe USA, the site has attracted a large num-ber and variety of unusual bird species.Trails and observation blinds have beenestablished, and the site is widely knownas a quality venue for wildlife viewing(Anon, 1996).

The Leslie Street Spit in Toronto is alsoindicative of the ecotourism potential oflandfill sites. The site is an artificial penin-sula that extends 5 km into Lake Ontario asa result of landfill and rubble depositionduring the 1960s and 1970s. Like its nat-ural counterpart at Point Pelee, the Spit isvery attractive to migratory birds (at least290 species have been observed) and othertypes of wildlife. Moreover, the site’s man-agement strategy has emphasized itsimportance as a laboratory for plant succes-sion. Organized bus tours of the Spit beganin 1973, and by 1978, 18,000 visitors wererecorded, including a high proportion ofnaturalists. Wildlife viewing activity on thesite has been supported by the establish-ment of observation blinds and by the pro-duction of educational brochures (Carley,1998).

High-rise and other structures

The link between urban high-rise struc-tures and ecotourism is focused on theperegrine falcon, a rare species whosenumbers declined dramatically this cen-tury due to the influence of DDT and otherpesticides. The recovery of this species inthe USA from 62 pairs in 1975 to 875 pairsin 1994 is due in large part to the use ofurban high-rise buildings as surrogate fal-con nesting habitat. This artificial environ-

ment actually improves on natural condi-tions by providing a location relatively safefrom great horned owls, the falcon’s mainpredator. In addition, feral pigeons providean abundant food supply (Line, 1996).From an ecotourism perspective, the fal-cons are easily observed in their nests andin flight from the interior of the buildings.

Aside from these deliberate programmesof species establishment, wildlife hasadopted to urban buildings in other ways.For example, about 50 peregrine falconsnow winter along power lines and ‘con-crete rivers’ in metro Los Angeles (Line,1996). Even more of an unintended conse-quence is the heat island effect, which hascaused insects to fly at a higher than nor-mal altitude. The availability of this foodsupply means that nighthawks and chim-ney swifts now nest on rooftops and chim-neys, as opposed to their usual nestingsites in grass or tree hollows close toground level. These species are now morecommon in urban areas than in the coun-tryside, and constitute another urban eco-tourism resource (Dorney, 1986). InEurope, roof-nesting storks serve as atourist attraction in some urban areas.

Zoos and botanical gardens

These two elements of the urban environ-ment are raised here mainly as a point ofdiscussion. In tourist visitation terms, zoosand botanical gardens are by far the mostfrequented wildlife-related urban sites.However, because of the captive nature oftheir wildlife attractions, they are not usu-ally associated with ecotourism, even if thethree basic criteria are met. Of interest thenwould be the determination of the degreeof captivity that separates a non-eco-tourism wildlife attraction from one whichcan be classified as ecotourism.

Given the heavily modified and heavilypopulated character of cities, urban eco-tourism will of course differ fundamentallyfrom rural ecotourism with respect to itscharacter and management. An obviousimplication is how such activities can besustainably accommodated in the midst of

322 L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

so many potentially incompatible urbandistractions. One possible response is toavoid the fragmentation of appropriatesites, and to concentrate instead on manag-ing contiguous sites as unitary ecotourismvenues. For example, it is common inurban environments to find parks, cemeter-ies, university campuses and golf coursesin close proximity to each other, or linkedthrough urban greenway networks. Theseareas can reinforce each other in terms ofcritical habitat mass and in screeningundesirable urban land uses. Another issuemore germane to urban areas is distin-guishing ecotourists (as in those who meetthe travel threshold criteria associated withtourism) from local residents engaging inthe same activities, since the latter arelikely to constitute by far the largest usergroup.

Artificial Reefs

Artificial reefs can be unintentional orintentional. The best example of the formeris a shipwreck, while the latter can resultfrom the deliberate submersion of a decom-missioned ship or other material suitablefor reef formation. Among the prominentAmerican examples, Florida’s Dade Countyhas one of the most comprehensive artifi-cial reef programmes, with 89 ships,bridges and barges submerged since 1981.The state of Texas has a ‘rigs to reefs’ pro-gramme to dispose of old or obsolete oilrigs (Fritz, 1994).

While artificial reefs are usually createdas a way of improving fish habitat for com-mercial fishing, it is not clear whetherthese reefs actually increase fish popula-tions, or merely aggregate existing popula-tions, and hence make them moresusceptible to harvest. As a result, there isan increased movement toward the use ofartificial reefs for non-consumptive pur-poses such as ecotourism (Brock, 1994). Anexample of the artificial reef/ecotourismconnection is the Atlantis Waikiki artificialreef off Honolulu, which covers 1.85 ha.This site consists of a sunken oiler, con-crete terrace reefs and several surplus air-

craft. Atlantis submarine tours began usingthis site as an attraction in 1989, and cur-rent volume now exceeds 200,000 passen-gers per year, and 20,000 divers, for annualgross revenues of US$8 million. Thisamount greatly exceeds earnings thatwould have been obtained had the sitebeen used only for fishing purposes (Brock,1994).

In the Gulf of Aqaba, off the Israeli portof Eilat, artificial reefs constructed fromsurplus aircraft and dead coral heads arebeing established specifically to reducediving pressure on existing reefs, given thatdivers like to visit wrecks. In 1996, 16,000users were reported on just one of thesereefs (Wilhelmsson et al., 1998). Low scrapmetal prices are giving impetus to similarinitiatives in other parts of the world. TheHMAS Swan attracted 4000 divers in thefirst 4 months following its submersion offWestern Australia in 1997 (O’Brien, 1998).The Artificial Reef Society of BritishColumbia, founded in 1986, has completedfive projects involving the sinking ofdecommissioned navy ships. Each is esti-mated to create an average of CDN$1 mil-lion per year in revenue generation ifproperly managed as a wildlife-based view-ing attraction (Jones and Welsford, 1997).

Service Corridors

In keeping with the principles of the post-productionist landscape described earlier,rail lines and other infrastructure that areno longer required to facilitate the move-ment of goods are gradually being closeddown or, in an increasing number of cases,converted into recreational ‘greenways’. Inthe USA, this process of functional adapta-tion has led to the establishment of 1003‘rail-trails’ as of late 1998, accounting for16,635 km of surplus line. Another 1239trails, accounting for 29,692 km of line, arein the process of being established. Thesetrails were estimated to have accommo-dated 100 million users in 1998, a signifi-cant portion of which were touristsengaged in wildlife viewing (Rails to TrailsConservancy, 1999).

Modified Spaces 323

Because of their linear character, rail-trails and other converted service corridorspresent their own unique set of manage-ment challenges as ecotourism resources.These include the possibility that they passthrough more than just one municipalityand that their narrow buffer zones are inad-equate to accommodate wildlife or to mini-mize the influence of adjacent land uses. Itis in respect to the latter issue that rail-trails should be managed as part of the‘farmland ecotourism’ possibility discussedearlier in this chapter.

Devastated Landscapes

A final category that should be consideredfor discussion purposes incorporates land-scapes that have been devastated as a resultof human intervention. One sub-categoryconsists of landscapes seriously altered bymining activities, such as are found in theinterior of Nauru (a phosphate-miningisland in the South Pacific), in the strip-mined counties of the American Appala-chians, areas occupied by mine tailingsand, more ubiquitously, in gravel pit opera-tions. Often too degraded to be used forother economic activities, these devastatedlandscapes may offer a relatively safe habi-tat for various types of wildlife, especiallyif excavation activity results in the pres-ence of artificial ponds. The consequentpotential for ecotourism could be even fur-ther enhanced by efforts to selectivelyrehabilitate such landscapes, which leavesopen possibilities for the pursuit of‘restoration ecotourism’, as demonstratedearlier by the Leslie Street Spit example.

In addition to mining and excavation,devastated landscapes may result fromwarfare or predatory farming or loggingpractices. An intriguing example of the lat-ter, which raises many questions about the‘ground-rules’ of ecotourism and sustain-ability, is the 8000 ha Sarigua NationalPark on the south coast of Panama. Thispark is popular among ecotourists becauseof the desert-like terrain and wildlife thatare found nowhere else in the country. Farfrom being a natural ecological anomaly,

however, the area is actually an example ofsevere desertification resulting from defor-estation and over-grazing. Yet, this highlymodified landscape is valued enough to beaccorded status as a high-level protectedarea (Navarro, 1998).

Areas devastated by warfare have muchless obvious potential for ecotourism dueto the presence of minefields, unexplodedshells and other war-related detritus, andalso because of the geopolitical tensionsand negative destination image that maypersist after the cessation of actual hostili-ties. The possibilities for ecotourism insuch an unlikely environment, however,are illustrated by attempts to have thedemilitarized zone (DMZ) between Northand South Korea designated as a wildlifereserve. The 1000 km2 area was almostentirely farmed prior to 1950, devastatedby the Korean War, and then allowed torevert to a virtual wilderness that harboursmany rare species of wildlife due to itsstatus as a de facto protected area. The con-version of this corridor into an ecotourism-themed ‘peace park’ is one of severalrelated options being suggested for theDMZ once tensions ease between the twoKoreas.

Conclusions

The intent of this chapter has been to illus-trate, in an exploratory and anecdotal man-ner, the potential of modified spaces toprovide opportunities for the pursuit ofecotourism. This discussion should not beinterpreted as an attempt to justify the con-tinuing conversion of natural and semi-nat-ural landscapes into modified spaces, noris it intended to imply that these modifiedspaces can substitute for those naturalspaces. Rather, it is emphasized that areasalready modified by human interventioncan accommodate a significant wildlifepresence, and that this in turn creates pos-sibilities for ecotourism-related activity.There are several clear advantages fordoing so. First, potential ecotourism rev-enues provide a financial incentive tomaintain and expand wildlife habitat

324 L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

within modified spaces, and thus to furtherengage the issue of coexistence betweenhumans and nature in urban, peri-urbanand farming/grazing environments. Second,ecotourism in modified spaces can serve torelieve the pressures of this rapidlyexpanding form of tourism on relativelyundisturbed environments that are lessresilient and declining in area. Third, thesevenues are readily accessible to most of theworld’s population, thereby facilitating amore affordable and practical mode of eco-tourism activity, while at the same timeoffering wildlife-viewing experiences for

local residents. The next logical stage is tocreate a more detailed inventory of actualecotourism opportunities within the vari-ous categories of modified space, and touse this as a basis for encouraging theexpansion and refinement of such activityand, indeed, its acceptance by the moreconventional ecotourism sector. This shouldinclude the inter-linking of the variousmodified ecotourism spaces, and the link-age of these areas with ecotourism in rela-tively undisturbed areas, and with thenon-wildlife based tourism industry.

Modified Spaces 325

References

Adams, L.W. and Dove, L.E. (1989) Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban Environment: aGuide to Ecological Landscape Planning and Resource Conservation. National Institute forUrban Wildlife, Columbia, Maryland.

Anon (1996) Turning landfills into wildlife habitat. American City & Country 111(10), 16–17.Bonta, M. (1997) Turning wastewater into wetlands. Living Bird 16(4), 22–26.Brock, R.E. (1994) Beyond fisheries enhancement: artificial reefs and ecotourism. Bulletin of Marine

Science 55, 1181–1188.Bryan, B. (1991) Ecotourism on family farms and ranches in the American West. In: Whelan, T. (ed.)

Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 75–85.Carley, J. (1998) The Leslie Street Spit: the creation and preservation of a public urban wilderness.

http://www.interlog.com/~fos/history.fos.html Conover, M. (1998) Perceptions of American agricultural producers about wildlife on their farms and

ranches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, 597–604.Cordell, H., Lewis, B. and McDonald, B. (1995) Long-term outdoor recreation participation trends. In:

Thompson, J., Line, D., Gartner, B. and Sames, W. (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalOutdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National RecreationResource Planning Conference. University of Minnesota, St Paul, pp. 35–38.

Dorney, R. (1986) Bringing wildlife back to cities. Technology Review 89, 48–54.Fritz, S. (1994) The oceans: octopus inns. Popular Science 244, 30.Gauthier, D. (1994) The buffalo commons on Canada’s plains. Forum for Applied Research and

Public Policy (Winter), 118–120.Getis, A., Getis, J. and Fellmann, J. (1996) Introduction to Geography, 5th edn. Wm. C. Brown

Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.Holmes, J. (1996) Diversity and change in Australia’s rangeland regions: translating resource values

into regional benefits. Rangeland Journal 19(1), 3–25.JICA (1994) The Study on the National Tourism Master Plan in the Republic of Kenya (Interim

Report). Japan International Cooperation Agency, Nairobi.Jones, A. and Welsford, R. (1997) Artificial reefs in British Columbia. http://www.artificialreef.bc.ca/

research/tjones.html Laurie, I. (1979a) Nature in Cities. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Laurie, I. (1979b) Urban commons. In: Laurie, I. (ed.) Nature in Cities. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,

UK, pp. 231–266.Line, L. (1996) Symbol of hope? National Wildlife 34, 36–41.Navarro, J.C. (1998) Panama National Parks. Ediciones Balboa, Panama City.O’Brien, B. (1998) Wreck creation. http://www.divernet.com./wrecks/creation1298.htm Pauw, J. and Peel, M. (1993) Game production on private land in South Africa. Proceedings of the

XVII International Grassland Congress, Vol. III, pp. 2099–2100.

Rails to Trails Conservancy (1999) Facts about rail-trails. http://www.railtrails.org/genfact.html Terman, M.R. (1997) Natural links: naturalistic golf courses as wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban

Planning 38, 183–197.Tourbier, J. (1994) Open space through stormwater management: helping to structure growth on the

urban fringe. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49(1), 14–21.Weaver, D. (1997) A regional framework for planning ecotourism in Saskatchewan. Canadian

Geographer 41, 281–293.Weaver, D. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D. and Elliott, K. (1996) Spatial patterns and problems in contemporary Namibian tourism.

Geographical Journal 162, 205–217.Weaver, D. and Fennell, D. (1997) The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: a profile of operations.

Tourism Management 18, 357–365.Wilhelmsson, D., Öhman, M.C., Ståhl, H. and Shlesinger, Y. (1998) Artificial reefs and dive tourism

in Eilat, Isreal. Ambio 27(8), 764–766. World Resources Institute (1998) 1998–99 World Resources: a Guide to the Global Environment.

Oxford University Press, New York.

326 L.J. Lawton and D.B. Weaver

Chapter 21

Wilderness

W.E. Hammitt and M.C. SymmondsDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson,

South Carolina, USA

Introduction

When the terms ‘wilderness’ and ‘eco-tourism’ are combined one inevitablythinks about environmental impacts andthe potential, or lack of, for such pristineenvironments to support any form ofwilderness recreation use. Impacts of eco-tourism are noted here in the context ofwilderness but are also discussed in moredetail, and in more general terms, in otherchapters (see especially Chapters 23 to 25).The following sections will focus on pre-sent wilderness tourism use in the devel-oping and developed world, the potentialof wilderness to support ecotourism, andfuture management and conservationissues.

What is Ecotourism and What isWilderness?

Ecotourism has been defined by a numberof researchers. For example, Ceballos-Lascuráin (1988, p. 5) stated that eco-tourism is travel ‘to relatively undisturbedor uncontaminated natural areas with thespecific object of studying, admiring, andenjoying the scenery of its wild plants andanimals, as well as any existing culturalaspects found in these areas’. He also sug-

gested that ‘the person who practices eco-tourism will eventually acquire a con-sciousness that will convert him intosomebody keenly interested in conserva-tion issues’. More recently, Honey (1999, p.25) attempted to synthesize definitions toform the following definition:

Ecotourism is travel to fragile, pristine, andunusually protected areas that strives to below impact and (usually) small scale. It helpseducate the traveller; provides funds forconservation; directly benefits the economicdevelopment and political empowerment oflocal communities; and fosters respect fordifferent cultures and for human rights.

With relation to wilderness use for eco-tourism, the above components of eco-tourism will be used as a premise for thefollowing discussions.

There is no global definition of ‘wilder-ness’. As with ecotourism, many definitionshave been suggested. What constituteswilderness ultimately depends upon thevalue placed on an area by people andinstitutions, and the area itself relative tothe surroundings and alternatives. However,the two major aspects of all definitions ofwilderness that distinguish it from otherenvironments are degree of ‘naturalness’and ‘solitude-primitiveness’. Ecotourismand other forms of wildland recreation in

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 327

wilderness must be dependent on the nat-ural processes and solitude experiences ofwilderness areas. Manipulation of ecologi-cal processes to restore naturalness, and ofsocial processes to restore solitude are per-missible in wilderness, but the forces ofnature must dominate those of humans.The purpose of this chapter is not to debatethe definition of wilderness. Instead,wilderness will be defined within the broadterms that follow, and its place in eco-tourism and its potential to support the eco-tourism industry will be discussed.

‘Wilderness’ derives from Norse andTeutonic languages. In rhetorical terms,‘wild’ was derived from ‘willed’, meaningself-willed or uncontrollable. The word‘deor’, from Old English meaning animalsnot under the control of man, was com-bined with ‘wild’ to form ‘wilderness’.Thus, ‘wild-deor-ness’ means ‘place ofwild beasts’ (Nash, 1973). Physically,wilderness refers to places or regions thatare uncultivated and uninhabited such asswamps, forested areas, grass plains andsavannah, and mountains. Other areas suchas the oceans have also been classified aswilderness (Hill, 1994). Socially and psy-chologically, wilderness is a place that pro-vides ‘outstanding opportunities forsolitude or a primitive and unconfinedtype of recreation’ (Wilderness Act, 1964).Thus, in terms of ecotourism, wilderness isa place where one can obtain a primitivetravel and recreation experience away fromsociety and the built environment.

The term ‘wilderness’ will not be usedinterchangeably with ‘wilderness area’. Awilderness area, although pertaining to thecomponents of wilderness as describedabove, is by definition an area of the USAset up under the provisions of theWilderness Act, 1964. A wilderness area,as defined by the Act, has additional deter-minants such as minimum recommendedacreage and permitted uses. For the pur-pose of describing ecotourism on a globalscale, we will use the term ‘wilderness’ asdefined by the physical, social-psychologi-cal components described above and notonly by Western criteria.

Some remote, large portions of the

Earth’s land surface qualify as wilderness.Much, if not most, of its ocean areas alsoqualify as wilderness. Wilderness exists asvery large areas of minimal human inter-vention (e.g. Antarctica, Arctic, Siberia,Amazon basin, Central Asia, interiorAustralia) and as much smaller areas thatoffer some kind of reclusive experience ina relatively undisturbed environment (e.g.urban interface areas in the eastern USAand Europe). A small, but isolated island inthe ocean may qualify as wilderness. Thus,size is not necessarily a qualifying limita-tion of wilderness, unless certain associ-ated ecosystem functions are qualifyinglimitations.

Neither is the presence or lack of peoplea qualifier for an area to be wilderness. Intraditional cultures, ‘wilderness’ areas arecommonly intimate, lived-in spaces. But,in the Western perception of wildernessthere is a dissociation with people. Thisdual notion of wilderness has led to man-agement conflicts, including the deliberateexpulsion of native people from protectedareas, only to see ecotourism developmentoccur. Such practices have significantimplications concerning the sacrifice ofsocio-cultural sustainability in order topurportedly bring about environmentalsustainability. However, if managed cor-rectly, conservation-based ecotourism canserve to sustain socio-cultural as well asenvironmental resources of certain pro-tected areas and wilderness. The followingsections discuss the use and potential useof world wilderness for ecotourism.

Present Use of Wilderness forEcotourism

Coccossis (1996) asks: Is there any limit tothe future expansion of tourism? Astourism has expanded, the concern overthe interaction of tourism and the environ-ment has grown (OECD, 1980). Tourismdepends on the local environment,whether it involves natural, social or cul-tural resources. Thus, the quality of envi-ronmental assets is often the keydeterminant of travellers’ choice of destina-

328 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

tion (Coccossis, 1996). However, the envi-ronment is not infinite and there is a limitto the expansion of tourism. Wildernesshas a value and therefore a tolerance on theamount of use it can sustain.

The use of wilderness for ecotourism isa highly debated issue. In developed coun-tries, wilderness is generally protected bystringent management policy, usuallydetermined at a national level. Thus,wilderness is often used for tourism in anappropriate and sustainable manner. In theUSA, the Wilderness Act 1964 establishedstrict guidelines for the designation anduse of wilderness areas. At present, morethan 1 million acres have been designatedand protected under the Act (Rosenburg,1994). Wilderness such as the BobMarshall Wilderness Area, Montana, TheEagle Cap Wilderness Area, Oregon, andthe Okefenokee Swamp Wilderness Area,Georgia, are all managed by site-specificguidelines and those guidelines specifiedby the Act. Similarly, in the UK, theNational Parks and Access to theCountryside Act 1949 and later, theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981 estab-lished National Parks and Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (SSSI).

All of these areas are nationally pro-tected from change for the benefit of futuregenerations. Thus, the character of wilder-ness is retained so that solitude and a prim-itive experience can be sustained, as wellas an environment dominated by naturalforces. Land is usually acquired by govern-ments or conservation organizations beforerestrictions and policy are implemented toavoid disputes over who is at ‘loss’ fromthe conservation or preservation of an area.Economics are usually the basis for preser-vation disputes (Rosenburg, 1994). Whenareas are set aside they deprive someone ofpotential income, whether from forestry,agriculture, mining or other sources. Thus,governments in developed nations haverealized that one of the easiest ways to pre-serve pristine areas is to purchase andacquire land. Ecotourism can then be con-trolled in many of the country’s most pris-tine environments.

On a global scale, much wilderness is

not protected. In the developing world,areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America areused for tourism with minimal protection.Antarctica is an area with essentially noon-site management or protection, yet isreceiving an increasing amount of tour-ship visitation. The following case studieshighlight the use of wilderness for eco-tourism and some of the issues encoun-tered in safeguarding the environment forfuture users and upholding the values ofwilderness ecosystems. These valuesinclude the potential for adventure andexploration, education, scientific discoveryand study and, ultimately, conservation.

Wilderness in the developing world

Case Studies. Africa: a comparison ofCameroon and Kenya

BACKGROUND. The Republic of Cameroon’swilderness is largely unprotected. It has sixnational parks, five of which are savannahecosystems. The remaining area, KorupNational Park, is a rainforest ecosystem, des-ignated in 1986 (Fig. 21.1). Korup was for-mulated with the objective of conservingbiodiversity. It is home to more than 400species of trees and is an important habitatfor African forest elephants and a diversityof primates (more than a quarter of theworld’s primate species live in Korup), birdsand fish, and also more than 3000 species ofrare plants (Topouzis, 1990). Korup NationalPark is a conservation area with strict sus-tainable development principles. However,the local community is restricted from usingthe park for hunting (Gilbert et al., 1994).

In contrast, Kenya has long been pro-moted as an ecotourism destination.Tourism in Kenya largely grew out of thefoundations of big game hunting (Honey,1999). However, since the late 1970s whena ban was placed on game hunting for com-mercial profit, the orientation of tourismhas adapted to more sustainable principles.In the early 1990s Kenya was hailed as ‘theworld’s foremost ecotourist attraction’ bysome observers (e.g. Perez, 1991).

Wilderness 329

National parks occupy 7% of the coun-try and tourism accounts for 25% of thenational income (Gilbert et al., 1994). Inthe early 1990s, no other African countryearned as much revenue from tourism asKenya (Honey, 1999). The amount of rev-enue generated from tourism amounts to40% or US$400 million of total foreignincome. However, only US$13 million(3%) is directed to the Kenyan WildlifeService (Pearce, 1995). Areas of wildernesssuch as the Masai Mara and Tsavo NationalPark are marketed for wildlife safaris (Fig.21.2). Although such tourism is verging onmass tourism in some cases as will bedetailed later, these areas remain wilder-ness. They are untouched and uncultivatedfor the most part, where large game stillinhabit the prairies as they have done for

thousands of years. Between the MasaiMara and Serengeti (in adjacent Tanzania),these areas offer the largest concentrationof wildlife anywhere in Africa, and thelargest land migration of animals anywherein the world (Honey, 1999). Thus, theopportunity still exists for a wildernessexperience although it is debatablewhether most tourists achieve or seek this.

Almagor (1985) discussed the upsurgein African vacationing due to the search for‘first hand communion with nature’ whichis the ‘vision quest’ of people going toKenya for safari experiences. These motiva-tions are quite similar to those contained inthe definition of wilderness and the experi-ences it provides. Another factor that hasled to the upsurge in ecotourism demandin Kenya is the country’s marketing strat-

330 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

0 200 km

CHAD

PARCNATIONALDU WAZA

MORA

ROUMSIKI LA DENTDE MINDIF

GAROIUA

RESERVEDU FARO

N’GAOUNDÉRÉ

CENTRALAFRICAN

REPUBLIC

RÉSERVEDU DJA

GABON CONGO

AMBAM

YAOUNDÉ

KRIBI

FOUMBANBAFOUSSAM

BAMENDA

DSCHANG

MAMFÉ

PARCNATIONALDE KORUP

MTCAMEROUN

EQUATORIALGUINEA

NIGERIA

CameroonBUEADOULALA

Fig. 21.1. Map of Cameroon with Korup National Park located on the western border (web site:http://www.lonelyplanet.com/dest/afr/graphics/map-cam.gif).

egy. Beach and wilderness safaris are com-bined to offer value for money to thetourist (Rajotte, 1987; Gamble, 1989). Thesepackages are often available at inexpensivecharter prices, especially from many areas

of Europe. More than 60% of all visitorsspend time on Kenya’s coast. However, theprimary motivations for ecotourism arestill defined, with more than 90% oftourists visiting a game park, and 79%

Wilderness 331

Fig. 21.2. Map of selected Kenya National Parks and Reserves, with Amboseli, Masai Mara and TsavoNational Parks located on the southern border.

citing ‘nature and wildlife’ as primarymotivations for visiting the country (KenyaWildlife Service, 1995 cited in Honey,1999).

The establishment of areas for conserva-tion in Africa is quite different from thedeveloped world. Governments in Africahave generally designated park areas oncommunity land. This has led to land dis-putes, deprivation of ownership and rights,resettlement, and tension between the localpopulation and the ecotourist. In otherareas, managers have faced the paradox inwhich the revenue generated by ecotourismsupports conservation. The processes of irre-sponsible tourism that can often work tothe detriment of the conservation process,are in essence also providing the funds forconservation to take place. Thus, tolerablelimits for ecotourism and detrimentalimpacts have been difficult to define.

ECOTOURISM WILDERNESS USE. In Korup NationalPark, Cameroon, ecotourism developmenthas not been largely recognized. Visitationwas only 500 people in 1989, and was esti-mated to reach only 1000 by 2000 (Gilbert etal., 1994). Other estimates indicate that in1990, 300–350 tourists generated revenue ofonly US$2800. The low visitation is largelydue to poor access to the park. The mainpark entrance is a 1-day drive on unpavedroads from the nearest town, Douala (Alpert,1996). However, the country expects Korupto gain international recognition as a placeto visit nature and experience wilderness,and has therefore planned for a sustainablefuture.

Ecotourists visiting the Masai Mara,Kenya, pay US$20 to enter the nationalpark. The total cost of visiting the park perEuropean visitor does not often exceedeven 1% of the total cost of the vacation.Visitors stay in the park’s 12 lodges andcampsites and tour the wilderness in mini-buses provided by commercial operators.Visitation increased by 260% between1977 and 1989, reaching 190,000 per year(Gilbert et al., 1994), and further increasedto 250,000 in 1992 (Honey, 1999).

Ecotourism has had a number of nega-tive impacts on the Masai Mara. In 1994, a

survey of tourist behaviour found thatmore than 1200 t of local firewood wereused by tourists each year (Pearce, 1995).Waste disposal has also been a problemdue to permanent tent camps localized intwo small areas of the reserve (Honey,1999). In addition, minibuses observingcheetah hunting prey have been reported tointerfere with the wilderness setting tosuch an extent that the animals often giveup their hunt and attack farm animals onlocal ranches outside the park (Pearce,1995). Disturbance from this off-track dri-ving is banned but very common (Gakahu,1992). In 1991, a survey of visitors to theMasai by Wildlife Conservation Interna-tional (WCI) also found a deterioration ofvisitor experiences in addition to the phys-ical environment. Tourists stated that theyreceived insufficient information abouttheir safaris, and only 15% of those sur-veyed were provided a regulations leafletprior to their visits. Ecotourists alsoexpressed dissatisfaction with guides stat-ing that they were not knowledgeableenough to provide sufficient environmentalinterpretation (Gakahu, 1992).

Ecotourists visit the Masai Mara to expe-rience the wild game such as cheetah andwildebeest that inhabit the wilderness.However, Pearce (1995) noted that eco-tourist visitations have had other measur-able impacts on wildlife in addition tothose noted above. Conservation of thepark, including restricting the indigenousMasai people from subsistence hunting,cattle grazing and farming, has been associ-ated with increases in some wildlife popu-lations. For example, a 400% increase inthe wildebeest population was noted in theGreater Serengeti between 1969 and 1995.Although living up to the expectations ofthe wilderness visitor, the rise in the popu-lation is ultimately destroying vegetationwithin the park.

The wealth of biodiversity in the MasaiMara National Park attracts ecotouristsseeking wilderness. They come to view thelarge game such as rhinoceros and lionsthat live on the savannah. However, thelocal people have been displaced by eco-tourism to ‘conserve’ the natural biodiver-

332 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

sity. In the Ngorongoro Crater, Masai peo-ple were relocated outside the area. As aresult, they returned and killed wild ani-mals because they viewed them (and theecotourism that resulted) as the cause oftheir own suffering (Pearce, 1995).

Ecotourists seeking a wilderness experi-ence have contributed to mass tourism insome cases. Physical problems such ascrowding, loss of vegetation and conges-tion have diminished the wilderness ex-perience until it is mostly non-existent inplaces. Animals are often forced to begrouped in areas due to these impacts,making them more accessible to tourists.As a result, some tourist operators are nowdonating funds to the national park.Abercrombie and Kent and Africa Bound(based in the UK) donate approximatelyUS$8 to an anti-poaching fund for each vis-itor that they accommodate (Gilbert et al.,1994). However, this amount is still verysmall, relative to the amount that such touroperators charge the ecotourist.

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT. Korup NationalPark is not managed by the Government ofCameroon but by the Korup Forest Project.The Integrated Conservation DevelopmentProject is run by the World Wide Fund forNature with support from the BritishOverseas Development Administration.The Wildlife Conservation Society from theUSA is also involved in the management ofthe park.

The national park plan states that physi-cal, socio-cultural and economic impactsmust be reviewed while working with thecommunity in the construction of accom-modation and provision of transport tocater for the future needs of tourists. Strictsustainable development principles arepractised. Meetings with the local commu-nity are held to discuss issues of conserva-tion, and buffer zones have been created inorder to establish an equilibrium betweenpotential ecotourism growth and the needsof the local society.

Infrastructure development is theresponsibility of local tourism managers inKorup National Park. In ecotourism areas,accommodations are often designed with a

minimum bed occupancy to achieve prof-itability, thus permitting tourists to focusin certain areas (Gilbert et al., 1994). Poordesign and location of accommodation andaccess roads in the early years of wilder-ness conservation could be detrimental toKorup, causing tourist congestion. In thissense, management is largely reactive tothe problems encountered, as opposed toproactive. Planning must be designed forcapacity or tolerable limits, even if thispoint is decades in the future. KorupNational Park has not yet encountered con-gestion. The park plan for sustainabilityhas a suggested life span of 30 years, allow-ing for inevitable change to take place.Hopefully, this management approach isnot a reflection of an early, anaemic state ofthe ecotourism industry in the area. Willthe park sacrifice these principles if touristnumbers and revenues begin to increase?

Cameroonian law does not permit per-manent settlement in Korup National Park.The reason is that conservation seeks tosustain the wilderness for the unimpairedbenefit of future generations. Thus, a bufferzone was created around the park in orderto support local populations and sustaintheir way of life. To reduce the environ-mental impacts of potential ecotourism,alternative natural attractions are beingpromoted. Korup Link Tours has locatedareas in the Ndian Division in Cameroon toserve as ‘honeypots’ to alleviate visitationto Korup National Park.

Many of Kenya’s National Parks wereestablished during the 1950s and 1960sand are relatively older than those inCameroon. Management and conservationprogression has therefore been quite differ-ent. Zoning has been applied in Kenya inorder to conserve wilderness, thus areashave been classified according to thedesired type of access and use. In doing so,a framework has been designed to set asideareas for preservation whereas others areset aside for recreation and visitor facilities(Murphy, 1985). Core zones are used toprotect wilderness and divert mass tourismaway from these areas (Brown, 1982).Central zones are set aside solely forwildlife-viewing tourism (Honey, 1999).

Wilderness 333

Zoning has also had negative impacts. Insome cases, the traditional rights of theindigenous population have been dis-turbed. Under the objectives of sustain-ability, locals were restricted from huntinggame for subsistence. This action has disre-garded the idea of conservation in itswidest sense due to the disrespect of thesocio-cultural aspect of the sustainabilityconcept.

Gilbert (1993) has criticized the zoningsystem for conservation. He argues thatzoning provides an excuse for concentrateddevelopment in areas that should be pre-served. Over time, this leads to pockets ofdevelopment, changing the character of thewilderness as a whole. Ecotourist spendingin these pockets often only benefits a zoneadjacent to the wilderness. Thus, Gilbertasks: Should populations within the pro-tected or uncompensated zones be com-pensated? For example, in Tsavo NationalPark, Kenya, local populations have reset-tled outside the park and have formedsquatter settlements. Before the park wasformed they survived by subsistence hunt-ing of elephants until their rights wereremoved by conservation restrictions. InLake Nakuru National Park, local peoplewere banned from using pesticides and fer-tilizers on their land in order to protect theecological stability within the nationalpark. Zoning also disregards animal move-ment and thus conservation. Wild gameoften migrate thousands of miles to accessfood and water, thus zoning has the poten-tial to disregard natural movements andactually has a negative impact on conserva-tion.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS. Thetwo African case studies highlight contrast-ing uses of wilderness for ecotourism.Kenya has benefited financially but has notadopted a sustainable approach to wilder-ness ecotourism. The large amount of rev-enue generated has not been recirculatedinto conservation. Thus, ecotourists are notpaying the price for conservation.

In contrast, Cameroon has adopted acautious approach to the use of wildernessfor ecotourism. Korup National Park is a

good example of a sustainable approach toecotourism in wilderness. Cameroon hasadopted an international approach byincluding non-government organizations(NGOs) from the USA and UK. Thus, con-servation has been achieved by adopting aninstitutionalized framework.

Relative to the other case studies in thischapter, Kenya and Kenyan wildernessareas would probably benefit from theadoption of a more sustainable approach toecotourism. The 1990s have not been posi-tive for Kenya. Tourism declined due to theGulf War, and Kenya also faced increasedcompetition as an ecotourist destinationfrom other African countries such as SouthAfrica, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Com-petition was augmented due to unrest inKenya during elections, the bombing of theUS embassy in Nairobi, and reports of hos-tility towards tourists including muggingsand corruption from government officialsinvolved in the tourism industry. In 1995there was a 20% drop in tourist visitation,and by mid-1998 almost 50% of Kenya’scoastal hotels closed or were forced toreduce staff numbers. Approximately50,000 workers (30% of tourism sectoremployment) lost their jobs due to such clo-sures (Honey, 1999).

At present, wilderness is being used forthe profit of the country, and conservationis not living up to its potential. Ecotourismis resulting in intolerable levels of impacton wilderness resources. In fact, many eco-tourists were unaware of how little of theirentrance fee and expenditure went to con-servation. Pearce (1995) states that manytourists said that they would be willing topay extra admission fees if revenue wasused for the conservation of wildlife. Theuntapped revenue from this willingness topay was estimated at between US$46 mil-lion and 450 million. If all of this revenuewent to the conservation of the Masai MaraNational Park, the present conservationfund would be increased between 4- and40-fold. Higher entrance fees might alsoreduce visitation numbers. A 1991 WCIstudy (Gakahu, 1992) found that visitorswere better educated about conservationfollowing their visit to the Masai Mara and

334 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

willingness to pay increased due to thiseducation.

Pearce recognizes that there is often adifference between willingness to pay andhow much an individual will actually pay.However, the surplus does suggest that eco-tourism could provide more revenue forthe conservation of wilderness. The pri-mary problem is not revenue but the direc-tion of revenue. Allocation of moreecotourism revenue back into conservationand not central government funds mightbenefit Kenyan ecotourism. It has beendebated whether tourism in Kenya stillconstitutes ‘ecotourism’. Honey (1999)summarized seven principles of eco-tourism and how they relate or do notrelate to Kenya at present. These principlesare: (i) ‘travel to natural destinations’; (ii)‘minimizes impact’; (iii) ‘builds environ-mental awareness’; (iv) ‘provides directfinancial benefits for conservation’; (v)‘provides financial benefits and empower-ment for local people’; (vi) ‘respects localculture’; and (vii) ‘supports human rightsand democratic movements’. Followingthese categorical principles it is evidentfrom the above debate that ecotourism isbecoming less defined in areas such as theMasai Mara.

Both countries have adopted zoningapproaches to conserve wilderness. How-ever, Kenya appears to have encounteredmore problems with wilderness conserva-tion. This was primarily due to the enforce-ment of policy on indigenous people.Cameroon adopted a more democraticapproach where local communities wereinvolved in the planning and conservationprocess. Buffers were created as an alterna-tive for indigenous people, whereas inKenya alternatives were almost non-existent, which resulted in social conflict.

Due to the timing of conservation andthe methods adopted, Kenya has encoun-tered problems with balancing conserva-tion and ecotourism. Cameroon hasadopted a more effective approach, at leastfor now. Learning from the problemsencountered by other African nations, thegovernment has adopted strict policies.Korup National Park was established in

1986, and thus it has benefited from theemergence of the idea of ecotourism andsustainability. However, there are some dis-tinct similarities between the two examplesthat should be considered when managingwilderness for ecotourism. As with anywilderness, ecosystems in Africa are veryfragile and susceptible to change. Probablymore so than other world wilderness parks,the Masai Mara attracts global recognitionand thus pressure for ecotourism. In addi-tion, host nations often feel the need to usesuch areas as a source of national income.Indirect profits from ecotourism sometimesoutweigh the value of wilderness conserva-tion. Thus, as seen in Kenya, revenue fromecotourism is not re-circulated back intothe sustainable management of wilderness.The value of wilderness to the governmentdoes not outweigh the monetary value thatcould be applied on more primary con-cerns such as industrial development.Thus, who should set the value of wilder-ness, such as the Masai Mara and TsavoNational Parks? Ecotourism is a threat tothe natural biodiversity and experiencesthat such areas provide because govern-ments often do not have the funds to allo-cate and purchase land for conservation.There is often less priority on conservingwilderness in developing than in devel-oped nations. African ecosystems are glob-ally unique and thus attract tourists fromaround the world. They should not only beconserved for the values of host countrygovernments. Instead, planning and man-agement needs to adopt a more institution-alized global approach as seen inCameroon.

Wilderness in the developed world

Case study: the Gower Peninsula, Wales

BACKGROUND. The Gower Peninsula islocated on the south coast of Wales, 32 kmwest of Swansea (Fig. 21.3). A coastalwilderness, it was the first Area of Out-standing Natural Beauty (AONB) in GreatBritain designated in 1956 under theNational Parks and Access to the Countryside

Wilderness 335

Act 1949. The peninsula is a Category Vprotected area, as defined by the WorldConservation Union (see Chapter 18).Although the peninsula is cultivated inpart, other areas including the AONB pro-vide for wilderness experiences and exhibituninhabited and uncultivated natural set-tings. The coast is lined with carboniferouslimestone cliffs and sand dune ecosystems,home to a diverse population of wildlifeboth terrestrial and marine (Ballinger,1996). Because of the area’s close proximityto urban areas of South Wales and south-west England, it receives much ecotouristattention. Wilson (1990) estimated that 18million people live within 4 h of the penin-sula. The most popular areas of the penin-sula receive between 250,000 and 300,000visitors per year. The following sectionsdiscuss the use and wilderness manage-ment of the Gower Peninsula.

ECOTOURISM WILDERNESS USE. Ecotourism onthe peninsula is largely determined by itsgeography and limited infrastructure. Asmall network of roads limits tourists to afew ‘honey-pot’ areas where use is concen-trated. Other areas such as the north of thepeninsula are remote, due to the limitedroad network and signposting. However,the impacts of ecotourism are evident insome areas. Gower contains several diverseecosystems ranging from salt marshes tolimestone cliffs and sand dunes. Theseecosystems attract many visitors. They arealso home to a diverse range of flora andfauna, making them fragile and susceptibleto even small amounts of ecotourism. Someof these impacts include erosion at siteswith most concentrated use. Sand duneecosystems have been negatively affected,however management has tried to addressuse types such as off-road cyclists (GowerCountryside Service, 1994). Dune systems

336 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

ClwydianRange

SnowdoniaNational Park

Brecon BeaconsNational Park

WyeValley

Gower Peninsula

PembrokeshireCoast National Park

LleynPeninsula

Isle ofAnglesey

Fig. 21.3. The Gower Peninsula, located on the south coast of Wales, is an example of anurban proximity natural area that offers ecotourism-wilderness opportunities (web site:http://www.data-wales.co.uk/parkmap.gif).

not only have conservation, aesthetic andwildlife value, but for centuries the dunesystems on the peninsula have providedprotection from tide-water flooding for sur-rounding settlements. Therefore, some ofthe most valuable areas have been fenced,and use restricted. Marram grass wasplanted in order to stabilize the system andallow it to support ecotourism. By the early1980s, 90% of the dune system had beenstabilized by management techniques.However, due to this management some ofthe floral and faunal interest was lost due tothe over-fixation of sand (Ballinger, 1996).At present the management of dune ecosys-tems focuses on three central objectives: themaintenance of stability, the promotion ofdiversity, and access for educational pur-poses. Rock climbing has also had animpact on the naturalness of the area. Somerecreationists visit the area to use the car-boniferous limestone cliffs for recreation.This has led to the defacement of certainareas due to the use of bolts for climbing,sometimes destroying areas of special geo-logic interest. Climbing has also had animpact on the wildlife population. Manybirds use the cliffs for nesting, thus a banwas placed on climbing between March andSeptember and a total ban was enforced onbolt usage. Angling has also had an impacton the area. Fishermen use crabs found onthe coastline for bait and often disturb rarespecies (Davies, 1989). Even the turning ofrocks from beach combing has been hypoth-esized to affect microbial populations andthus the wider food chain.

A greater problem is the increasing num-ber of educational parties that visit the area.Although one of the objectives of thewilderness is to conserve the environmentfor educational purposes, overuse has beena problem. The Gower Outdoor Network hasgone as far as to establish a code of conductfor educational school groups. Water pollu-tion has also been a problem on Gower.However, the pollution of sea water is not adirect result of ecotourism. Sewage is dis-posed into the sea from outlets further upthe coastline from developed areas.Although not a direct result of visitors to thepeninsula, this example still provides evi-

dence for the indirect impacts of eco-tourism. When an area such as Gowerattracts a large number of tourists, the sur-rounding area must have the capacity tosupport such an influx. In some cases, thisleads to more development on the perimeterof a wilderness. Direct pollution in the formof littering is not a problem on Gower.However, in some areas anglers have fre-quently discarded fishing equipment suchas weights and lines which can cause harmto bird populations and reduce the aestheticcharacter of the beach. The CountrysideCouncil for Wales (CCW) has attempted tocombat this problem by recruiting anglers aswardens to police the area. Despite theseimpacts, Gower for the most part has beeneffectively conserved. The natural characterof the area has been sustained due to thesupport of a number of agencies and organi-zations. In fact, the character of the area isbetter than it was when it was first desig-nated as an AONB, in 1956.

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT. Most of the penin-sula is covered by the AONB and otherenvironmental conservation designations.The primary purpose of the AONB is theprotection and enhancement of naturalbeauty. The coast also exhibits 55 km ofHeritage Coast, 19 SSSIs, 3 National NatureReserves and 2 Local Nature Reserves. Likemuch wilderness conservation in Westerncountries, much of the peninsula land areahas been purchased and is governed byNGOs or government. The National Trust,which owns 1295 ha of Gower coastline,and Glamorgan Wildlife Trust have bothplayed a role in the management of Gower.The funding for the purchase of land camefrom the Enterprise Neptune programme,launched in the 1960s with the objective ofbuying unspoilt coastline for conservation.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.

The Gower Peninsula is an example of thesustainable interaction of ecotourism andwilderness. The area has been conserveddue to strong support from a variety ofpolitical standpoints. It is accepted thatpressures from tourism must be effectivelyincorporated into the wilderness while not

Wilderness 337

losing the original objectives of the AONBand other designated conservation areas.The two development plans for the area,the West Glamorgan Structure Plan(Mullard, 1995) and the Swansea LocalPlan (Wilson, 1995), have noted this andaim to provide positive conservation. Thiseffectively involves three administrativezones on Gower: remote, intermediate andintensive. Remote sites are restricted fromdevelopment of any kind, to retain theirwilderness character. Intermediate zonesallow for limited recreation and servicefacilities, and in intensive zones, appropri-ate visitor facilities are permitted. Site-level zoning policy has also been imple-mented in order to protect smaller areasnot covered by the wider zoning system.Policy is designed to restrict access frommass tourism in order to safeguard the nat-ural environment. These zones were incor-porated into the Gower Management Plan(Wilson, 1990). The success of the plan hasbeen dependent upon the coordination ofbodies involved with the management ofGower. This has ensured that aspects ofsustainability were incorporated into deci-sions that have affected the GowerPeninsula. It is hoped that special interestand ecotourism-dependent activities thatare compatible with sustainable tourismwill be promoted in the area. These willdevelop attractions based on the naturalcharacteristics of the area including out ofseason birdwatching, and walking onGower. Public transport has also been pro-moted. A shuttle bus operation was pro-posed in order to reduce the indirectimpacts of ecotourism. However, externalfactors have recently increased pressures toprotect the Gower Peninsula. A secondbridge crossing of the River Severn wascompleted in 1996, and offshore aggregatedredging is suspected to be the cause of therecent loss of beach areas on Gower. Thishighlights the need not only for area spe-cific policy to protect areas for ecotourism,but also regional policy considerations.

Issues in Wilderness EcotourismManagement

Wilderness manipulation impacts

The three case studies described in thischapter have highlighted the fact that someimpact on wilderness is inevitable whenecotourism is present. Thus, the questionarises: How much impact is too much andwhen does wilderness cease to be wilder-ness as a result of these impacts? In short,there must be tolerable limits to change. Ifwilderness is to be used for ecotourism in asustainable manner then these limits needto be objectively stated to ensure effectivewilderness management.

Coccossis (1996) discusses the interde-pendence of tourism and the environment.Tourism is dependent on both naturalwilderness and socio-cultural resourcesand thus generates multiple impacts. Somewildernesses are, in turn, increasinglydependent on tourism to justify keepingthem in a relatively undeveloped state.Evident in all the case studies, ecotourismcan have significant indirect impacts inaddition to direct impacts on the actualwilderness itself. Sustainable approachesneed to address more than just the wilder-ness resource. Ecotourism not only affectsthe wilderness resource, but also otherresources outside the conserved area, suchas land prices for the construction ofaccommodation and local populations.

Seasonality is also an issue to beaddressed. Demand can overload environ-mental resources at peak visitation times(Pearce, 1989). In addition, certain wilder-ness ecosystems are more vulnerable tounacceptable change than others. Coccossis(1996) identifies coastal zones and islandsas most vulnerable. Coastal tourism is oftenhighly seasonable and intensive. Theseenvironments are also fragile and suscepti-ble to change. In addition, the indirectimpacts of coastal ecotourism are oftenhighly evident. There is almost always aneed for tourist facilities. These oftendetract from the character of an area as awhole leading to honey-pot sites and infra-structure surrounding the wilderness. For

338 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

example, there are often fewer accessroutes to a coastal wilderness than thereare to an inland wilderness. Thus, indirectinfrastructure development can be detri-mental to the character of the entire areaand detract from the conserved wildernesscore. Island ecosystems are also susceptibleto ecotourism impacts due to their closednatural and socio-cultural systems. Thus,they must be subject to sustainable devel-opment if wilderness is to be used for eco-tourism (see Chapter 15).

In summary, wilderness can be effec-tively protected from ecotourism impactsthrough sustainable planning, and throughuse restrictions where necessary. However,indirect impacts will prevail in adjacentnon-wilderness areas that are not asstrongly conserved. For example, Ballinger(1996, p. 51) notes that the real problemwith the conservation of the Gower Penin-sula is ‘determining the correct balancebetween tourist development and conser-vation, not only at the site level, but alsoover the peninsula as a whole’.

Ecotourism is not only a site or area spe-cific activity, it is a global phenomenonand sustainable management should seekto conserve wilderness on a global scale.However, the paradox remains that wilder-ness management is usually heavily influ-enced by local or national bodies.

Wilderness ecotourism opportunities

Management of wilderness for ecotourismneeds to adopt a proactive approach. Themanagement of the world’s most pristineenvironments cannot afford to adopt areactive approach to change. In some cases,a proactive approach may lead to tourismbeing restricted from some wilderness.However, if restrictions are the only way toconserve wilderness then they must beenforced. A primary objective of wilder-ness ecotourism management is to con-serve the natural biodiversity of an areawhile secondarily providing for an accept-able level of tourism or recreation.

Another major opportunity for eco-tourism in developing nations is a proac-

tive approach toward wilderness eco-tourism conservation. Ecotourism, whenbased on the biological-cultural conserva-tion of wilderness ecosystems, can help tosave wilderness. Conservation-based eco-tourism in wilderness can be a legitimateland use and serve as a source of revenuefor managing and sustaining wildernessareas. However, the management of wilder-ness and protected areas for ecotourism iscomplex, for the intervention of eco-tourism, itself, could fundamentally changethe nature of the wilderness so that itmight become something else altogether.This should not happen.

Finally, wilderness ecotourism opportu-nities will not be the same, or even similar,for the variety of wildernesses in theworld. A ‘spectrum of wilderness eco-tourism opportunities’ must serve as thebasis for planning and managing eco-tourism in wilderness. The spectrum mustbe based on the biological, cultural andsocial sustainability of wilderness, with aspectrum of ecotourism opportunityclasses suited for different types of wilder-ness–ecotourism interactions. Of course,one of the opportunity classes can include‘no ecotourism’. The concept of a wilder-ness ecotourism opportunity spectrum willbe developed more in the next section.

Management frameworks for wildernessecotourism

Several planning issues need to beaddressed in the management of wilder-ness for ecotourism. Relating back to thedefinition of wilderness, it is important tonote that wilderness is not only a physicalplace; it is also a psychological place. Aswell as primarily conserving the environ-ment, it is important to conserve wilder-ness experiences of users. Thus, thephysical management and designation ofwilderness must be addressed. In addition,the management of opportunities and expe-riences must also be addressed.

In recreation resource management arecreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) hasbeen applied to manage experiences (Clark

Wilderness 339

and Stankey, 1979; Driver et al., 1987).Opportunities are conditions and situa-tions demanded by recreationists, or in thiscase ecotourists. The ROS frameworkinvolves specifying recreational goals interms of classes of recreation opportunity.Like other recreation planning frameworksdescribed later, the ROS involves the speci-fication of goals, specific standards andmeasurable indicators of those standards toensure that they are met. It appears thatthis planning framework could quite feasi-bly be applied to wilderness ecotourismareas. In fact, an opportunity spectrumapproach has been applied in the GowerPeninsula to ensure the conservation ofcore areas.

Butler and Waldbrook (1991) proposed atourism opportunity spectrum (TOS). Thespectrum, adapted from Clarke andStankey’s original concept, proposes ‘a con-text in which proposed change can beplaced’, allowing for wider market penetra-tion and greater compatibility of tourism innatural environments. TOS is adapted tocover aspects of tourism and ecotourismincluding access (difficulty of access, accesssystem, means of access); other uses (fromincompatible to compatible); tourism plant(extent, visibility, and complexity of devel-opment, level of facilities); social interaction(between hosts and guests); acceptability ofvisitor impacts (degree of impact, preva-lence of impact); and acceptability of regi-mentation (from minimum to strict). Thisspectrum offers potential to planners andconservationists involved in ecotourism. Itprovides a base that is more specific to eco-tourism, one that includes tourism develop-ments and types of tourist access that mightnot be fully accounted for in the ROS.

There is a lack of understanding of thecomplex relationship between tourism andthe environment (Coccossis, 1996). Notonly must the acceptability of ecotourismin wilderness be addressed, but the areasas a whole must be incorporated into plan-ning. Ecotourism not only has the potentialto have a direct impact on wilderness, butalso has the potential to have an indirectimpact on the character of the surroundingarea. Therefore, tolerable limits of wilder-

ness manipulation and public access mustbe defined. There are a number of ways todefine tolerable limits. However, manyhave been criticized due to their ultimatereliance on value judgements.

The carrying capacity framework hasoften been quoted in studies of ecotourismand the environments that support it.However, in wildland recreation the carry-ing capacity framework has been criticizedfor its lack of specificity and need to for-mulate a specific number of people an areacan feasibly support. An alternative frame-work for the management of wilderness isthe limits of acceptable change (LAC) (Fig.21.4). Unlike the carrying capacity frame-work, LAC does not seek to specify a num-ber of people that an area can ultimatelysupport. Numbers are often not reliablepredictors of impacts (Washburne, 1982),thus a different management approach isneeded if ecotourism use in wilderness isto be managed sustainably. LAC is amethod of condition assessment and iden-tification of specific management goals andmeasurable objectives. Stankey et al. (1985)propose nine steps for wilderness manage-ment when using the LAC process (see Fig.21.4).

LAC is a proactive planning tool, essen-tial for wilderness management. Hendee etal. (1990) describe the application of LACin the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area,Montana, USA. The framework incorpo-rates more scientific judgement into theplanning process than the carrying capac-ity framework does. By inventorying exist-ing conditions (Step 4) and specifyingtolerance limits or standards for both phys-ical and social conditions (Step 5), wilder-ness is more efficiently managed for theprotection of environment and conserva-tion of user-ecotourist experiences. Theprocess also involves evaluation and moni-toring of management actions (Steps 8 and9) to ensure that acceptable limits are notsurpassed. McCool (1994) used LAC to studythe limits of acceptable change for naturedependent tourism development. The appli-cation of LAC for tourism is discussed inthe context of the economic and outputorientation of tourism planning.

340 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

Conclusion

Wilderness does provide a feasible resourcefor ecotourism. Some purists would disagreewith this statement, but it is evident thatwilderness environments around the worldare presently being used for ecotourism.However, wilderness is fragile and highlysusceptible to change. There remains aneed for effective management and conser-vation frameworks as they relate to wilder-ness ecotourism. These frameworks mustallow for a varied spectrum of wildernessecotourism opportunities, ranging from theexclusion of any ecotourism to the provi-sion of considerable, but sustainable levelsof ecotourism. Many of the world’s large,remote wildernesses (e.g. Antarctica) demandminimal human intervention, while othersmall and accessible wildernesses may tol-erate conservation-based ecotourism. Inaddition to management, there also remainsa need for more conservation support in

wilderness. Without global cooperation,the world’s unprotected and under-pro-tected areas might not withstand thedemands of ecotourism. Areas in the devel-oping world need to be cautious aboutwilderness use for ecotourism. It is notonly the responsibility of developingnations to protect these areas. Developednations need to become more active in theconservation and appropriate use of worldwilderness. The root of much wildernessand tourism conflict appears to be finan-cial. With more funds designated for thepurchase of lands to be conserved, andwith compensation of those who ‘lose’from the protection of such areas, thefuture of wilderness management and eco-tourism activity will be brighter. This willin turn make wilderness accessible tofuture generations of ecotourists who willbenefit from the natural diversity andunique experiences that such environ-ments can provide.

Wilderness 341

STEP 5Specify standardsfor resource and

socialindicators

STEP 4Inventory

resource andsocial

conditions

STEP 3Select indicatorsof resource andsocial conditions

STEP 2Define anddescribe

opportunityclasses

STEP 1Identify areaconcerns and

issues

STEP 9Implement actions and

monitor conditions

STEP 8Evaluate and

select analternative

STEP 7Identify

managementactions for

each alternative

STEP 6Identify

alternativeopportunity class

allocations

LACPlanningsystem

Fig. 2.4. The nine steps within the limits of acceptable change (LAC) planning model for recreationresource management (Stankey et al., 1985).

References

Almagor, U. (1985) A tourist’s vision quest in an African game reserve. Annals of Tourism Research12(1), 31–47.

Alpert, P. (1996) Integrated conservation and development projects: examples from Africa.BioScience 46(11), 845–855.

Ballinger, R.C. (1996) Recreation and tourism management in an area of high conservation value: theGower Peninsula, South Wales. In: Priestly, G.K., Edwards, J.A. and Coccossis, H. (eds)Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 35–53.

Brown, C. (1982) Resource planning for recreation and tourism. In: Essays in National ResourcePlanning. CURS, University of Birmingham, UK.

Butler, R.W. and Waldbrook, L.A. (1991) A new planning tool: the tourism opportunity spectrum.Journal of Tourism Studies 2(1), 2–14.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1988) The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal 17, 13–14.Clark, R. and Stankey, G. (1979) The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a Framework for Planning,

Management and Research. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-98. PacificNorthwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Coccossis, H. (1996) Tourism and sustainability: perspectives and implications. In: Priestly, G.K.,Edwards, J.A. and Coccossis, H. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: European Experiences. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK.

Davies, A. (1989) Areas of natural beauty: recreation and management. Postgraduate Diploma thesis,University of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., Stankey, G.H. and Gregoire, T.G. (1987) The ROS planning system: evolu-tion, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences 9(3), 201–212.

Gakahu, C.G. (1992) Visitor Dispersal Strategies in Ecotourism Management. Paper presented atFourth World Congress of National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, February,1992, p. 11.

Gamble, W.P. (1989) Tourism and Development in Africa: Case Studies in the Developing World.Murray, London.

Gilbert, D.C. (1993) Issues in appropriate rural tourism development for Southern Ireland. LeisureStudies 12(2), 137–146.

Gilbert, D.C., Penda, J. and Firel, M. (1994) Issues in sustainability and the national parks of Kenyaand Cameroon. In: Cooper, C.P. and Lockwood, A. (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation andHospitality Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 30–45.

Gower Countryside Service (1994) Annual Report of the Planning Department, Gower CountrysideService. Swansea City Council, Swansea, UK.

Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H. and Lucas, R.C. (1990) Wilderness Management. North American Press,Golden, Colorado.

Hill, B.J. (1994) Concepts of wilderness valuation. MSc thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SouthCarolina.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Island Press, Washington, DC.McCool, S.F. (1994) Planning for sustainable nature dependent tourism development: the limits of

acceptable change system. Tourism Recreation Research 19(2), 51–55.Mullard, J. (1995) Gower: a case study in integrated coastal management initiatives in the UK. In:

Healey, M.G. and Doody, J.P. (eds) Direction in European Coastal Management. SamaraPublishing Limited, Cardigan, UK, pp. 259–284.

Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: a community approach. Methuen, New York.Nash, R.F. (1973) Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven,

Connecticut.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1980) The Impacts of Tourism on

the Environment. OECD, Paris.Pearce, D. (1989) Tourist Development. Longman, Harlow, UK. Pearce, F. (1995) Selling wildlife short. New Scientist 147(1993), 28–31.Perez, O. (1991) The old man of nature tourism. In: Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for

the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 23–38.

342 W.E. Hammitt and M.C. Symmonds

Rajotte, F. (1987) Safari and beach resort tourism, the costs to Kenya. In: Britton, S.G. and Clarke,W.G. (eds) Ambiguous Alternatives: Tourism in Small Developing Countries. University of SouthPacific, Suva, Fiji, pp. 78–90.

Rosenburg, K.A. (1994) Wilderness Preservation: a Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO Inc., SantaBarbara, California.

Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Petersen, M.E. and Frissell, S.S. (1985) The Limits ofAcceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report INT-176. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.

Topouzis, D. (1990) Cameroon’s Korup rainforest struggles to survive. Africa Report 35(2), 8.Washburne, R.F. (1982) Wilderness recreational carrying capacity: are numbers necessary? Journal of

Forestry 80(11), 726–728.Wilderness Act (1964) Act of September 3, 1964. Public Law 88-577.78 Stat. 890.Wilson, D.M. (1990) Gower Management Plan. Swansea City Council, Swansea, UK.Wilson, D.M. (1995) Swansea Local Plan Review, Written Statement Consultation Draft, April 1995.

Swansea City Council, Swansea, UK.

Wilderness 343

Chapter 22

Indigenous Territories

T. HinchFaculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Indigenous peoples, peoples who have lived on and from their lands for many generations andwho have developed their own culture, history, ways of life, and identities grounded in theseplaces, inhabit vast areas of Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the Pacific. Native Americans, theaboriginal peoples of Australia, the Maasai and the Maoris, and thousands of other indigenouspeoples control traditional territories from the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic to the Amazon andAndes, from Siberia to South Africa, and from the high ground of the Himalaya and Tibet to theatolls of the South Pacific and the outback of Australia. In many parts of the world, thesehomelands of indigenous peoples are the best – and often the last – remaining places of richwildness and biological diversity.

(Stevens, 1997, p. 1)

Indigenous peoples and ecotourists bothvalue the land. Ecotourists seek out ‘rela-tively undisturbed or uncontaminated nat-ural areas with the specific objectives ofstudying, admiring, and enjoying thescenery and its wild plants and animals, aswell as any existing cultural manifestations(both past and present) found in thoseareas’ (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1987 in Boo,1990, p. xiv). This search, in turn, oftenleads them to indigenous territories: landsthat are under the legal control of indige-nous peoples as defined by the sovereignstate where these lands exist, or more com-monly, lands of ‘aboriginal title’ derivedfrom a history of occupation and use. In anideal world, ecotourism is an activity inwhich entrepreneurs, governments andtourists establish sustainable relationshipswith the environment while improving the

welfare of the indigenous people whooccupy these territories. Yet even moderatesuccess in this regard is not likely to hap-pen by accident.

The purpose of this chapter is to high-light the unique character of indigenousterritories as venues for ecotourism activity(see also Zeppel, 1998). This will be doneby addressing the current status of indige-nous land claims, the significance of landwithin indigenous cultures, the motiva-tions of indigenous peoples who haveadopted ecotourism within their territories,the prominent issues that are associatedwith ecotourism on these lands, and finallyby presenting basic principles to guide theplanning and management of ecotourism inthese areas. A major caveat attached to thisdiscussion is that generalizations aboutindigenous peoples have been used to

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 345

make this chapter relevant to a broad inter-national audience. Examples from a varietyof geographic and cultural backgroundshave been presented but the author’s expe-rience is primarily with the indigenouspeoples of Canada and New Zealand.While it is true that there are parallelsbetween many indigenous cultures, eachone is also unique. Similarly, individualsand groups within a specific indigenousculture or community may share manycharacteristics but they too, are unique.Readers should consider these differencesas they deliberate on the relevance of thepoints made in this chapter in terms oftheir own specific situations.

Indigenous Land Claims

It is only relatively recently that the notionof legitimate tenure rights in land forindigenous peoples gained widespreadlegal recognition. Early claims by indige-nous people related to ‘aboriginal title’were generally rejected in North Americaand Australia under the doctrine of territo-rium nullius (empty land), which assertedthat ‘lands occupied by foraging peoples atthe time of settlement by Europeansbecame the sole property of the “original[European] discoverers” because nativepeople were deemed to be even more prim-itive than others encountered in Europeanexpansion’ (Wilmsen, 1989, p. 2). A similarrationale was often presented to justify thedisplacement of indigenous peoples inother regions of the world.

In those instances where a sovereignstate has recognized specific indigenousland titles in law, there will be explicit dejure or legal obligations associated withecotourism operations on these lands.However, by judging these claims on thebasis of Western legal concepts and institu-tions, non-Western societies have been at adefinite disadvantage. The majority ofindigenous territories remain under dis-pute. Increasingly, however, the tide haschanged. A landmark point in this changeoccurred in 1957 with the passing ofArticle 11 of the International Labour

Organisation Convention 107 whichaffirms in international law: ‘The right ofownership, collective or individual, ofmembers of the populations concernedover the lands which these populations tra-ditionally occupy’ (Colchester, 1994, p. 7).Of particular importance under this articlewas the establishment of land rights basedon the historic occupation of such landsand the recognition of the legitimacy of‘collective’ as well as ‘individual’ landrights (McCullum and McCullum, 1975;Cordell, 1993). Legal rights and settlementsassociated with these land claims areincreasingly being awarded to indigenouspeoples throughout the world.

In those instances where legal title isnot held but ‘aboriginal title’ is claimed,there are still de jure and ethical obliga-tions associated with ecotourism opera-tions on these lands. The success ofecotourism ventures in such areas isdependent on the support of their unoffi-cial indigenous hosts. Failure to obtain thesupport of local indigenous people is likelyto be self-defeating as they are an integralpart of these environments and their con-sent, advice and hospitality, are thereforecritical. In an extreme situation, if indige-nous peoples are openly hostile to eco-tourists, it is unlikely that these touristswill have satisfying experiences. Even inthe absence of any active opposition fromindigenous peoples, ecotourism operatorshave a moral obligation to recognize andprotect the interests of indigenous peoplesas these people often represent an integralpart of the environment of the destinationterritory.

The Significance of Land withinIndigenous Cultures

The Canadian National Aboriginal TourismAssociation’s video entitled The Stranger,the Native, and the Land highlights therelationship between these three elementswithin a tourism context (Notzke, 1996).Produced and distributed to promotetourism as a development option withinindigenous communities, the video

346 T. Hinch

describes indigenous tourism as a culturalencounter between ‘the Stranger’ and ‘theNative’. At the nexus of this encounter is‘the Land’. If satisfying ecotourism experi-ences are to be produced for the strangersto indigenous territories, an appreciation ofwhat the land means to indigenous peoplesis required.

Indigenous peoples have an inherentkinship with the land. In a traditional con-text, indigenous people consider that theybelong to the Earth rather than the landbelonging to them (Hollinshead, 1992). Theconcept of the land as the ‘mother’ onwhom survival depends is a recurring onein indigenous cultures. For example, theGagudju people of Australia express thisview in their oral histories through versesuch as:

The rocks remain.The Earth remains.I die and put my bones in the cave or theEarth.Soon, my bones will become the Earth.Then will my spirit return to my land, myMother.

(cited in Martin, 1993, p. xv)

Traditionally, indigenous people havedrawn much of their self-identity from theland of which they are a part. To many, theland is the essence of their life. The singu-lar importance of land to the indigenouspeoples of northern Canada was alsoemphasized by Notkze (1994) who cites thesettlement of comprehensive land claimsin this region of the world and the subse-quent designation of the new Inuit-gov-erned territory of Nunavut as a case inpoint. Control of land from the perspectiveof indigenous people is different from thatof non-indigenous people because the rela-tionship between indigenous people andthe land is unique.

There are two aspects to this relation-ship. On the one hand indigenous peoples’relationship with their territories rests onthe importance of resources to the continu-ing existence of the group. On the otherhand, the territory is an area deeply associ-ated with the identity of the people as a

whole, which each generation keeps intrust for the future.

The first element is an indigenous expressionof the use or ecological relationship betweenindigenous peoples and the environment …while the second aspect covers the culturalreproduction and management of anecosystem. Whereas for non-indigenouspeoples these factors are separated into‘economic’ and ‘cultural’ domains, forindigenous peoples they are aspects of thesame phenomenon, where time, space,resource use, management and conservationare all part of the same complex, linkingidentity to production and reproduction.

(Gray, 1991, p. 22)

The typical depth of the attachment ofindigenous people to their territories is dif-ficult to exaggerate. It is much deeper thanthe connection that non-indigenous peoplenormally have with the land. Two implica-tions of this attachment are particularlyimportant in the context of ecotourism.First, because indigenous people do not seethe land as a possession, they are verywary of treating it as a commodity, even inthe purportedly benign context of eco-tourism. Second, because of their deepattachment to the land, indigenous peoplesee the landscape differently. They attachunique and often complex meanings toplace that go beyond its physical proper-ties. Often, these complex meaningsinclude a spiritual dimension that presentsfascinating interpretive opportunities forecotourism. It also may present some limi-tations as local peoples may choose not toshare these insights with visitors, or theymay choose to restrict visitors from certainsacred places within this landscape.

Historic land uses such as subsistencefood gathering in Australia and hunting andtrapping in northern Canada remain impor-tant activities in many of these territories(Young, 1995). Yet despite their deep attach-ment to land, contemporary indigenous peo-ple have not restricted themselves totraditional land uses. In a harsh indictmentof the impacts of primarily non-native landuse in northern Canada, native peoples rec-

Indigenous Territories 347

ognize that their former way of life on theland has been irrevocably altered.

We are telling you again and again thatwithout the land Indian people have no soul,no life, no identity, no purpose. Control ofthe land is essential for our cultural andeconomic survival.

We are people of the land. We love the landbut the land is no longer what it was.

We see the land as having been taken into thewhite man’s society, his economy. It iscovered in asphalt, surveyed, scarred, trackedin the search for oil and natural gas andminerals that lie under it.

Sadly, we know that we cannot use it muchin the old ways [subsistence]. The animalsare hiding or dead, the fish are poisoned, thebirds fly away. So we must seek a way to livein this new way, but we must not sell ourland or allow it to be taken away. It is onlyfor our use, even if the use is a new use. Theland is for our children, not for sale. The landis still part of us and we are part of it.

(amalgam of comments from Natives inNorthern Canada as quoted in McCullum and

McCullum, 1975, pp. 9–10)

Despite their reluctance to treat the land as acommodity, indigenous peoples are increas-ingly open to non-traditional uses of the landas long as these uses do not compromisetheir sense of the land’s and, therefore, theirown integrity. Indigenous peoples see them-selves as caretakers of the land but they arecontinually trying to find ways of protectingtheir ‘mother’ while surviving as indigenouscultures in a changing world. Ecotourism isone of the new activities that has been intro-duced to these traditional lands as a way ofseeking this balance. Underlying this searchfor appropriate land use in indigenous terri-tories is the maintenance and reaffirmationof indigenous control.

The question being asked by indigenouspeoples about ecotourism is whether it is afriend or a foe. Will it help them or will ithinder them in their quest for cultural sur-vival? The answer to this question seemsto hinge on the concept of control. Despitethe increasing levels of developmentfound in many indigenous territories, they

still contain ‘many of the best – and oftenthe last – remaining places of rich wilder-ness and biological diversity’ (Stevens,1997, p. 1). There are at least three possi-ble explanations for this. First, histori-cally, indigenous people were oftensystematically marginalized to peripheralareas that were not originally felt to offerstrong development opportunities to colo-nizing cultures. Second, indigenous peo-ples have tended to live in ways that haveleft the lands that they inhabit with muchbiodiversity. Third, in many cases, theindigenous peoples of these areas havebeen successful in warding off outsidethreats to the integrity of these lands. It is,therefore, particularly galling for indige-nous people to have conservationists orothers seek to limit their control over theselands. Such indignation is reflected in thecomments of one Karen facing evictionfrom the Thung Yai wildlife sanctuary inThailand:

When we moved into these forests over twocenturies ago, Bangkok was just a smallvillage surrounded by lush vegetation. Overthese many years, we Karen have protectedour forest lands out of respect for ourancestors and our children. Maybe if we hadcut down the forests, destroyed the land, andbuilt a great city like Bangkok, we would notnow be faced with possible eviction.

(Thongmak and Hulse, 1993, p. 167)

While the above comments were made inthe face of restrictive controls associatedwith the designation of a ‘protected area’,they hold significance for ecotourismoperators in general. Indigenous peoplesneed to retain control if ecotourism is tobe successful on indigenous lands. Theirwillingness to entertain ecotourism as aland use in their territories is a reflectionof a variety of motivations that they har-bour.

Motivations for Adopting Ecotourismon Indigenous Territories

To a large extent the motivations forindigenous peoples to develop ecotourism

348 T. Hinch

opportunities within their territories arejust as diverse as those of non-indigenouspeoples. While economic benefits featureprominently for both groups, there is gen-erally an underlying desire that the netimpacts, inclusive of social and environ-mental as well as economic impacts, arepositive. Yet, indigenous peoples also havedistinct motivations related to politicalissues and distinct variations of the eco-nomic, environmental and socio-culturalmotivations for tourism development ingeneral. The Little Red River Cree FirstNation provides a good example of anindigenous group possessing a complexrange of motivations in their desire todevelop ecotourism in northern Canada(Colton, 2000).

Political motivations

The decision for indigenous peoples toopen up their territories to ecotourism isoften a political one in that it is based onissues of control. This is particularly truein the context of unsettled land claimswhereby indigenous people are trying todemonstrate that their territories are not‘empty lands’, that they are occupied andused by indigenous peoples. A similarstrategy has been pursued by indigenouspeoples when they see the establishment ofprotected areas within their territory asbeing in their best interest (Stevens, 1997).A classic example of this political strategyis provided by the Haida Nation and theirplacement of ‘watchmen’ at key heritagesites throughout the Haida Gwaii (QueenCharlotte Islands in Canada). These ‘watch-men’ acted as hosts to ecotourists and theirpresence eventually contributed to the des-ignation of the territories as a ‘NationalPark Reserve’ thereby protecting the landfrom other types of development and leav-ing room for the eventual settlement of theland dispute (Guujaaw, 1996). Anotherexample of political motivations underly-ing tourism development on indigenousterritories is provided by the Sa people ofthe island of South Pentecost in Vanuatu.In this instance the Sa people manipulate

tourists and the tourism industry throughtheir control of the gol or land dive as atourist attraction. During the gol, men divehead first from a 70-ft tower with vinesattached to their feet to break their fall.Spectator access is limited, with the con-straints and operational procedures deter-mined by the Sa themselves, therebyreaffirming their culture and independence(de Burlo, 1996).

Economic motivations

The essence of economic motivation lies inthe anticipated benefits associated witheconomic diversification, job creation andincreased income, which are particularlyvalued given the relative poverty found inmany indigenous communities. The basisof the economic logic is that income gener-ated through tourism represents a fairexchange of value for value betweenindigenous and non-indigenous people. Infact, given that their culture is supportedby one of the products of ecotourism,indigenous peoples have a competitiveadvantage in an economic context (Notzke,1996). By increasing economic indepen-dence, a higher degree of self-determinationand cultural pride will be generated as theshackles imposed by poverty and socialwelfare are broken (Hinch and Butler,1996). Whale Watch Kaikoura in Aotearoa(New Zealand) provides a good example ofthis motivation in that economic benefitshave been one of the fundamental objec-tives of the company since its inception asa marine wildlife viewing company. Itssuccess has rejuvenated Kaikoura and hasensured that local Maori not only share inthis economic rejuvenation but that theyplay a leading role (Warren and Taylor,1994). This same motivation for economicbenefits has also driven several FirstNation groups in North America to opencasinos on their lands (Stansfield, 1996).While casinos and ecotourism initiativesrepresent very different approaches to theuse of indigenous lands, they do share thesame economic rationale.

Indigenous Territories 349

Environmental motivations

Environmental motivations are generally aresponse to real and perceived threats tothe land. In the Haida example cited above,one of the main reasons for initiating the‘watchman’ programme and encouragingecotourism was to present an alternative tothe forestry industry which was destroyingthe forests and contributing little to theHaida First Nation. By focusing on non-consumptive activities like ecotourism,indigenous people are able to participate inthe global wage economy while conservingtheir land. Not surprisingly, these environ-mental motivations are closely related tothe political motivations raised earlier.This is illustrated through the commentsby an adviser to the Little Red River CreeFirst Nation in the Caribou Mountains ofnorthern Canada:

We want to refocus non-Indian use to non-consumptive uses. Tourism developmentsuch as ecotourism would allow us to offsetthese non-sustainable uses of the Caribous.By replacing … activities such as forestry andoil and gas exploration with sustainable …ones which are culturally relevant, we cancontrol and strengthen our claim to ourtraditional land.

(Colton, 2000, pp. 110–111)

Socio-cultural motivations

Finally, socio-cultural motivations exist attwo levels: a cross-cultural level and onethat is internal to the indigenous group. Ata cross-cultural level, it is hoped that eco-tourism will foster understanding betweenguests and hosts. Ultimately, increasedunderstanding is anticipated to result in amore just and equitable relationshipbetween non-indigenous and indigenouspeoples (D’Amore, 1988). Within indige-nous cultures, important socio-culturalissues include the increasing schisms thathave emerged between generations andbetween the people and the land.Traditionally, the older members withinindigenous communities have been lookedupon with great respect for their guidance.

Given the turbulence of the last fewdecades, this bond between elders andyoung people has deteriorated. Part of thereason for this deterioration has been thestruggle that young indigenous peopleexperience in trying to fulfil the demandsof dominant culture to function indepen-dently within a wage economy. When cou-pled with declining land-based resourcesand traditional markets for the harvest ofthese resources, the wisdom and experi-ence of the elders is often lost on theyouth. Ecotourism on indigenous lands isseen as an opportunity for young people tointegrate contemporary and traditionallifestyles. To do this successfully, theseyoung people need to reconnect with theirelders. In reconnecting with their eldersthey are reconnecting with their culture.Contemporary lifestyles and pressures havealso weakened the relationship that indige-nous youth have with the land. Given thesense of identity that indigenous peoplehistorically derive from the land, theseyouth have, in effect, lost part of their iden-tity. Ecotourism is seen as an effectivestrategy for re-establishing this connection.For example, the owners of Tamaki Tours,which offers a culturally based tourismexperience on Maori territory in Aotearoa(New Zealand), feel that their staff mem-bers have made this reconnection to theirMaori heritage. ‘There is not one memberof staff that hasn’t really gone hard out tolearn a lot more about themselves, abouttheir culture since working with us … itdoesn’t stop here as a performance thing,it’s not a superficial “turn-on turn-off”thing’ (cited in A.J. McIntosh, T. Hinch andT. Ingram, unpublished data).

Prominent Issues

A broad range of issues will have to beaddressed for indigenous peoples to cap-ture the full potential of ecotourism ontheir territories. At the heart of these arepolitical concerns related to the control ofland, power relationships between the var-ious partners throughout the industry, andthe relationship between non-indigenous

350 T. Hinch

visitors and indigenous hosts. Theseissues are manifest in the economic, envi-ronmental and socio-cultural realms. Byexploring the dynamics within each ofthese three realms, the political issues willemerge.

Economic realm

The starting point in considering economicissues associated with ecotourism onindigenous lands is that a significant por-tion of the economic benefit should accrueto the indigenous peoples associated withtheir territory. Not to direct a fair share ofthe benefits to these people would beunethical under the central principles ofecotourism articulated elsewhere in thisbook. What is perhaps more difficult todeal with is the distribution of these bene-fits. The dominant economic framework,which guides the tourism industry, can beclassified as laissez-faire or free enterprise.It is based on the concepts of competitionand individual initiative. In contrast,indigenous cultures tend to emphasizecooperation over competition and commu-nal initiatives over independent ones.Smith (1989) has highlighted the dangersof marginalization for those individuals ofindigenous descent who adopt a Western-based approach in their home communi-ties. Others have argued that indigenouscultures have adapted to the realities of aglobal economy to the point of acceptingcompetition and independent action(Wuttunee, 1992). Clearly, however, if it isagreed that an indigenous community is animportant part of the attraction for eco-tourism then the community as a wholemust be seen to benefit from it, not just themore entrepreneurial-minded individualsfound within the community. Mechanismsneed to be put in place to ensure that anequitable distribution of these benefits isachieved.

At a direct level, if indigenous peoplesare to enjoy the economic benefits oftourism, they need to be employed withinthe industry. The basic hospitality skillsthat are taken for granted by many non-

indigenous peoples may not exist in com-munities that are typically defined by theirpoverty (Haywood, 1991). One of the chal-lenges in this area is to recognize the differ-ence between hospitality skills that can betaught versus character traits that tend tobe ingrained in a particular culture. Forexample, the following quote from the fieldnotes of a tourism researcher in northernCanada illustrates the potentially deep-seated cultural differences between hisDene host and himself:

I am conditioned by my society to talk, eventhough there may be nothing of value tospeak of. Andrew seldom talks unless it isrelated to an actual event of the day or someplans for the next day. I sometimes feel thathe forces himself to talk when he wouldrather just sit and think, and contemplate.

(Colton and Hinch, 1999, pp. 7–8)

In another study, despite the fact thattourists reported an overall high degree ofsatisfaction with their aboriginal tourismexperience, they also voiced frustrationwith the way that some aboriginal tourcompanies were operated in the CanadianArctic (Notzke, 1998). They cited concernsrelated to tour cancellations and schedul-ing, inefficiency, disorganization, and poorsales approaches.

Indigenous peoples have also been char-acterized in terms of their genuine warmthand hospitality, like the Maori of Aotearoawith their mamaaki. These types of cul-tural traits need to be positioned carefullyin promotions and in the delivery of eco-tourism in indigenous territories. Notzke(1998) extends this issue with her com-ments that the ‘authenticity’ of an eco-tourism experience represents both achallenge and an asset for tourism onindigenous territories.

Environmental realm

While ecotourists and indigenous peoplesboth tend to share genuine interests for thesustainability of the environment, their dif-ferent approaches to achieving this endrepresent significant issues that must be

Indigenous Territories 351

addressed. One of the most importantissues in this area is the consumptive ori-entation of indigenous people versus thenon-consumptive orientation of ecotourists(Hinch, 1998). Given their traditionallifestyles and values, indigenous peoplesare very protective of their right to harvestthe resources in their territories. Althoughthere are exceptions (Stevens, 1997),indigenous people have traditionallytended to harvest their resources in a sus-tainable fashion. A central provision ofmost land claims is that this right to har-vest resources should continue. In contrast,most ecotourists explicitly seek out non-consumptive activities while travelling.They are inclined to be wildlife viewersrather than wildlife hunters. The differencemay be that ecotourists see themselves asseparate from the environment that theyvisit while their indigenous hosts seethemselves as part of the environment.Given these contrasting perspectives, con-flict is likely to occur should a group ofecotourists stumble across the harvesting ofwildlife while they are visiting an indige-nous territory. To avoid this conflict, man-agement strategies can be implemented toseparate these activities in time and space(e.g. restricting ecotourism operations tocertain times of the year or locationswithin indigenous territories). However,the basic philosophic differences in worldview also need to be considered by bothparties.

Potential problems also exist in terms ofthe apparent contradiction between theespoused environmental values of indige-nous people and the litter that is found inmany indigenous communities. Again, thisdiscrepancy may be due largely to socio-economic conditions that characterizepoverty, but it may also reflect fundamentalcultural differences. An example of the for-mer situation exists in the form of theMoken of Rawai Beach in Thailand. A visitto the settlement of these formerly nomadiccoastal dwellers exposes tourists to theharsh realities of indigenous peoples’poverty. ‘The tourists are often taken abackduring such visits by the unexpectedsqualor and poverty of these people, who

are pictured in the touristic periodicals, thepromotional literature and on postcards, as free-roaming, primitive boatdwellers’(Cohen, 1996, p. 243). The reality of thisproblem is also highlighted by the fact thatthe clean-up of litter was one of the fivemost needed improvements listed in a sur-vey of visitors to the Northwest Territoriesin Canada (Acres International Limited,1990). Yet, do the skeletal remains ofbutchered game in an Arctic communityconstitute litter even though Inuit andDene people have treated these remains ina similar fashion for hundreds of years?More fundamentally, would a sanitizedcommunity be authentic in terms of thehost culture?

Socio-cultural realm

At the core of the socio-cultural realm is thequestion of whether ecotourism in indige-nous territories will erode the integrity ofthe host cultures. Ecotourism is a commer-cial activity and to the extent that indige-nous cultures are part of the attraction,these cultures will be commoditized in theprocess of producing an experience for thetourist. Critics of the commercialization ofculture for tourism argue that in the processof commoditization, the hosts’ culture willbe eroded as it becomes an economic activ-ity devoid of deeper meaning (Greenwood,1977). King and Stewart (1996) extend thiscriticism to the change of relationshipbetween indigenous people and the landassociated with commoditization:

For indigenous people, the commodificationof nature implies a change in the meaning oftheir environment from a source of directsustenance with a use value to a commoditywith an exchange value. This changeexpresses a shift in the relationship betweenthe indigenous people and theirenvironment, from one of working with theland to one of working for tourists (whoobserve the land).

(King and Stewart, 1996, p. 296)

Yet Cohen (1988) has argued that thisprocess does not necessarily destroy the

352 T. Hinch

meaning of cultural products, although itmay change it or add new meaning to oldones. Decisions do, however, have to bemade about the nature and extent ofchange that is acceptable to the indigenoushosts. Control over this process is critical.It is interesting to note that the Ngai TahuMaori who own and operate Whale WatchKaikoura, a major ecotourism company inAotearoa, have exercised this type of con-trol by making a conscious decision not topresent their traditional culture as part oftheir successful ecotourism interpretiveprogramme. This decision was made basedon the disappointing experiences of guideswho experimented with more culturallybased interpretations earlier in the com-pany’s development. As one of the guidesexplained:

you are not going to ‘hand out’ your beliefssystem for them to ‘cheapen’ or ‘bastardize’,and by that I mean that quite often people[tourists] will not accept or evenacknowledge your reality in terms of itsmythological substance, that myths andlegends are part of our history.

(cited in McIntosh et al., unpublished)

The Ngai Tahu are considering more cul-turally based products in the future but ifthese products are developed they will becarefully targeted to tourists who are seek-ing this kind of experience. In general,indigenous people need to consider howtheir culture is likely to change as a resultof ecotourism within their territory.Knowing the potential cultural impacts ofvarious scenarios will enable indigenouspeople to make decisions that are in linewith their goals and aspirations.

A second major socio-culture issue con-cerns the fact that indigenous cultures aredynamic. The romantic image that non-indigenous people have of natives living bytraditional means is no longer accurate andin many cases never was. There are a multi-tude of factors that are initiating change inthese communities, including advances inhealth, education and communications.Much of this change is consciously pursuedby indigenous people who feel that theywill be better off as a result. The contrast

between tourist expectations of indigenouspeople living traditional lifestyles and thepreferences of many indigenous people formodern lifestyles presents challenges forecotourism within indigenous territories.These challenges are illustrated in the caseof the Sami people in Scandinavia:

There is an expectation that the Sami hostsshall perform in a traditional way. This is theimage known from books and marketingmaterials. To satisfy their customers the Samihosts try to fulfil these expectations andperform much more traditionally than theywould usually. For example, they weartraditional clothing, use tents, and usereindeer transportation. At the same timethey feel that their activities are counter-productive with regards to another importantaim: to become a respected and integratedpart of the world.

(Viken, 1998, pp. 46–47)

The tension that is described in the contextof the Sami is common among most indige-nous groups involved in tourism. One ofthe challenges facing ecotourism operatorson indigenous lands is, therefore, how toalign the expectations of the ecotouristwith the contemporary preferences andlifestyles of the indigenous hosts.

Guiding Principles for Ecotourism onIndigenous Lands

The fundamental principles of ecotourism,if addressed in earnest, will work well inthe context of indigenous territories. A gen-uine respect for indigenous peoples mustform the foundation of ecotourism opera-tions on their lands. Part of this respect isrecognition of the rights of indigenous peo-ple under ‘aboriginal title’ as well as ‘legaltitle’. This means that significant controlmust be located with the indigenous hostswhether they are the actual operators of theecotourism operation or not. Fennell (1999)has identified five key points that need tobe considered if productive relationshipsare to be established between non-indige-nous and indigenous peoples in a tourismcontext. These points have been adapted to

Indigenous Territories 353

articulate basic principles for ecotourismwithin indigenous territories.

1. Community involvement

If ecotourism activities are occurringwithin indigenous territories then indige-nous people should be involved. Althoughthe level and nature of their involvementmay be negotiated between stakeholders,the ultimate decision as to whether to pro-ceed with the ecotourism initiative shouldremain with the indigenous hosts. Otherforms of direct involvement that should beconsidered include ownership, manage-ment and employment.

2. Community benefit

A fair share of the benefits should accrue tothe indigenous hosts. These include benefitsowed to the community as a whole as wellas those earned by individual indigenousentrepreneurs. The collective nature ofindigenous communities is distinct from thatfound in most non-indigenous communitiesand therefore should be recognized in termsof explicit communal benefits. As a generalrule, benefits that indigenous people accruedfrom the land before the introduction of eco-tourism should be maintained or compensa-tion should be negotiated if this stream ofbenefits is reduced in some way. Access tothe territories for subsistence purposesshould be continued although managementstrategies may need to be developed to avoidconflicts between consumptive and non-con-sumptive users. Ecotourism practices shouldbe designed to reinforce rather than contra-dict the values that are important to theindigenous hosts, such as respect for eldersand respect for the land.

3. Scale

Ecotourism operations should be relativelysmall scale and the temptation to continu-ally expand these operations to meetdemand should be resisted. The market-

place dictates that demand and supply arethe key determinants of growth, but in thecase of ecotourism on indigenous lands,interventions into this marketplace shouldbe made to limit growth. By doing so, thescale of operations is more likely to remainsustainable given the resources of theindigenous hosts.

4. Land ownership

The legal status of the territories in ques-tion should be clarified in order to fostereffective partnerships between stakehold-ers. At a minimum, there needs to be agree-ment as to whether the lands are under‘aboriginal title’ or not. If title is claimed byan indigenous group but not recognized bynon-indigenous ecotourism operators, theseoperators may find themselves in a veryawkward position. Operators who do nothave the support of the local indigenouspeoples will have a difficult time providingtheir clients with a satisfying tourism expe-rience. Clarification of the degree of indige-nous interest in a territory needs to beachieved. If aboriginal title is recognized,or if some other level of association withthe territory can be agreed upon, then solidpartnerships can be formed. This does notmean that the negotiations will necessarilybe easy, but by having the question of landownership clarified, indigenous people andother stakeholders will be in a position tomake decisions and follow through withthem.

5. Sensitivity to the needs of area residentsand visitors

Ecotourists and indigenous hosts need topossess a well-developed understandingand respect for each other. This is consis-tent with the rhetoric of ecotourism inwhich the development of a true under-standing of a place, including its people, isa key objective. The standard expectationis that ecotourism operators and, indeed,ecotourists themselves will take the initia-tive to become educated about their indige-

354 T. Hinch

nous hosts. Less recognized but equallyimportant is the need for the indigenoushosts to become educated about their visi-tors. By developing this understanding,indigenous peoples will not only be in abetter position to extend their hospitality,they will also be in a better position tomake decisions about the directions thatthey prefer to take in terms of future eco-tourism development.

Various mechanisms exist that can assist inthe implementation of these principles. Atthe forefront of these mechanisms is theestablishment of protected areas as dis-cussed elsewhere in this book (seeChapters 18 and 19). These areas can bemanaged in a variety of ways but one of themost common is to develop a joint manage-ment agreement that is tailored to theunique needs and resources of the relevantstakeholders (Colchester, 1994). Clearly,however, the involvement of the indige-nous hosts must be real rather than cos-metic. King and Stewart (1996) haveargued that the goal of such agreementsshould be ultimate transfer of these respon-sibilities to the indigenous hosts.

Conclusion

Ecotourists are increasingly seeking outindigenous lands to pursue their travelmotivations. Ideally, the outcomes of theseinteractions between visitors and hosts willbe beneficial to all: ecotourists will havesatisfying touristic experiences, the naturalresources will be sustained, and the indige-nous host will enjoy significant net bene-

fits. In reality, there is no guarantee thatthese outcomes will be achieved. Key top-ics that were covered in this chapterincluded the ownership and significance ofland to indigenous people, their motiva-tions for involvement and key issues thatexist in the economic, environmental andthe socio-cultural realms of ecotourism onindigenous lands. Five guiding principleswere then presented as strategies for meet-ing the challenges of ecotourism on indige-nous lands. These principles addressedinvolvement, benefits, scale, land owner-ship and a recognition of the needs of allstakeholders.

The underlying theme of the chapter wasthat indigenous people should retain con-trol of their lands and make decisions aboutthe nature of the ecotourism activities thatare conducted in these territories. It must,however, be appreciated that the question ofwho ‘should’ make these decisions is a dif-ferent one from who ‘can’ make these deci-sions. A variety of structural barriers existboth within a tourism context, and within asocietal context, that militate against indige-nous control. Despite these barriers, it is inthe best interests of sustainability that con-trol migrates towards the indigenous ownersof these territories. While this control is aprerequisite of sustainability, it is not neces-sarily sufficient. If indigenous peoples are tomake appropriate decisions about eco-tourism in their territories, they mustdevelop a clear understanding of ecotourismas a complex, sophisticated, global industry.These decisions cannot be made in isolationbut must be positioned within the broadercontext of the industry and their communityas a whole.

Indigenous Territories 355

References

Acres International Limited (1990) Northwest Territories Visitors Survey Summer 1989. Prepared forthe Department of Economic Development and Tourism, GNWT, Yellowknife.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol. 1. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Cohen, E. (1988) Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15,

371–385.Cohen, E. (1996) Hunter-gather tourism in Thailand. In: Butler, R.W. and Hinch, T.D. (eds) Tourism

and Indigenous Peoples. International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 227–254.

Colchester, M. (1994) Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conser-vation. Discussion paper, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva,Switzerland.

Colton, J. (2000) Searching for sustainable tourism in the Caribou Mountains. Doctoral dissertation,The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Colton, J. and Hinch, T.D. (1999) Trap-line based tours as indigenous tourism products in NorthernCanada. Pacific Tourism Review 3(1), 1–10.

Cordell, J. (1993) Boundaries and bloodlines: tenure on indigenous homelands and protected areas.In: Kemf, E. (ed.) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: the Law of Mother Earth. EarthscanPublications, London, pp. 61– 68.

D’Amore, L. (1988) Tourism – the world’s peace industry, In: D’Amore, L. and Jafari, J. (eds)Proceedings of the First Global Conference – Tourism a Vital Force for Peace. Lou D’AmoreAssociates, Montreal, pp. 7–14.

de Burlo, C. (1996) Cultural resistance and ethnic tourism on South Pentecost, Vanuatu. In: Butler,R.W. and Hinch, T.D. (eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. International Thomson BusinessPress, London, pp. 255–277.

Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Gray, A. (1991) Between the spice of life and the melting pot: biodiversity conservation and its

impact on indigenous peoples. IWGIA Document No. 70. International Work Group onInternational Affairs, Copenhagen.

Greenwood, D. (1977) Culture by the pound: an anthropological perspective on tourism as culturalcommoditization. In: Smith, V. (ed.) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism. Universityof Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 17–31.

Guujaaw (1996) The Haida Nation approach to tourism. In: Canadian National Aboriginal TourismAssociation (CNATA) Nature-based Tourism Manual, (Appendix B). http://www.vli.ca/clients/abc/cnata/cnata3.htm

Haywood, K.M. (1991) A strategic approach to developing hospitality and tourism education andtraining in remote, economically emerging and culturally sensitive regions: the case of Canada’sNorthwest Territories. In: New Horizons, Conference proceedings, The University of CalgaryPress, Calgary.

Hinch, T.D. (1998) Ecotourists and indigenous hosts: diverging views on their relationship withnature. Current Issues in Tourism 1(1), 120–123.

Hinch, T.D. and Butler, R.W. (1996) Indigenous tourism: a common ground for discussion. In: Butler,R.W. and Hinch, T.D. (eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. International Thomson BusinessPress, London, pp. 3–22.

Hollinshead, K. (1992) ‘White’ gaze, ‘red’ people – shadow visions: the disidentification of ‘Indians’in cultural tourism. Leisure Studies 11, 43–64.

King, D.A. and Stewart, W.P. (1996) Ecotourism and commodification: protecting people and places.Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 293–305.

Martin, C. (1993) Introduction. In: Kemf, E. (ed.) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. EarthscanPublications, London, pp. xv–xix.

McCullum, H. and McCullum, K. (1975) This Land is Not For Sale. Anglican Book Centre, Toronto.Notzke, C. (1994) Aboriginal Peoples and Natural Resources in Canada. Captus University

Publications, North York.Notzke, C. (1996) Partners in conservation: co-management, protected areas and aboriginal eco-

tourism development in the North, paper presented at The Canadian Association ofGeographers Annual Meeting 1996, 11–16 May, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,Saskatchewan.

Notzke, C. (1998) Indigenous tourism development in the Arctic. Annals of Tourism Research 26(1),55–76.

Smith, V.L. (1989) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn. University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Stansfield, C. (1996) Reservations and gambling: native Americans and the diffusion of legalizedgaming. In: Butler, R.W. and Hinch, T.D. (eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. InternationalThomson Business Press, London, pp. 129–149.

Stevens, S. (1997) Introduction. In: Stevens, S. (ed.) Conservation Through Cultural Survival:Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1–8.

356 T. Hinch

Thongmak, S. and Hulse, D.L. (1993) The winds of change: Karen people in harmony with world her-itage. In: Kemf, E. (ed.) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: the Law of Mother Earth.Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 162–168.

Viken, A. (1998) Ethnic tourism – which ethnicity? In: Johnson, M.E., Twynam, G.D. and Haider, W.(eds) Shaping Tomorrow’s North: the Role of Tourism and Recreation. Northern and RegionalStudies Series No. 7, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, pp. 37–53.

Warren, J.A.N. and Taylor, C.N. (1994) Developing Eco-tourism. NZ Institute for Social Research andDevelopment Ltd, Wellington.

Wilmsen, E.N. (1989) We Are Here: Politics and Aboriginal Land Tenure. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Wuttunee, W.A. (1992) In Business For Ourselves. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal andKingston.

Young, E. (1995) Third World in the First. Routledge, London.Zeppel, H. (1998) Land and culture: sustainable tourism and indigenous peoples. In: Hall, C.H. and

Lew, A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Addison Wesley LongmanLimited, Harlow, UK.

Indigenous Territories 357

Section 5

Ecotourism Impacts

P.F.J. EaglesDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo,

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Arguably, all consideration of ecotourismis dependent on the data that are derivedfrom impact measurement. The determina-tion of the size, scale and impact of aphenomenon requires the determination ofa measurement goal, a measurement deviceand a methodology for measurement. Inimpact assessment, the size of the phenom-enon to be measured is typically so large,that a sample must be chosen. Often, it isdesirable to choose an indicator to repre-sent the larger phenomenon. An indicatoris that which serves to indicate or give asuggestion of something; an indication of.The chapters in Section 5 each deal withvarious aspects of the identification, mea-surement and management of ecotourismimpacts.

The chapters found in Section 5 usemany indicators to represent some largerstate. One might question whether the indi-cators chosen are the most appropriate. Inaddition, it is important to note whetherthe proper measurement device andmethodology was applied. The understand-ing of data, indicators and impacts must becarefully weighed. It is important not tosimply accept impact conclusions based onindicators without caution.

Ercan Sirakaya, Tazim Jamal and Hwan-Suk Choi tackle the substantial problem ofthe determination of indicators in Chapter

26. They outline the development of theconcept of indicators over time. They iden-tify the characteristics that lead to thechoice of better indicators. They point outthe stakeholder involvement in the devel-opment and application of indictors. Therole of monitoring and reporting is identi-fied. The authors note that: ‘indicators haveto be selected so that they are robust, credi-ble, efficient (in time and cost for obtainingthe data), and useful to decision makers’.The chapter makes the point that the datafrom indicators are only inputs to decisionmaking. The importance of the indicatorsis dependent on the ability of the decisionmaking structure to use the information inan effective and competent manner.

In the understanding of ecotourism, onekey factor is its impact on people, commu-nities and environments. The authors ofthree chapters in Section 5 have identifiedimpacts on the more obvious categories ofstudy: economics, socio-cultural relationsand the physical/natural environment. It iscritical to recognize that all impact identifi-cation and determination is dependent onvalue judgements. Who makes the judge-ments is a critical element of the decisionprocess. The process used to involve peo-ple and to make the judgements must beidentified and must be clearly understoodby all who use the outcomes.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 359

Paul Eagles, in a chapter in Section 8,points out that all decisions are dependenton information. The better the informationavailable to the planner and manager, thebetter the chance for a good decision. KregLindberg, in Chapter 23, summarizes anextensive literature on the economicimpact of ecotourism. This chapter identi-fies economic impact in three categories:jobs, income and profit. Lindberg is carefulto identify the methods used to measurethe impact and to clarify the extent towhich individual studies can be appliedelsewhere. Interestingly, the chapter leadsthe reader to conclude that the economicimpact of ecotourism, as important as it is, is frequently underestimated, under-reported and poorly calculated. This sug-gests that other social factors, possiblyenvironmental protection or communitydevelopment, are more important andreceive more emphasis in the politicaldecision making surrounding the phenom-enon. However, it is also clear that untildefensible economic impact estimates aredone for ecotourism, it will continue to betreated by many in government and in thebusiness community as a niche activitywithout substantial importance.

In Chapter 24, Ralf Buckley tackles thehuge problem of summarizing the exten-sive literature on environmental impact.Whereas it is relatively clear in economicimpact where the positive values lie, typi-cally towards larger impact, it is not nearlyso clear where the positive values lie inenvironmental impact. Is it better to havemore or less of a species? How does oneknow when ecological integrity is intact?How much soil erosion is bad? ProfessorBuckley makes the important point that theenvironmental impact of ecotourism mustconsider the travel to and from the activitydestination. So often only the impacts atthe visitation site are identified. The chap-ter points out that the consideration ofimpacts goes well beyond the measurementof impact. The chapter concludes that oftenthe ‘lack of scientific knowledge is less ofan impediment than lack of managementfunds or political support’.

Professor Buckley’s chapter provides a

broad coverage of the current knowledge ofthe environmental impact of ecotourism.But the chapter does not identify the envi-ronmental impact of the lack of eco-tourism. The common assumption is thatthe environmental impact of outdoor recre-ation or ecotourism should use as itsbenchmark no human use or no humanimpact on the environment. This is aninvalid assumption, because typically inthe absence of outdoor recreation or eco-tourism some other economic activity willtake place in that environment. If the site isnot a national park catering to tourists, itwill be supporting a logging industry, agrazing industry or some other resource-based economic activity. Therefore, theenvironmental impact of ecotourism shouldbe compared with the most likely alterna-tive economic activity, not to some unreal-istic utopia without any use.

Stephen Wearing, in Chapter 25, identi-fies the range of socio-cultural impacts thathave been identified for local communities.Wearing concentrates his comments onsmaller, rural communities, typically occu-pied by peoples somewhat marginalized inthe large social fabric. Such people are veryvulnerable to the social impacts of eco-tourism. The biggest issues in socio-cultural impact identification are theassignment of value and the identity of theperson who assigns the value. In addition,the political climate that determines thedecisions made after value identification iscritical to the application of socio-culturalimpact identification. Therefore, so muchof socio-cultural impact application lies inthe field of politics.

Richard Butler looks to rural areas andthe bases upon which their involvement inecotourism is appropriate. He deals inChapter 27 with the landscape that con-tains a high degree of agricultural activity.Professor Butler deals insightfully with theidentification of value, and the determina-tion of the role of the rural people in thedetermination of value. The identificationof the role of food provision for ecotourismand the resultant economic and socialimpact is a useful factor that is too oftenforgotten in ecotourism analysis. The

360 P.F.J. Eagles

chapter concludes with the importantstatement that ecotourism in rural areas is:

just as crucial in terms of environmentalconservation and nature appreciation aswhen it occurs in remote tropical or polarareas, and in terms of fulfilling its role inproviding local economic benefits, isinfinitely more successful in a rural settingthan an unpopulated wilderness one.

The chapters in Section 5 reveal that theprinciples underlying impact identifica-

tion, indicator use, data needs, planningform and management functions are notunique to ecotourism. All of these princi-ples are well known and well documentedin the relevant fields of management the-ory, economic theory and planning theory.The identified information and impacts ofecotourism are found in the sociology,leisure studies and environmental studiesliterature, but the underlying principles arecross-disciplinary and outlined in a funda-mental fashion in other fields.

Ecotourism Impacts 361

Chapter 23

Economic Impacts

K. LindbergSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University,

Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Introduction

The jobs generated by ecotourism providean important reason for interest in, andsupport for, the phenomenon. These jobsoften occur in areas relatively untouchedby traditional development efforts and rep-resent tangible economic benefits from nat-ural areas. Several studies have assessedthe local employment benefits of eco-tourism; not surprisingly, the level of bene-fits varies widely as a result of differencesin the quality of the attraction, access andother factors. In some cases, the number ofjobs created will be low, but in ruraleconomies even a few jobs can make a bigdifference.

Aside from its contribution to develop-ment generally, there are at least three rea-sons why local job creation is important inecotourism. First, it is equitable in so far asconservation of an area for ecotourism mayreduce or eliminate traditional resourceuse. Second, the ecotourists, as consumers,may support the importance of tourismbenefiting local residents (P.F.J. Eagles, J.L.Ballantine and D.A. Fennell, 1992, unpub-lished). Third, when residents receive ben-efits, the extractive pressure on naturalresources is lessened, and residents aremore likely to support tourism and conser-vation, even to the point of protecting the

site against poaching or other encroach-ment. For example, Lindberg et al. (1996)found that ecotourism-related benefits werean important basis for positive residentattitudes toward adjacent natural areas (seealso Wunder, 1996, 1998). Conversely, ifresidents bear the costs without receivingbenefits, they may turn against tourism andconservation, and may intentionally orunintentionally damage the site. Whetherecotourism benefits lead to increased sup-port for conservation and, ultimately, tochanges in resource use is dependent on avariety of circumstances (Brandon andWells, 1992; Brandon, 1997).

Although this chapter focuses on eco-tourism in particular, it is worthwhile to‘set the stage’ by describing the economicimpact of tourism in general. Tourism sta-tistics are of variable, and sometimes low,quality. Nonetheless, the methods andquality of the data are improving, andavailable statistics provide at least a roughidea of tourism’s economic impacts. Table23.1 presents estimates from the WorldTravel and Tourism Council (WTTC).Tourism’s current impact is expected togrow over the next decade, with WTTCestimating that the industry will createover 5.5 million jobs per year during thatperiod. This growth will occur on top ofsignificant recent growth in tourism, with

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 363

World Tourism Organization (WTO) esti-mates of growth in the decade from 1985 to1994 as follows: Africa 89%, SouthAmerica 86%, Central America 91%, theCaribbean 71%, East Asia and the Pacific142%, and South Asia 48% (Mowforth andMunt, 1998, p. 93).

As these figures reflect, in the economicimpact arena most attention is paid to thejobs, income and profit that ecotourismgenerates; these will also be the primaryfocus of this chapter. Nonetheless, there areimportant additional economic impacts,both positive and negative, associated withdevelopment of tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular (economic, environ-mental and socio-cultural impact groupingscan overlap at times, and the present focusis on impacts typically classified into theeconomic category).

Fiscal impacts (taxes, fees, expenditures)

Tourism not only generates governmentrevenue through business and other generaltaxes, but also through industry-specificchannels, such as payment of occupancyand departure taxes. Conversely, tourismgenerates fiscal costs in the form of, forexample, funding for infrastructure. In anevaluation of tourism in Belize, which is

heavily oriented toward ecotourism,Lindberg and Enriquez (1994) note that thisrevenue covers specific tourism-relatedcosts, such as tourism promotion andmaintenance of the airport, but also gener-ates net profits for the government (see alsoBorden et al., 1996).

Of particular interest in the ecotourismcontext are fiscal impacts on protectedareas. This issue is treated more fully else-where (e.g. Lindberg and Enriquez, 1994;Laarman and Gregersen, 1996; Lindberg,1998; Van Sickle and Eagles, 1998). Inbrief, ecotourism has substantial potentialto financially contribute to the creation andmaintenance of protected areas, and thispotential has been increasingly realizedduring the past decade. However, manyareas still charge little or no fees, and atsuch sites ecotourism may cause a net neg-ative fiscal impact due to the costsinvolved in providing the ecotourism expe-rience.

Reduced access to resources

Tourism utilizes various resources as inputsinto the products and services provided tovisitors. In the case of ecotourism, one ofthese products is nature in a partially ortotally preserved state. Preservation of nat-

364 K. Lindberg

Table 23.1. WTTC economic impact estimates (1999).

GDP Employment

Billions % of total Annual % Millions % of totalRegion of US$ in region growtha of jobs in region

World 3550 11.7 3.0 192.3 8.2North Africa 20 6.8 6.0 2.2 7.4Sub-Saharan Africa 26 11.2 5.2 9.6 7.4North America 1171 11.8 2.5 21.2 11.9Latin America 90 5.6 6.1 8.9 6.0Caribbean 29 20.6 5.5 3.6 15.8Oceania 68 14.7 3.8 2.1 16.0Northeast Asia 537 10.0 2.8 57.2 7.1Southeast Asia 81 10.6 5.5 15.2 7.3South Asia 27 5.3 9.1 22.3 5.4Europe 1461 14.0 2.6 47.8 13.2Middle East 41 7.3 5.2 2.0 6.1

a 1999–2010 estimated, adjusted for inflation.

ural areas often involves reduced localaccess to resources, such as wood or medi-cinal plants. In so far as tourism is a partialor sole rationale for preserving an area, italso causes reduced access to resources.

Inflation

Many destinations have experiencedincreased prices for goods, services, andland due to tourism development, and thisis a cost borne by residents of the area whopurchase these items.

Effects on income distribution

In some cases, tourism development exac-erbates existing income inequalities withindestination communities, while in others itgenerates new financial elites.

Revenue sharing

At some ecotourism destinations, residentsbenefit from revenue-sharing programmesthat either provide cash payments or, morecommonly, funding for community projectssuch as wells or schools. For example,Nepal’s Wildlife Conservation Act providesfor the distribution of 30–50% of protectedarea fee revenue to surrounding communi-ties (Brandon, 1996).

Whether the above impacts are good or badwill depend on one’s perspective. Forexample, some may desire continuity inlocal economic (and political) relation-ships, while others may desire reductionsin income inequalities. Persons wishing tosell land would welcome increased landprices, while those who wish to buy landor to retain land they own (and on whichthey may pay property taxes) wouldoppose increased prices. Likewise, tourismis said to compete with other sectors,notably agriculture, for land, labour andfinance. The desirability of this competi-tion depends on one’s perspective; workersearning a higher wage or investors receiv-

ing a higher return from tourism may dis-agree with members of the community wholament the transition away from traditionalagricultural activities.

Leakage is often listed as a negativeimpact, but it is more appropriately viewedas the absence of a positive impact. Ratherthan causing economic harm, it simplydoes not provide the benefit of the foregonejobs. Similarly, the instability and, in somecases, undesirability of tourism jobs is oftenseen as a negative impact, but can alterna-tively be viewed as the lack of positiveimpacts (stable, desirable employment).Regardless of how they are classified, theseare important considerations in the devel-opment of tourism, whether ecotourism orotherwise. Leakage is discussed furtherbelow, and Sinclair and Stabler (1997) andWeaver (1998) provide additional treat-ment of these issues.

The debate over leakage also raises amore general issue, that of the motivationand reference point for evaluating eco-tourism, or general tourism. It is true thattourism typically involves high levels ofleakage, but that does not necessarily meanit is undesirable as a development strategy.Appropriate questions in this context are:(i) whether leakages can be reduced and, ifso, at what expense; and (ii) given currentor reduced leakages, combined with otherbenefits and costs, whether tourismremains more desirable than alternativedevelopment options.

Though the diverse impacts of tourismare increasingly being recognized, the tra-ditional impacts of jobs and income (fromemployment, rather than from revenue-sharing programmes) tend to be the mostdiscussed and researched, and they will bethe focus of the remainder of this chapter.The present focus is on concepts and meth-ods for estimating impacts. Tools forenhancing impacts are discussed elsewhere(e.g. Butler, Chapter 27, this volume;Lindberg, 1998). To the extent possible,ecotourism-based examples and applica-tions will be used. However, examples andapplications from general tourism or othersectors will be used when necessary toillustrate techniques and principles. In

Economic Impacts 365

addition, though issues and examples rele-vant to both developed and developingcountries are presented, the discussion isweighted toward the latter.

Expenditure, Linkage and Leakage: aBasic Description of Ecotourism’s

Money Flows

An understanding of ecotourism’s contri-bution to economic development requiresan understanding of the ecotourism ‘indus-try’. Ecotourism is, of course, tremendouslyvariegated; it can encompass everythingfrom paying travel agents thousands of dol-lars for trips to the furthest reaches of theglobe to simply walking to a nearby park.However, to simplify matters, it is useful tothink of ecotourism as comprising threecomponents. The first is the outboundoperator that sells tours directly to interna-tional tourists in the source country. Thesecond is the inbound (ground) operatorthat actually organizes and leads the trip inthe destination country. The third is theattraction that is being visited.

Consider the example of an Americantourist wishing to visit Amboseli NationalPark in Kenya. She might buy a tour from aUS outbound operator, which in turn hasarranged for an inbound operator to leadthe trip in Kenya. The inbound operatorwill in turn purchase admission to thepark, which is managed by the KenyaWildlife Service. Alternatively, the touristmay choose to arrange the trip directlywith an inbound operator, either to savemoney or because she is already in Kenya.Or, she might forgo using an operator infavour of travelling to the park by herself.

Many observers voice the concern thatmuch of the trip cost, and thus the eco-nomic benefit, remains with outboundoperators and source-country airlines. Tosome extent, this is simply due to thenature of the tourism industry; substantialfunds are spent on marketing, commissionsand transport before tourists even reach thedestination. For example, Sorensen (1991)presents a case study of Overseas AdventureTravel (OAT), an outbound operator in

Massachusetts, USA. In 1989, OAT salestotalled US$4,525,000 (all figures arerounded), of which US$1,400,000 was forair transport and US$3,027,000 for landtours. The land tours cost US$1,962,000 tosupply, with a resulting gross profit fromthis product of US$1,065,000 (approxi-mately 86% of the total company grossprofit). Much of this gross profit remainedin the USA through allocation to salariesand related (US$714,000), sales and mar-keting (US$496,000) and administrative/general (US$264,000). Using preliminary1990 budget figures, the major sales andmarketing budget items were media adver-tising (6% of sales and marketing budget),catalogue and other sales tools (43%),postage (10%), telephone (6%), and travelagent commission (18%). Though the pro-portion of total sales revenue actuallyspent ‘in country’ at destinations is notestimated, the revenue allocated to landtours represents less than half of total sales.

Similarly, Brown et al. (1995) estimatethat 40% of foreign visitor expenditure fortrips to the Hwange and Mana PoolsNational Parks in Zimbabwe is lost to thecountry because of international air travelcosts. Noland (1988) in Lindberg (1991)provides a breakdown of trip costs for aMountain Travel African trek. Of theUS$4105 trip price, US$150 (4%) wasprofit, US$1125 (27%) went to administra-tion and commissions, US$350 (9%) wentto the trip leader, US$350 (9%) paid forhotels, and US$2130 (52%) went to fieldcosts, such as the inbound operator andpark entrance fees. In this case, more thanhalf of the trip cost was spent in countryfor field costs and hotels. However, airfareis not included in the price, and inclusionmay reduce the in-country proportion toless than half. The catalogue alone for onenature tourism operator cost US$350,000 toproduce. When divided by the number ofclients who booked tours, the average costcame to US$116.67 per tourist.

In order to understand the issue of leak-age, and the associated concept of multipli-ers, a brief description of economic flows isprovided here. Tourism’s economic contri-bution depends not only on how much

366 K. Lindberg

comes into the region of interest (a country,a state/province/county, or a local commu-nity), but also on how much of what comesin stays in the region, thereby producingmultiplier effects. The impacts of tourism,or any economic activity, can be groupedinto three categories: direct, indirect andinduced. Direct impacts are those arisingfrom the initial tourism spending, such asmoney spent at a restaurant. The restaurantbuys goods and services (inputs) fromother businesses, thereby generating indi-rect impacts. In addition, the restaurantemployees spend part of their wages to buyvarious goods and services, thereby gener-ating induced impacts. Of course, if therestaurant purchases the goods and ser-vices from outside the region, then themoney provides no indirect impact to theregion, and leaks away. Figure 23.1 is asimplified illustration of some of theseimpacts and leakages.

A consistent finding of economic impactstudies, particularly in developing coun-

tries, is the high level of leakage. Much ofthe initial tourist expenditure leaves thedestination country, and especially the des-tination site itself, to pay for importedgoods and services used in the tourismindustry. The following examples are esti-mates of the percentage of tourism spend-ing leaking away from destination countryeconomies (Smith and Jenner, 1992; Brownet al., 1995; Brandon, 1996; Sinclair andStabler, 1997, p. 141; Lindberg, 1998;Mowforth and Munt, 1998, p. 194; and ref-erences cited within these sources):

• 70% for the average Caribbean country(up to 90% in the Bahamas, as low as37% in Jamaica),

• 70% in Nepal,• 60% in Thailand,• 55% for the typical developing country,• 55% in The Gambia,• 53% for Zimbabwe,• 45% in Costa Rica,• 45% in St Lucia.

Economic Impacts 367

Fig. 23.1. Impacts and leakages.

More than 90% of tourism spending isthought to leak away from communitiesnear most nature tourism sites. For exam-ple, Baez and Fernandez (1992) estimatethat less than 6% of the income generatedby tourism at Tortuguero National Park inCosta Rica accrues to the local communi-ties. Similar figures have been estimatedfor the Annapurna region of Nepal (Panos,1997) and lower figures for whale-watchingin Baja California, Mexico (Dedina andYoung, 1997). In Tangkoko DuaSudara inIndonesia, the benefit distribution is: 47%to the major tour company, 44% to hotels,and only 7% to guides (of which the headreserve guard gets 20%). Guides and foodare usually brought from the provincialcapital, so few benefits are retained at thevillage level (Kinnaird and O’Brien, 1996,p. 70). Box 23.1 provides a further exampleof linkages and leakages at a lodge inZimbabwe.

The wide variation in leakage estimatesacross sites is partly a result of differingassumptions, definitions and methodsused. However, it also is affected by thesize and sophistication of the economybeing evaluated (and thus also by its geo-graphic scope), the type of tourists andtourism development, and the policies andefforts of individual tourism businesses.Smaller economies generally will havemore leakage because a lower diversity ofgoods and services is produced in themthan in large economies.

The issue of leakage is very complex,and comparisons across sites and types oftrips can be misleading. In addition, theultimate level of local economic benefitdepends not only on the level of leakage,but also on the amount of spending. It isconventional wisdom that small-scaletourism development involves less leakagethan does large-scale tourism, and there is

368 K. Lindberg

Box 23.1. Mana Pools Lodge.

Brown et al. (1995) estimate the distribution of revenues for trips involving the Mana Pools Lodge inZimbabwe. The following figures show how revenues from a typical Harare–Mana Pools–Harare tripcosting US$700 are used to purchase various local/national and international inputs (trip cost does notinclude international airfare to Harare). The leakage column shows the percentage of payment for eachitem that leaks away from the Zimbabwean economy.

Leakage as %Item Cost (US$) of item cost

Retail agent commission 140 72Staff 82 0Food/drink 68 2Administrative overhead 60 0Advertising and marketing 60 80Repairs and maintenance 47 24Energy 42 43Depreciation 28 43Communications 5 0Insurance 5 0Housekeeping 3 0Freight and transport 1 50Printing and stationery 1 2Travela 1 20Taxes 27 0Profit 130 0Total 700 27Of the total leakage, slightly more than half, in dollar terms, results from commissions.

a Though not specified in the report, this presumably represents staff travel.

empirical evidence from various studiessupporting this assertion (Lindberg andEnriquez, 1994, pp. 60–61). However,small-scale tourism typically also involvesless visitor expenditure, such that the totaleconomic impact may be less than that forlarge-scale tourism. This phenomenon isillustrated by the Ecuadorean AmazonNapo region described by Wunder (1998)citing the work of Drumm (1991). Theupper Napo region received US$357,000per year in local income from touristspending of US$1,340,000 per year. Due toa higher level of leakage, the exclusive andpristine lower Napo region received lesslocal income (US$339,000 per year) despitehigher tourist spending (US$3,860,000 peryear).

On the other hand, Wunder (1998) pre-sents the case of the Madre de Dios regionin the Peruvian Amazon, based on Groomet al. (1991). In this case, there is a rela-tively high local share (25%) in tourismexpenditure in the ‘backpacker’ area ofPuerto Maldonado, and a relatively lowlocal share (11%) in the pristine but remoteManu Biosphere Reserve. Nonetheless,Manu generates so much more tourismrevenue than does Puerto Maldonado(US$1,700,000 vs. US$172,000, respectively)that it also generates more local income(US$192,695 vs. US$42,910, respectively),despite having higher levels of leakage(lower local share).

Estimating Economic Impacts:Concepts and Methods

This section discusses the most commonapproaches for estimating economic impactswithin the ecotourism context. An issuethat arises in each of these approaches isthat the definition of ecotourism needs tobe operationalized, i.e. to be defined suchthat a specific person/activity can be classi-fied either as an ecotourist/ecotourism oras a general tourist/tourism, with ‘general’being all tourism not defined as eco-tourism. This is difficult to do, and mostclassifications are subject to debate.

The first, and crudest, approach is to

adjust impact data for tourism as a wholeusing the proportion of all tourism that canbe considered ecotourism. For example,the WTO forecasts that the East Asia andPacific region will receive 229 millioninternational arrivals by 2010. They alsoestimate that nature tourism generates 7%of all international travel expenditure.Assuming faster growth for nature tourismthan for general tourism, this proportionmay reach 10% by 2010; it is also assumedthat the nature tourism proportion ofexpenditure equals the proportion ofarrivals. Using these figures, Lindberg et al.(1998) estimated that there would be 22.9million (229 million multiplied by 10%)international nature/ecotourism arrivals tothe region in 2010. Though this example isbased on arrivals, similar calculations canbe undertaken for expenditure, employ-ment or other variables. Such estimates areclearly rough, given the challenge of deriv-ing a reasonable estimate of the proportionof all tourism that is constituted by eco-tourism. However, this approach is oftenthe only available basis for estimates at thenational or regional level.

The second approach goes to the oppo-site spatial extreme and focuses on job cre-ation or other variables at the site level,where a site often involves a natural areaand surrounding communities. This approachis typically based on surveys of householdsand/or tourism businesses. For example,Lindberg and Enriquez (1994) used house-hold surveys to estimate the percentage ofhouseholds in four Belizean communitiesthat benefited from tourism in variousways. Results are shown in Tables 23.2 and23.3. A discussion of these results withinthe context of each community is providedin Lindberg and Enriquez (1994) andLindberg et al. (1996). Although the tablesfocus on tourism-related jobs in general, itis also possible to focus on specific servicesor products. For example, Lindberg andEnriquez (1994) also report that tourism-related handicraft sales in Maya Center gen-erated an average of BZ$2336 (US$1168)per household for the year ending March1993. This revenue is particularly impres-sive when one considers that Belize GDP

Economic Impacts 369

per capita was BZ$3124 at the time, and thefact that most of the materials used to con-struct the crafts were collected locally.

Site-level approaches such as this onetypically address the definitional issue byassuming that all visitation in the area, andthus all tourism-related economic activity,is ecotourism. This assumption will bequite reasonable in some cases (such asMaya Center from the above example), yetmay be less tenable in others (such as SanPedro). However, the site level is arguablythe most interesting one, as much debatefocuses on the extent to which ecotourismcreates employment in local communities.Nonetheless, the site-level approach fre-quently suffers from several limitations.First, there is often interest in estimatingindirect and induced impacts (multipliereffects), and the data necessary to do so arerarely available at such disaggregated lev-els. In developed countries, such data maybe available down to the state/province or

county/shire level. However, in developingcountries, they are rarely available at thesubnational level. Thus, though one canidentify perceived dependence of non-tourism jobs on tourism (as in the Belizeexample), there are typically little or nodata available to verify this dependence.

Second, and related to the first, the site-level survey approach often provides datasimply on number of jobs, while the ana-lyst may also be interested in income, prof-its, taxes paid to government, and othervariables. In theory, such informationcould be gathered through a survey of resi-dents and businesses. However, in practice,respondents may be unwilling to provideit. Most countries have secondary data, ofvarying quality, for these variables, and themethods used to estimate multiplier effectsincorporate such data and provide the rele-vant estimates. Third, as noted in the caseof San Pedro, not all tourism may reason-ably be considered ecotourism. Unlike

370 K. Lindberg

Table 23.2. Tourism’s direct local economic impact (percentage of households receiving each benefit, asreported by respondents).

Community

Type of economic San Pedro Caye Caulker Gales Point Maya Centerbenefit from tourism (n = 75)a (n = 31) (n = 34) (n = 12)

Wage-paying job 41 19 21 8Other job 5 10 0 50Other income-generating activity 0 0 3 25

One or more ofthese benefitsb 44 26 24 67

a n, number of households surveyed in each community.b May be less than sum of individual benefits because some households receive multiple benefits.

Table 23.3. Tourism’s additional local economic impact (percentage of non-tourism jobs that depend ontourism, as reported by respondents).

Community

San Pedro Caye Caulker Gales Point Maya CenterLevel of dependence (n = 75)a (n = 31) (n = 34) (n = 12)

Totally dependent 22 28 22 20Partially dependent 48 30 12 30Total 70 58 34 50

a n, number of households surveyed in each community.

urban destinations, where a given hotelguest might be either a person travelling onbusiness or a person visiting a culturalmonument, ecotourism destinations areoften geographically remote, with visitorsthere solely to view natural (and possiblycultural) attractions. None the less, manylocations, especially regional centres, caterto both ecotourists and general tourists,such that a simple count of hotel employ-ees may overestimate the impact of eco-tourism in particular.

These limitations can be overcome byundertaking more complex analyses. Themost common technique within generaltourism is input–output (IO) analysis (e.g.WTO, 1985; Fletcher, 1989; Briassoulis,1991; Wagner, 1997). IO begins with theconstruction of a transactions table thatshows how much each industry, or sector,produces and how much it pays to othersectors to buy the inputs necessary to makeits products. The transactions table is thenconverted into the technical coefficientsmatrix that shows the same informationper dollar of sales (reference is made hereto dollars, but the technique is the sameregardless of currency). To identify indirectand induced effects, additional mathemati-cal manipulation is necessary to createwhat is known as the Leontief inversematrix. Readers interested in details of thisprocess can refer to an IO text, such asMiller and Blair (1985); a numerical exam-ple for tourism in Belize is provided inLindberg and Enriquez (1994).

The calculation and use of multipliers issubject to substantial confusion, in partdue to the numerous types of multipliers(relatedly, there is confusion in terminol-ogy; this chapter uses simplified terminol-ogy for ease of reading, including generalreference to multipliers rather than differ-entiation between multipliers and coeffi-cients). One dimension of this multipliertypology is based on the variables forwhich multipliers are calculated. Prom-oters of tourism, or other industries, oftenfocus on the sales multiplier because it isinevitably larger than the income multi-plier. However, sales per se are usually notof interest. Rather, the amount of personal

income (payments to households) gener-ated is of interest, so the income multipliertends to be the most useful from the policyviewpoint. Multipliers for other variables,including employment, can also be calcu-lated. Another dimension is based on whatis included (endogenous) within themodel. For example, some multipliersexclude (treat as exogenous) wages and/orprofits. Such multipliers are conservativebecause they omit induced impacts.

To determine the total impact of tourism,it is necessary to identify not only theimpact of each dollar spent (indicated bythe multiplier), but also the number of dol-lars spent. This can be done either by askingtourists how much they spend or by askingbusinesses how much they earn fromtourists. When the region of interest attractsboth ecotourists and general tourists, thenonly spending by ecotourists should be usedto calculate ecotourism’s impact. When agiven person visits both ecotourism andgeneral tourism attractions, the researchermust determine how to allocate the person’sexpenditure across these two activities.Johnson and Moore (1993) illustrate onemethod for allocation and discuss the moregeneral issue of treating expenditureswithin a with-or-without framework thatalso recognizes substitution behaviour.Visitor spending is then broken down intothe sectors present in the IO model. Theseamounts are multiplied by the relevant mul-tipliers to derive impact estimates.

Basic IO can be extended in the form of‘social accounting matrices’ or SAMs,which provide more detail regarding thedistribution of monetary flows, such as theamount of income generated in differentincome categories within society (Pyatt andRound, 1985; Pyatt, 1988). Due to termino-logical inconsistency, several IO analysesmay be more appropriately viewed as par-tial or full SAM analyses. Numerous IOstudies have been undertaken for generaltourism and, to a lesser degree, ecotourismor recreation at natural areas. The followingexamples illustrate applications and esti-mates, from various developing and devel-oped countries. Lindberg and Enriquez(1994) used IO to estimate multipliers and

Economic Impacts 371

economic impacts for tourism in the coun-try of Belize. An estimate of US$100.25million per year was used for tourismspending (the direct impact). Combiningthis figure with the IO model led to an esti-mate of US$211 million in sales each yearthroughout the Belizean economy due totourism. More importantly, tourism gener-ated US$41 million each year in paymentsto households, mostly in the form of wages(both figures are based on inclusion ofinduced impacts). Wagner (1997) devel-oped a SAM model for the Guaraqueçabaregion of Brazil. Based on an estimate of7500 visitor days per year in the region,tourism was estimated to generate annuallyUS$244,575 in output (sales), US$19,425 inlabour payments (income), and 32 jobs(full-time equivalent).

Powell and Chalmers (1995) used visitorsurveys and IO analysis to estimate theimpact of visitor spending at two nationalparks in New South Wales, Australia. Thestudy generated an estimate of AU$3.2 mil-lion in annual visitor expenditure plusAU$342,000 in annual agency expenditureat Dorrigo National Park (AU$1.00 ≅US$0.55). Accounting for indirect andinduced impacts, it was estimated thatDorrigo, with approximately 160,000 visi-tors per year, contributes almost AU$4.0million in regional output, AU$1.5 millionin regional household income, and pay-ments to 71 employees. These represent7–8% of regional totals for each category.

Several evaluations of the impact of nat-ural area visitation have been made in theUSA, though many are unpublished. Forexample, Smyth (1999) estimates that visi-tors to Glacier National Park generatedUS$74 million in sales, US$41 million inincome and 2531 jobs in 1990. This repre-sented 4% of the region’s income and 7%of the region’s jobs (cf. Stynes, 1992; Stynesand Rutz, 1995; Moore and Barthlow,1997). As noted in the introduction, localeconomic impacts will be highly variableacross sites, and the above figures forGlacier are not matched by sites with lowerlevels of visitation and opportunities forvisitor spending. For example, Dawson etal. (1993) found that the economic impact

of visitation at Great Basin National Parkrepresented only 0.5% of output and 0.7%of employment in their study region.

Before turning to extensions of the basicmultiplier concept, and its applicationthrough IO analysis, it is worth stressingthat IO analysis rests on several assump-tions. Although a detailed discussion ofthose assumptions is beyond the scope ofthis chapter, Box 23.2 briefly describessome of them to help readers better under-stand and evaluate the IO method and esti-mates. Moreover, multiplier analysis hasfrequently been applied and/or reported inmisleading ways. Crompton (1995) pro-vides a good summary of misapplications,though many other critiques have appearedin the literature (e.g. Archer, 1984; Hughes,1994). Crompton notes that sales multipli-ers are often provided, when income multi-pliers are more meaningful (discussedabove in the context of the Lindberg andEnriquez, 1994, study in Belize). In addi-tion, employment multipliers may be mis-represented or misunderstood in so far asadditional visitor spending may lead tomore work for current employees (e.g. ashift from part-time to full-time) rather thanhiring of new employees.

Moreover, ‘incremental’ or ‘ratio’ multi-pliers are sometimes used when ‘normal’multipliers are appropriate; for example,an income multiplier that includesinduced impact should be calculated as(direct + indirect + induced income)/(visi-tor expenditure), rather than as (direct +indirect + induced income)/(direct income).More generally, although multipliers andimpact estimates are often used loosely forillustrative purposes, as in this chapter,any calculations or policy decisions basedon them should involve reviewing themethods and assumptions used by the orig-inal analyst.

Estimating Economic Impacts:Extensions

Basic IO modelling remains perhaps themost common tool in tourism economicimpact analysis, and holds promise also

372 K. Lindberg

within ecotourism, especially when mostor all of the tourism within the region ofinterest can be viewed as ecotourism.Nonetheless, there is the opportunity, andsometimes the need, to extend or replaceIO modelling with alternative approaches.The first set of ‘extensions’ utilizes thebasic IO model to examine particularissues of interest.

As noted above in the discussion of leak-age, there has been debate within eco-tourism (and tourism in general) regardingthe desirability of various forms of develop-ment. For example, is small scale betterthan large scale, basic better than luxury,and locally owned better than foreignowned? Are ‘budget’ travellers better than‘luxury’ travellers, because the former buymore local products even though they spend

less in total? Though these issues are com-plex, the information provided by multi-plier analysis can provide importantfeedback. For example, it is well recognizedthat different tourist segments spend differ-ent amounts of money while on holiday(McCool and Reilly, 1993; Pearce andWilson, 1995; Leones et al., 1998). Multipliermodels also allow one to evaluate whether,for a given dollar of spending, one segmenthas more of an impact than another, withthe difference due to the pattern of expendi-ture. For example, Liu (1986) found thatJapanese visitors to Hawaii generated higherincome multipliers than did visitors fromother source markets, a result attributed toproportionally higher spending on retailgoods and lower spending on hotels andrestaurants (cf. West and Gamage, 1997).

Economic Impacts 373

Box 23.2. IO assumptions.

IO analysis relies on several assumptions concerning the structure of production processes within theeconomy. These assumptions include the following:

1. All businesses within each sector produce a single, homogeneous product or service, and the inputprocedures used in the production process are identical. That is, the economy should be disaggregatedso that each sector is producing a single good or service. In practice, disaggregation is often performedfor the sectors of particular interest, in this case tourism, and aggregation of other sectors is accepted.2. An increase of production will always lead to purchase of inputs in the ratios shown in the technicalcoefficients matrix. In technical terms, the production function is linear and homogeneous. This assump-tion precludes economies of scale; for IO analysis to be accurate, a business will always use the sameproportion of inputs regardless of how much it grows. As with the first assumption, this restriction canbe overcome in part by using different sectors for businesses of different sizes. In the case of tourism,this could mean creating sectors for small, medium and large hotels.3. When households are included in the analysis, their spending patterns (consumption functions) mustalso be linear and homogeneous. Again, this restriction can be overcome in part by disaggregatinghouseholds into different groups.4. The structure of the economy will not change. Many IO models are static in nature. They are basedon data from a single year yet are often used to estimate impacts in other years. It is possible to con-struct dynamic IO models, but the data and analysis requirements are substantial.5. If the analyst is interested in forecasting the effect of future increases in final demand (e.g. visitorexpenditure), there must be unemployed resources available to be brought into the sector as inputs. Thiswill often be the case because analysts make such forecasts specifically to identify opportunities forusing unemployed resources like labour. However, there will be some cases in which resources are con-strained, such as capital or skilled labour. In these cases, the resources will need to be drawn from othersectors or imported, and an unadjusted model will overestimate benefits.

A fuller discussion of IO assumptions can be found in the various general references on IO analysis, aswell as the references to IO applications in tourism (e.g. Bulmer-Thomas, 1982; Miller and Blair, 1985;WTO, 1985). The assumptions are often violated in reality. Nonetheless, the fundamental structure of IOtheory generally holds true, and economists have come to rely on IO despite the obvious breaches ofassumptions.

The second utilization of multiplieranalysis involves modelling policy effects.Because IO analysis quantitatively modelsthe structure of the economy, it can be usedto model changes in that structure, andthus the impact of selected policies andprogrammes. For example, Lindberg andEnriquez (1994) found that approximately50% of food and beverage purchases by thehotel and restaurant sectors in Belize werefor imported products. Using the IO tables,they estimated that an increase in localpurchases from 50% to 75% (a decrease inimports from 50% to 25%) would generatean economy-wide increase in sales ofalmost US$9 million and in income ofUS$1.4 million (cf. Telfer and Wall, 1996;Wagner, 1997).

Another policy issue is the economicimpact of increases in entrance or othertourism-related fees. For example, theCosta Rican National Chamber of Tourism(CANATUR) estimated that national parkfee increases led to reduced visitation and,thereby, a national income loss of US$65million in the mid-1990s (Inman et al.,1998). As noted by Lindberg and Aylward(1999), the reduced visitation was probablydue to a variety of factors, including manyunrelated to fee increases. In another ex-ample, Krakauer (1998, pp. 26–27) describeshow increased fees and limitations onexpedition numbers for climbing MtEverest in Nepal led to a shift from Nepalto Tibet, thereby leaving hundreds of sher-pas out of work. However, the shift turnedout to be caused by the limitations, ratherthan the fee. A further increase in the basefee from US$50,000 to US$70,000 pergroup did not seem to deter groups fromNepal. Despite this example, and many lessextreme ones, substantial fees generallywill have some effect on visitation levels.Multiplier analysis can be used to estimatehow resulting reductions in visitor spend-ing will affect jobs, income and saleswithin the economy.

The following extensions involve moresignificant departures from the base IOapproach, and generally require significantadditional data and/or mathematical devel-opment. Therefore, they may be beyond the

range of many ecotourism applications.Alternatively, the additional informationprovided may not outweigh the cost relativeto simpler techniques, especially given thelow level of inter-industry linkages in localeconomies. However, they are discussedhere briefly given their potential value inthe ecotourism context. The first extensioninvolves applying or adapting IO models toa sub-regional level. Although IO analysiscan (and, ideally, should) involve substan-tial primary data collection, cost considera-tions mean that many IO models dependheavily on secondary (existing) data. Thesedata are usually available only at geographiclevels such as counties/shires or largerunits, which are broader than the local leveltypically of interest in ecotourism. The chal-lenge, then, is to develop an IO model at thesub-regional level. Robison (1997) illustrateshow this might be done, both with respectto mathematical model development andwith respect to using sub-regional datasources to adjust regional (in this case,county)-level IO data.

Simpler alternatives to IO at the sub-regional level include economic base orKeynesian income multiplier methods.Conversely, computable general equilibrium(CGE) models offer a more theoreticallyappealing, but also more computationallydifficult, method for estimating impacts(Adams and Parmenter (1995) and Zhou etal. (1997) illustrate recent applications ingeneral tourism). As with IO models, CGEmodels typically are estimated only forlarge areas, due to the data and expertiseneeded to estimate them. However, Taylorand Adelman (1996) illustrate how CGE(and SAM) can be applied at the villagelevel in developing countries (see alsoRobinson, 1989 for an overview of CGE, aswell as IO and SAM models).

Lastly, the basic structure of IO, whichshows linkages between different parts ofthe economy, can be extended to showlinkages between the economy and theenvironment. For example, Johnson andBennett (1981) incorporated biological oxy-gen demand, total suspended solids, andcarbon dioxide into their IO model ofDarlington county, South Carolina, USA

374 K. Lindberg

(see also Borden et al., 1996 for a simplerevaluation of resource impacts within thetourism sector).

Summary

This chapter has reviewed concepts andmethods for estimating ecotourism’s eco-nomic impacts. Although there has beencontinuing controversy surrounding impactestimates, it is clear that tourism is a majoreconomic force around the world. Moreover,economic impact, and especially job creationin communities living near natural areas,plays a critical role in the ecotourism context.

The issue of leakage is discussed andillustrated using examples. Though effortsto reduce leakage are worth pursuing, thedominant focus on this issue may distractattention away from a more fundamentalissue: given the economic realities withinthe ecotourism system, modified to theextent possible through efforts to reduceleakage, does ecotourism remain a desir-able activity from the perspective of joband income generation? Although eco-tourism’s benefits may be frequently over-stated, it is likely that the answer to thisquestion is, in most cases, ‘yes’.

In calculations of tourism’s economicimpacts, IO has been the ‘workhorse’method. It will probably remain importantin general tourism, as well as gain impor-

tance in ecotourism, given its ability toevaluate linkages and its ease of use rela-tive to other approaches, such as CGE.Nonetheless, the Taylor and Adelman(1996) examples illustrate that thereremains potential to apply CGE in the con-text of rural communities involved in eco-tourism. More generally, it is hoped thatthis chapter has illustrated the complexityof issues in economic impact estimation,and the value of utilizing models such asIO to better understand the issues and, ulti-mately, to guide ecotourism policy.

Despite the focus of this chapter (andmuch policy debate) on job creation, thereare several other economic impacts thatshould be considered in ecotourism. Inaddition, there are important non-eco-nomic impacts, including impacts fallinginto the traditional categories of environ-mental and social (see Chapters 24 and 25).It is vital to incorporate all of these impactsinto decisions involving ecotourism if it isto live up to its ideals.

Acknowledgement

This chapter was written while the authorwas at the Institute of Transport Economics,Oslo, Norway. The author thanks EdwardWaters for comments on the draft manu-script.

Economic Impacts 375

References

Adams, P.D. and Parmenter, B.R. (1995) An applied general equilibrium analysis of the economiceffects of tourism in a quite small, quite open economy. Applied Economics 27, 985–994.

Archer, B.H. (1984) Economic impact: misleading multiplier. Annals of Tourism Research 11,517–518.

Baez, A.L. and Fernandez, L. (1992) Ecotourism as an economic activity: the case of tortuguero inCosta Rica. Paper presented at the First World Congress of Tourism and the Environment,Belize.

Borden, G.W., Fletcher, R.R. and Harris, T.R. (1996) Economic, resource, and fiscal impacts of visitorson Washoe County, Nevada. Journal of Travel Research 34, 75–80.

Brandon, K. (1996) Ecotourism and Conservation: a Review of Key Issues. World Bank EnvironmentDepartment Paper No. 033. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Brandon, K. (1997) Policy and practical considerations in land-use strategies for biodiversity conser-vation. In: Kramer, R., von Schaik, C. and Johnson, J. (eds) Last Stand: Protected Areas and theDefense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Brandon, K. and Wells, M. (1992) Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas. WorldDevelopment 20, 557–570.

Briassoulis, H. (1991) Methodological issues: tourism input-output analysis. Annals of TourismResearch 18, 485–495.

Brown, G., Ward, M. and Jansen, D.J. (1995) Economic value of National Parks in Zimbabwe: Hwangeand Mana pools. Report prepared for the ZWMLEC project, coordinated by the World Bank.

Bulmer-Thomas, V. (1982) Input-Output Analysis in Developing Countries: Source, Methods andApplications. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Crompton, J.L. (1995) Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events: eleven sources of mis-application. Journal of Sport Management 9, 14–35.

Dawson, S.A., Blahna, D.J. and Keith, J.E. (1993) Expected and actual regional economic impacts ofGreat Basin National Park. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11, 45–59.

Dedina, S. and Young, E. (1997) Conservation and development in the Gray Whale Lagoons of BajaCalifornia Sur, Mexico. http://www.scilib.ucsd.edu/sio/guide/z-serge.html

Drumm, A. (1991) Integrated impact assessment of nature tourism in Ecuador’s Amazon region.Study for FEPROTUR-NATURALEZA, Quito.

Fletcher, J.E. (1989) Input-output analysis and tourism impact studies. Annals of Tourism Research16, 514–529.

Groom, M.J. et al. (1991) Tourism as a sustained use of wildlife: a case study of Madre de Dios, south-eastern Peru. In: Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H. (eds) Neotropical Wildlife Use andConservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hughes, H.L. (1994) Tourism multiplier studies: a more judicious approach. Tourism Management15, 403–406.

Inman et al. (1998) The case of ecotourism in Costa Rica. In: von Moltke, K. et al. (eds) GlobalProduct Chains: Northern Consumers, Southern Producers, and Sustainability. United NationsEnvironment Program (UNEP), Nairobi.

Johnson, M.H. and Bennett, J.T. (1981) Regional environmental and economic impact evaluation: aninput-output approach. Regional Science and Urban Economics 11, 215–230.

Johnson, R.L. and Moore, E. (1993) Tourism impact estimation. Annals of Tourism Research 20,279–288.

Kinnaird, M.F. and O’Brien, T.G. (1996) Ecotourism in the Tangkoko Duasudara Nature reserve: open-ing pandora’s box. Oryx 30, 65–73.

Krakauer, J. (1998) Into Thin Air. Anchor, New York.Laarman, J.G. and Gregersen, H.M. (1996) Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. Tourism

Management 17(4), 247–254.Leones, J., Colby, S. and Crandall, K. (1998) Tracking expenditures of the elusive nature tourists in

southeastern Arizona. Journal of Travel Research 36, 56–64.Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits.

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Lindberg, K. (1998) Economic aspects of ecotourism. In: Lindberg, K., Epler Wood, M. and

Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. Ecotourism Society,North Bennington, Vermont.

Lindberg, K. and Aylward, B. (1999) Price responsiveness in the developing country nature tourismcontext: review and Costa Rican case study. Journal of Leisure Research 31(3), 281–299.

Lindberg, K. and Enriquez, J. (1994) An Analysis of Ecotourism’s Economic Contribution toConservation and Development in Belize, Vol. 2. Comprehensive Report. World Wildlife Fund,Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996) Ecotourism questioned: case studies from Belize.Annals of Tourism Research 23, 543–562.

Lindberg, K., Furze, B., Staff, M. and Black, R. (1998) Ecotourism in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issuesand Outlook. Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Liu, J.C. (1986) Relative economic contributions of visitor groups in Hawaii. Journal of TravelResearch 3, 2–9.

McCool, S.F. and Reilly, M. (1993) Benefit segmentation analysis of state park visitor setting prefer-ences and behavior. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11, 1–14.

Miller, R.E. and Blair, P.D. (1985) Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Moore, R.L. and Barthlow, K. (1997) The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance Trails. Reportprepared for the US Department of the Interior National Parks Service.

376 K. Lindberg

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World.Routledge, London.

Noland, D. (1988) Why this trek cost $3,890. New York Times 4 December, p. 14.Panos (1997) Ecotourism. http://www.oneworld.org/panos/panos_eco2.htmlPearce, D.G. and Wilson, P.M. (1995) Wildlife-viewing tourists in New Zealand. Journal of Travel

Research 34, 19–26.Powell, R. and Chalmers, L. (1995) Regional Economic Impact: Gibraltar Range and Dorrigo National

Parks. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales.Pyatt, G. (1988) A SAM approach to modeling. Journal of Policy Modeling 10, 327–352.Pyatt, G. and Round, J. (eds) (1985) Social Accounting Matrices: a Basis for Planning. The World

Bank Press, Washington, DC.Robinson, S. (1989) Multisectoral models. In: Chenery, H. and Srinivasan, T.N. (eds) Handbook of

Development Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 886–947.Robison, M.H. (1997) Community input-output models for rural area analysis with an example from

central Idaho. Annals of Regional Science 31, 325–351.Sinclair, M.T. and Stabler, M. (1997) The Economics of Tourism. Routledge, London.Smith, C. and Jenner, P. (1992) The leakage of foreign exchange earnings from tourism. Travel and

Tourism Analyst 3, 52–66.Smyth, D. (1999) Economic Impact of National Park Visitor Spending–Gleaning Visitor Spending

Patterns from Secondary Data, Glacier National Park – 1990. Department of Park, Recreationand Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Sorenson, R. (1991) Overseas Adventure Travel, Inc. Case Study 9-391-068. Harvard Business School,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Stynes, D.J. (1992) Visitor Spending and the Local Economy: Great Smokey Mountains NationalPark. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, EastLansing, Michigan.

Stynes, D. and Rutz, E. (1995) Regional Economic Impacts of Mammoth Cave National Park.Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, EastLansing, Michigan.

Taylor, J.E. and Adelman, I. (1996) Village Economies: the Design, Estimation, and Use of VillagewideEconomic Models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Telfer, D.J. and Wall, G. (1996) Linkages between tourism and food production. Annals of TourismResearch 23, 635–653.

Van Sickle, K. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1998) Budgets, pricing policies and user fees in Canadian parks’tourism. Tourism Management 19, 225–235.

Wagner, J.E. (1997) Estimating the impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 592–608.Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.West, G.R. and Gamage, A. (1997) Differential multipliers for tourism in Victoria. Tourism Economics

3, 57–68.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1985) Tourism’s Place in the Input-Output Tables of the

National Economy. WTO, Madrid.World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (1999) Travel and Tourism’s Economic Impact.

http://www.wttc.org/Wunder, S. (1996) Ecoturismo, Ingresos Locales y Conservación: El Caso de Cuyabeno, Ecuador.

Unión Mundial Para La Naturaleza (UICN/IUCN), Quito.Wunder, S. (1998) Forest Conservation Through Ecotourism Incomes? A Case Study from the

Ecuadorean Amazon Region, CIFOR Special Paper. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Zhou, D., Yanagida, J.F., Chakravorty, U. and Leung, P. (1997) Estimating economic impacts from

tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 76–89.

Economic Impacts 377

Chapter 24

Environmental Impacts

R. BuckleyInternational Centre for Ecotourism Research, School of Environmental and Applied Science,Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Parklands Drive, Southport, Queensland, Australia.

Introduction

The impacts of ecotourism depend on whatecotourism is. Definitions and characteris-tics have been reviewed extensively in thisvolume (Chapters 1–5) and elsewhere(Buckley, 1994; Honey, 1999; Fennell,1999). The critical issue is that ecotourismshould involve deliberate steps to minimizeimpacts, through choice of activity, equip-ment, location and timing; group size; edu-cation and training; and operationalenvironmental management. Under thesecircumstances, which are regrettably moreof an ideal than a practical reality in mostcases, the impacts of ecotourism shouldtherefore be those of nature tourism andrecreation which incorporates best-practiceenvironmental management; i.e. sustainablenature-based tourism with an environmen-tal education component. Ecotourism has avariety of interrelated impacts on a destina-tion, though for discussion purposes theseare often divided into specific categories.Economic and socio-cultural effects areconsidered in Chapters 23 and 25 respec-tively, and the intent of this chapter is tofocus on environmental impacts.

As with any form of tourism, ecotourismtypically involves three components: travelto and from the site; accommodation onsite or on tour; and specific recreational

activities that may involve local travel byvarious means. Accommodation may beintegrated into the recreational activity, asin an overnight backcountry hiking tour ora stay in a backcountry ecolodge; or it maybe quite distinct, as when the tourist staysin a lodge or local accommodation, andtakes day tours. There are broader environ-mental issues relating to the impacts oflong-distance air and ground travel to andfrom an ecotourism destination, and toaccommodation in urban hotels before andafter an ecotour (Anderek, 1995; Stabler,1997; McLaren, 1998; Mowforth and Munt,1998; Hall and Lew, 1999; Honey, 1999).However, these are beyond the scope ofthis chapter, and are considered only inthose situations where they are integratedinto the recreational experience.

From an ecological perspective, it iscritical to note that the impacts of eco-tourism on the natural environmentdepend on the ecosystem as well as theactivity. Different activities, under variousmanagement regimes, cause differentimpacts in different ecosystems; and theecological significance of these impacts dif-fers greatly among ecosystems. For exam-ple, damage to plants by hikers’ boots is farmore significant on an alpine meadow thanin subtropical rainforests, but weed seedsand soil pathogens in mud on hikers’ boots

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 379

are more significant in rainforest thanalpine environments. Small alpine lakes ordesert waterholes are far more easily pol-luted by human waste than an ocean or alarge turbid river. Human voices can be amajor disturbance to fauna in forests andwoodland, but not on bare mountain-tops.

The impacts of ecotourism can be classi-fied by many different criteria: by the typeof activity, such as hiking or helitouring; bythe type of ecosystem, such as forest or feld-mark; by ecosystem component, such aswildlife or water quality; or by the scale,duration and significance of impact. In addi-tion, some types of impact are very com-monplace, direct and obvious, such astrampling of vegetation. Others are indirectand far less obvious, so it is largelyunknown how significant they may be. Forexample, snowmobiles compress snow,which then provides less insulation, so thesoil gets colder, which affects soil arthro-pods and microfauna. This in turn mayaffect vegetation and wildlife. Tourists maycarry pathogenic microorganisms in theirgut fauna, which may be leached into water-courses from human waste, and thencetransmitted by native wildlife to otherwatercourses where they are ingested byother people. Weeds spreading along hikingtracks may compete for insect pollinatorswith native plants, or may support herbivo-rous insects that also attack native plants,producing impacts well beyond the immedi-ate vicinity of the track. Repeated distur-bance to wildlife, from bears to bighornsheep, waders to whales, eagles to turtles,may interfere with their ability to feed andbreed, causing long-term population decline.Few of these more complex and often inad-vertent impacts have been studied in anydetail; few have even been recognized andidentified. There is now quite an extensiveliterature on impacts such as trampling,which are easy to quantify experimentally.However, very little is known about impactssuch as noise disturbance, soil and water-borne pathogens, and interference withplant and animal population dynamics andgenetics, which are likely to have far greaterecological significance.

Of necessity, this chapter presents more

detailed data for impacts that are moreheavily studied. Future research, however,would be more valuable if it focuses onless obvious impacts.

Major Impacts of Travel,Accommodation and Activities

Travel

Nature-based tourism often involves travelin a variety of motorized vehicles, by land,sea and air. In some cases there is littlealternative means of transport available, e.g.in a 1000-km four-wheel drive (4WD) safariacross central Australia. As long as mini-mal-impact practices are followed, this maystill be considered as ecotourism. In othercases, there is a readily available non-motorized alternative: hiking instead of anoff-road vehicle (ORV), skiing instead of asnowmobile, sea kayaking instead of a jetskior motorboat. We can distinguish between:

1. Cases where motorized transport is usedto reach a site for a low-impact activity; e.g.a boat shuttle for a sea kayak trip, or a carshuttle for a river rafting trip; 2. Cases where motorized travel is used totransport physically impaired clients whowould be unable to use an unmotorizedalternative, as in some boat and coachtours; and 3. Cases where using the motorized vehi-cle is in itself the recreational activity, as injetskis, jetboats, snowmobiles and ‘bash-the-bush’ 4WD tours.

Clearly category 3 is not ecotourism, whilecategories 1 and 2 may be, depending onthe definition adopted and the way the touris run.

Impacts, however, depend on how andwhere a vehicle is operated, not why.Roads and formed tracks, if not welldesigned and constructed, can interruptsurface drainage and cause soil erosion,sometimes on a massive scale. They causelocal vegetation clearance and can act asbarriers to some animals, particularlysmaller vertebrates and non-flying inverte-brates. Road verges provide a disturbed

380 R. Buckley

habitat often preferentially colonized byweeds. Mud on vehicle tyres may containweed seeds and fungal spores. Fast-movingvehicles cause roadkill, and engine andtyre noise can disturb animals a consider-able distance away. Vehicles driving off-track cut and crush the soil, damagevegetation, crush burrowing animals suchas crabs and worms, muddy streams atcreek crossings, and so on. Snowmobilescompact the snow, crushing buried plantsand the snow and subsnow tunnels madeby small mammals, and changing springsnowmelt patterns. Motorized boats andaircraft can cause widespread noise andvisual disturbance to wildlife. Even bal-loons may cause feeding wildlife herds toscatter. Boat engine exhausts cause air andwater pollution. Antifouling paints alsocause water pollution. Soil and vegetationdamage is common at launching and land-ing sites. Leaks or spills at helicopter andlight-aircraft refuelling depots can causesevere soil and water contamination.

Accommodation

Ecotourism accommodation may rangefrom the barely detectable overnightbivouac by the bushwalker or climber tolarge ecolodges and ecoresorts. The latterare simply hotels that have adopted bestprinciples and practices of environmentaldesign and management. Between theseextremes lie a wide range of accommoda-tion types: hiking tents, car tents, tentedcamps, yurt-like non-fixed accommoda-tions, huts, cabins and lodges. Some haveancillary infrastructure such as accessroads, car parks, maintenance plant, gener-ators and sewage treatment systems; othersdo not. Depending on scale and compo-nents, impacts may include:

• crushing or clearance of vegetation;• soil modifications; • introduction of weeds and pathogens; • water pollution from human waste,

spent washing and cleaning water,engine fuel and oil residues, and clean-ing products;

• air pollution from generator exhausts;

noise from machinery, vehicles andvoices;

• visual impacts; and • disturbance to wildlife through all of the

above, and through foodscraps and lit-ter, etc.

The most significant issues which apply forall scales and types of accommodation arelocation and degree of disturbance; accessand quarantine against weeds andpathogens; energy sources; disposal ofhuman waste and used washing water; andnoise.

Activities

Precisely which types of tourist activitymay constitute ecotourism, and under whatcircumstances, is always debatable. Criteriafor inclusion here are: (i) little or no fixedinfrastructure; and (ii) motorized vehicles,if any, used for transport only, not as theprimary recreational activity. Thus a groupof tourists travelling slowly in a 4WD toview and learn about wildlife may be con-sidered ecotourism, if other criteria are sat-isfied; whereas tourists driving a 4WDoff-road for the excitement of the drive,would not. The latter would more appro-priately be classified as adventure tourism.

There is a wide range of outdoor activi-ties that may variously be considered asoutdoor recreation, outdoor education, out-door sport, adventure tourism, or eco-tourism, depending on how they arecarried out. These include; abseiling, bird-watching, boating, bushwalking, canoeingand kayaking, climbing, fishing and hunt-ing, hang-gliding and parapenting, moun-tain biking, off-road driving and touring,photography, sailing and yachting, skiiing,whale-watching, white-water and black-water rafting, wildlife viewing, and otheractivities which take place in protectedareas, other public lands and natural envi-ronments. Some of these may use vehiclessuch as Sno-cats, snowmobiles, helicopters,balloons, floatplanes and other light air-craft and motorized boats. Others usehorses, mules, burros or llamas. Additionaloptions include mountain bikes, kayaks,

Environmental Impacts 381

rafts, sea kayaks, skis, etc. All of these,even hiking boots, leave some impact. Manyof these activities may also involve over-night camping, including cooking, heatingand washing, with associated impacts.

Type and Degree of Impacts fromEcotourism Activities

Soils

Tourist vehicles, livestock and hiking bothon and off trails can modify soils in a num-ber of ways, for example by removing litterand reducing organic matter and nutrientcontent; disintegrating soil aggregates;reducing porosity, permeability, penetrabil-ity and infiltration; and increasing surfacerunoff and erosion. Soil compaction canalso modify soil temperature profiles.These changes affect soil microbes andinvertebrates, plant roots and animal bur-rows; and these in turn affect abovegroundvegetation and animals.

The degree of impact depends on soiltype, slope, weather, vegetation cover andother factors. It also depends on the typeand scale of activity. Horses’ hooves typi-cally exert ground surface pressures of1000–4000 g per cm2, for example, com-pared with 1000–1700 g per cm2 for 4WDvehicles, 150–400 g per cm2 for hikers, and7–10 g per cm2 for snowmobiles (Liddle,1998). These values apply for steady pres-sure on level ground; values up to 10 timesgreater in each case can occur during accel-eration, breaking and sideways skidding.On trails, horses and trail bikes cause morebare ground and more soil erosion thanhikers, typically up to 15 times as much;horses also cut deeper trails, especially onsteeper slopes (Weaver and Dale, 1978).Soil damage also varies with hikers’footwear and walking technique (Kuss andMorgan, 1986). Soil erosion ranges up to25,000 cm3 per m2 per year on hiking trails(Ketchledge and Leonard, 1970); up to250,000 cm3 per m2 per year for 4WD vehi-cles on dunes (Eckert et al., 1979); and upto 450,000 cm3 per m2 per year for recre-ational vehicles in Alaska (Rickard andSlaughter, 1973).

In some soils, erosion can continue evenonce the initial disturbance ceases: e.g. onsteep downhill tracks under heavy rainfall;crustose sandy soils in windy areas; andarctic permafrost where insulating vegeta-tion is damaged. In temperate loamy soils,heavy trampling typically reduces porosityby up to one-third (Chappell et al., 1971).Infiltration rates, however, may be reducedby over 50% (Cole, 1982) and in somecases up to 97% (Brown et al., 1977) evenin granitic soils. Bulk density may beincreased by over 70% (Brown et al.,1977). Waterlogged soils are more suscepti-ble to damage and, in addition, as com-paction reduces infiltration, this increaseswaterlogging and damage further still,especially in fine-grained soils (Bellamy etal., 1971). Soil compaction typically reducesoxygenation, reduces concentrations ofnitrifying bacteria by up to 10 times, andincreases concentrations of denitrifyingbacteria by a similar factor (Duggeli, 1937).In wet arctic-alpine soils, compaction bysnowmobiles delays soil warming andhence bacterial activity in spring. Tramplingand compaction commonly reduces thenumber of worms (Cluzeau et al., 1992),and the number of springtails, mites andother small arthropods, sometimes down toa few per cent of their original levels(Yur’eva et al., 1976).

All of the factors outlined above affectthe soil’s ability to support vegetation, andchange the relative abundance of differentplant species. In addition, soil trampling,erosion and compaction cause direct dam-age to plant roots. The effects of recre-ational trampling on plant roots wererecognized over 70 years ago as a result ofresearch in the Californian redwood forests(Meinecke, 1928).

Vegetation

The effects of trampling on vegetation havebeen studied far more intensively than any other recreational impact, probablybecause they are easily quantified experi-mentally. The degree of damage dependson the pressure applied, the number of

382 R. Buckley

passes, the time of year, the type of vegeta-tion, and the individual plant species con-cerned. Even a very low-intensity impact,such as people brushing against plants asthey walk by, has been shown to producephysiological and biochemical changes,which may be delayed some time after theinitial impact (Hylgaard and Liddle, 1981).The effects of trampling on plant biomass,cover, height, growth form, phenology,physiology, flowering, etc. have all beenstudied at various levels of detail.

In most vegetation types, even relativelylight trampling causes a considerable ini-tial reduction in plant cover, as the moresusceptible species are killed. Heaviertrampling eventually removes even themost resistant species, but more slowly.Many studies, therefore, have examinedthe number of passes, whether of wheels orboots, required to reduce plant cover to50% of its initial value. For hikers, thisindex ranges from around 12 passes forsubtropical eucalypt woodland (Liddle andThyer, 1986) and 40 for mountain snow-bank vegetation (Bell and Bliss, 1973), toaround 1500 for pasture grasses (Liddle,1973; Kendal, 1982). Horses and trail bikescause significantly more damage; typically,similar impacts are produced by a farsmaller (e.g. 5–30 times fewer) number ofpasses (Cole, 1993, 1995a, b).

The major conclusions from all thiswork on trampling seem to be the following.

1. We still do not have enough informationto predict or model the types and intensi-ties of impacts from different types of tram-pling in different types of ecosystem in anygeneral sense.2. The sensitivity of different ecosystemsto trampling varies enormously.3. If trampling is heavy enough in anyecosystem, plant cover will die and localsoil erosion, sometimes to considerabledepth, will occur.4. If trampling ceases, soil and vegetationwill generally recover at least to somedegree, over various timescales, which maybe very long.5. 4WD vehicles, trailbikes, mountainbikes and particularly horses cause vastlygreater impacts than hikers.

6. With very few exceptions, the directimpacts of trampling itself do not extendfar beyond the actual track, and do not con-tinue to grow if trampling ceases.

The overall conclusion is that the total areaof soil and vegetation affected by tramplingon tracks is a minuscule proportion of thetotal area of wilderness. In addition totrampling, direct vegetation damage occursaround campsites, where branches areoften broken either to clear space or to col-lect firewood. Again, the total area is usu-ally small.

Far more significant than direct damagein most cases, however, is secondary vege-tation damage (Buckley and Pannell, 1990;Buckley, 1994). This can occur throughchanges to fire frequency (e.g. from unex-tinguished cigarette butts and campfires),introduction of plant pathogens such as thejarrah dieback fungus in parts of Australia,and the introduction of weed species.Weed seeds are commonly introduced inmud on tyres and vehicle bodies (Wace,1977; Lonsdale and Lane, 1992), and to alesser degree on boots and tent pegs. Weedseeds may also be introduced in gravelused for track and site hardening by landmanagement agencies, and in fodder car-ried for recreational livestock (Cole, 1993).Weeds and pathogens can spread wellbeyond the extent of the tracks themselves,and are generally impossible to eradicateonce introduced.

Equally significant are secondaryimpacts on the population of rare or endan-gered animal species, whether throughnoise, visual disturbance, barriers to move-ment, or the introduction of pathogens.Again these occur over a far greater areathan the tracks themselves.

Invertebrates

The impacts of ecotourism and recreationalactivities on invertebrates are relativelyunknown. Populations of insects such asthe sand scarab beetle are reduced in areasused by off-road vehicles (Luckenbach andBury, 1983). Populations of ghost crabs onthe beaches of Assateague Island in

Environmental Impacts 383

Virginia, USA, were reduced by 98% afteronly 100 passes by 4WD vehicles (Woolcottand Woolcott, 1984) and similar effectsprobably occur on sandy beaches world-wide. Populations of shoreline worms,molluscs and crustaceans are reduced bybait collecting for recreational fishing inmany areas (Cryer et al., 1987; Heiligen-berg, 1987). Coral reefs are damaged bypollution from coastal resorts, trampling onintertidal flats, and collecting and acciden-tal damage by divers (Kay and Liddle,1984; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993). Assem-blages of terrestrial insect species are modi-fied by the introduction of exotic plants,whether accidental weeds or deliberateplantations. Insect species can also betransported into new habitats on touristvehicles, as has apparently occurred ontourist boats in the Galapagos Islands(Silberglied, 1978).

Tourism and recreation can also affectthe interactions between insect species,and between insects and plants. Introducedplant species may compete for insect polli-nators with native plant species, for exam-ple. Introduced plant species may alsoprovide a reservoir for insect parasites,increasing their populations and hencetheir impacts on native plant species.Relatively subtle, indirect and initiallyinconspicuous impacts such as these maywell prove far more significant for the con-servation of biological diversity than themore gross, obvious but geographicallyrestricted impacts such as trampling. Todate, however, they remain almost entirelyunstudied.

Reptiles and amphibia

There seem to be remarkably few, if any,studies on the impacts of ecotourism andother forms of tourism on frogs, toads,newts, salamanders and other amphibia,though in view of their extreme sensitivityto water pollution it seems likely that theywould be excellent bio-indicators of waterquality impacts. Off-road vehicles in theMojave Desert have been shown to causemajor reductions in lizard populations

(Vollmer et al., 1976), and major or com-plete hearing loss in the fringe-toed lizard(Brattstrom and Bondello, 1983). ORVs inCalifornia also killed desert tortoises anddestroyed their burrows (Bury and Marlow,1973). Disturbance by tourists in someareas of the Galapagos Islands led to thecollapse of the feeding and mating systemsof the Galapagos land iguana (Edington andEdington, 1986). Disturbance by touristsalso causes freshwater caiman, alligatorsand crocodiles to leave their nests, andincreases egg predation by coatis inParaguay, raccoons in the Mississippi, andlizards and hyena in Uganda (Crawshawand Schaller, 1980; Jacobsen and Kushlan,1986).

Populations of beach-nesting marineturtles are also affected by tourism. Egg-laying females may be disturbed bywildlife viewers (Jacobson and Lopez,1994). Hatchlings are disoriented by lights,while vehicles on beaches crush somehatchlings and impede the progress of oth-ers, thereby increasing predation rates(Hosier et al., 1981; Witherington, 1997).Water pollution and recreational boatsdamage seagrass beds in which the marineturtles feed (Williams, 1988), and adultsare killed by shark nets in South Africa andAustralia (Dudley and Cliff, 1993; Wild,1994). Habitat destruction and egg collec-tion, however, may be more significant inmost areas than any of the above impacts.

Birds

Numerous studies worldwide have shownthat a wide range of bird species, in a widerange of environments, may be disturbedby noise or visual sightings of tourists,even at low intensity. Some species aremore susceptible than others, and whilesome may become habituated to distur-bance, others do not (e.g. Blakesley andReese, 1988). Bird species assemblages,populations and behaviour may also bechanged in areas used for camping, fishingand recreational boating (e.g. Bell andAustin, 1985; Keller, 1989), and in areasused for hunting and by recreational vehi-

384 R. Buckley

cles and aircraft (e.g. Belanger and Bedard,1989).

Repeated disturbance by tourists causessubstantial reduction in the breeding suc-cess of a wide range of shorebirds, often to< 50%. Examples include relativelyrestricted and endangered species such asbrown pelican and Herman’s gull(Anderson and Keith, 1980). Ground-nest-ing bird species are particularly susceptibleto damage by ORVs and hikers, particularlyif they have dogs (de Roos, 1981; Yaldenand Yalden, 1990). Nesting success of largehawks and eagles, which are often majortourist attractions, is also reduced dramati-cally by tourist disturbance. In many cases,these species cease nesting completely inareas frequented by tourists, even if thisforces them from their preferred habitatinto less favourable areas. Examplesinclude bald eagles and ospreys in the USA(Bangs et al., 1982; Buehler et al., 1991),imperial eagles in Spain (Gonzalez et al.,1992), golden eagles and peregrines inEurope and the USA (Bocker and Ray,1971; Watson, 1976) and various species inThe Netherlands (Saris, 1976).

Individual eagles may fly 1 km or morebefore alighting, once disturbed by tourists(e.g. Grubb and King, 1991). Flight distancesfor disturbed waterbirds typically rangefrom 100 to 800 m (Hume, 1972; Batten,1977; Klein, 1993; Burger and Gochfeld,1998; Fitzpatrick and Bouchez, 1998), withgreatest distances for disturbance by powerboats, and least for disturbance by walkers.Individual nesting birds with eggs orchicks may remain on their nests even withmuch closer approaches, but under stress.Human disturbance can also alter birdsongpatterns, critical to territorial and breedingbehaviour (Gurtzwiller et al., 1997; Hill etal., 1997).

Mammals

In many parts of the world, the impacts oftourism on mammals include hunting aswell as wildlife watching and inadvertentdisturbance. Typically, individual speciesare far more wary and easily disturbed in

areas where they are hunted than in areaswhere they are not; and in areas wherehunting occurs, they are more easily dis-turbed by behaviour typically associatedwith hunters. This applies, for example, tobears in Canada (McLellan and Shackleton,1988), caribou in the Arctic (Calef, 1976),and dall sheep in the Rocky Mountains(MacArthur et al., 1982).

Even in areas without hunting, tourismcan cause significant disturbance to largemammals. In the Sierra Nevada, for exam-ple, bears abandon their winter dens inareas used heavily by skiers, even if thedens contain cubs (Goodrich and Berger,1994). In Scandinavia, deer were so dis-turbed by orienteering events that somedied (Sennstam and Stalfelt, 1976;Jeppesen, 1987). In the USA, various stud-ies have shown that elk, mule deer andwhite-tailed deer are disturbed by hikers,skiers and, particularly, snowmobiles(Eckstein et al., 1979; Freddy et al., 1986).Helicopter overflights in the Grand Canyonreduced feeding of bighorn sheep by 45%;and in Alaska, dall sheep run in panic fromhelicopters, sometimes over 800 m (Priceand Lent, 1972). Even where animals donot run, they may still suffer stress fromapproaching hikers. A classic study byMacArthur et al. (1982) on dall sheep inAlberta, Canada, used cardiac telemetry toshow that their heart rate increased by upto 20 beats per minute when hikersapproached. The increase in heart rate wastriggered when hikers approached towithin 50 m, if they approached from aroad; but at 150 m, if they approached fromthe side away from a road, or with a dog. Inareas where the survival of overwinteringindividuals depends critically on theirenergetic balance, any increase in metabo-lism or unproductive activity, and anydecrease in feeding time or the quality offeed available, may lead to the death ofpart of the overwintering population.

The impacts of tourism on smaller mam-mals, not subject to hunting, have been rel-atively little studied. Populations ofmarmots on Vancouver Island, Canada, arethreatened by a combination of forestryand recreational activities (Dearden and

Environmental Impacts 385

Hall, 1983); and marmot behaviour in theSwiss Alps is strongly affected by hikers,particularly those hiking with dogs or off-trail (Mainini et al., 1993). Marmot popula-tions also suffer where snow compactionreduces insulation of their overwinteringburrows (Schmid, 1970). Similarly, over-snow vehicles crush the winter runways ofthe northern bog lemming (Layser andBurke, 1973). In the campgrounds ofYosemite National Park, generalist-feedingdeer mice have increased in numberswhereas specialist-feeding mountain micedecreased (Garton et al., 1977). Chim-panzees in Uganda, and rainforest wildlifein Sumatra are disturbed by hikers, but canbecome habituated (Griffiths et al., 1993;Johns, 1996).

Aquatic biota

Water-based recreation can cause a widevariety of impacts (Arthington et al., 1989).Propeller-driven boats affect aquatic plantsthrough propeller damage, wash, increasedturbidity, and exhaust and petroleumresidues from outboard motors. This is par-ticularly evident at launch, landing andturning areas. Larger recreational boatsmay cause impacts from antifouling paints,which may contain herbicides (Pearce,1995), and from discharge of sewage. Waterpollution by nutrients and microorganismsalso occurs from discharge of sewage andhuman waste from boat toilets and water-side accommodation and campsites. Evenrelatively small numbers of recreationalswimmers may increase the concentrationsof bacteria in small, pristine streams(Warnken, 1996), and backcountry hikersare also implicated in the distribution ofcertain waterborne pathogenic bacteria andprotozoa (Buckley et al., 1998; W. Warnkenand R.C. Buckley, unpublished). Recre-ational fishing causes impacts throughbankside trampling, damage to fish eggs bywading in streams (Roberts and White,1992), the introduction of exotic fishspecies specifically for recreationalangling, and introduction of diseases tonative fish populations (Langdon, 1989).

Marine mammals

Whales, dolphins and other marine mam-mals such as manatee and dugong nowsupport a large-scale tourism industryworldwide. This industry has assisted inthe conservation of these species by alert-ing people to the depredations of commer-cial whaling, and marine mammalmortality in by-catch from commercial fish-ing operations. In areas with an intensivemarine-mammal tourism industry, how-ever, populations may now be affected bythe impacts of tourism. Various species ofwhales are disturbed by boats in GlacierBay, Alaska (Watkins and Goebel, 1984),the Canadian Arctic (Breton, 1996), andAustralia’s Hervey Bay (Stevens andChaloupka, 1992). Whales are also dis-turbed by aerial viewing. This includeshelicopter viewing of sperm whales andgrey whales, and light-aircraft viewing ofbowhead whales, which typically crashdive if aircraft fly below 300–450 m(Richardson et al., 1985). In Florida, USA,where manatees support a major recre-ational boating industry, over 10% of thetotal population were killed by propellercuts and boat impacts in 1989; this wasmore than the population replacement rate(Shackley, 1992). Wild dolphins, somehabituated to human interactions, alsoform significant tourism attractions inmany parts of the world, with associatedeffects on dolphin behaviour and perhapspopulations (e.g. Orams, 1997).

Environmental Management byTour Operators

One of the core defining criteria for eco-tourism is best-practice environmentalmanagement. A nature or adventure tour isnot an ecotour unless it ranks with indus-try leaders in its efforts to minimize nega-tive impacts on the natural and culturalenvironment, whether through planningand design, equipment and activities, train-ing and education of guides and clients, ora combination of these approaches. Ofcourse, this is not a straightforward crite-

386 R. Buckley

rion. For example, if commercial horsepa-ckers stay on designated trails, use onlyweed-free fodder, travel only in smallgroups, control noise, and use minimal-impact camping practices, can they be con-sidered as ecotourism operations? Or arethey disqualified by the mere fact thathorses have so much greater impact thanhikers, and by the fact that the tour opera-tors could have taken their clients on foot?

Similar considerations could apply, forexample, to the use of motorized watercraftwhere yachts or sea kayaks could providean alternative. Of course, in areas likeHervey Bay, Australia, 200 whale-watchersin a single vessel may well provide signifi-cantly less disturbance to the whales than200 individual sea kayaks, even assumingthat sea kayaks could travel far enough off-shore in the time available. In areas such asGlacier Bay and Prince William Sound,Alaska, however, cruise boats and light air-craft often use drifting sea kayakers as acue to locate whales and bears; and motor-ized craft cause much greater disturbancethan sea kayaks, often causing the wildlifeto flee.

In attempts to reduce the impacts of eco-tourism, various associations and organiza-tions have produced a range ofenvironmental guidelines, minimal-impacttraining materials, best-practice hand-books, etc. These range from the highlyspecific, e.g. for watching particular wildlifespecies at particular sites, to the very gen-eral, such as introductory manuals producedfor the Australian tourism accommodationand tour sectors (Talacko, 1998; Basche,1999). Between these extremes lies a widerange of guidelines produced by researchorganizations (e.g. Buckley, 1999a), conser-vation groups (e.g. Roe et al., 1997),National Parks Services (e.g. AustralianAlpine Parks, 1993–1997), ecotourismassociations, not-for-profit outdoor educa-tion organizations (e.g. National OutdoorLeadership School, 1994) and individualtour companies (e.g. Willis’s Walkabout,1994).

There are also popular texts, videos andinteractive computer demonstrations withtitles such as Soft Paths (Hampton and

Cole, 1988) and How to Shit in the Woods(Meyer, 1994; Clevermedia, 1999). Themost recent of these provide quite detailedinstructions for specific activities in spe-cific ecosystems, such as hiking in theAustralian Alps, or horse-riding in thePacific Northwest of the USA. In the USAin particular, minimal-impact guidelinesproduced by the non-profit Leave-No-TraceInc. (LNT) have been adopted, endorsedand widely distributed by land manage-ment agencies. Basic LNT materials areintended to improve the environmentalawareness of all visitors to parks andwilderness areas. More advanced LNTmaterials (Buckley, 1996) endeavour toteach backcountry travellers and ecotourclients not only these specific techniquesfor particular activities in particular envi-ronments, but also how to minimizeimpacts in new environments.

The effectiveness of such codes of prac-tice depends on how widely they are readand how closely they are followed. At best,however, they can reduce the impacts asoutlined above from the upper to the lowerend of the ranges quoted. Ecotourism, andparticularly large-scale commercial eco-tourism, almost invariably still has impactsand environmental costs that must beweighed against its potential conservationbenefits.

Public Land and Visitor Management

Ecotourism is an industry, and it operatesin the real world of practical politics andpast land-use patterns. In particular, eco-tours need land or water on which to oper-ate, and somebody owns that land. Theimpacts of ecotourism on the natural envi-ronment are determined not only by theactivity itself and the environmental man-agement practices of the ecotour operator,but also by the land, water and visitor man-agement practices of the public agenciesand private landholders where the ecotouris operating (see especially Chapters 31and 32).

The degree to which different landholdersand land management agencies regulate,

Environmental Impacts 387

monitor and manage tour operators variesenormously between countries, betweendifferent types of land tenure in the samecountry, and between different areas undersimilar tenure. At one extreme liesAntarctica, where there is an internationaltreaty governing land use and impacts, butno monitoring or enforcement, so the onlyenvironmental management controls arethose established by the operators them-selves under IAATO, the InternationalAssociation of Antarctic Tour Operators(see Chapter 14). At the other extreme areprivate landholders who operate tours ontheir own land with complete control overwhat they do and where they go. Most eco-tours, however, operate on public landswhere they are subject to some form of con-cession agreement or licensing arrange-ment. Typically, these impose conditionsthat are intended to limit negative impactson the natural environment. The actualaggregate impacts of ecotourism in a givenarea, therefore, depend strongly on theresource and visitor management strategiesadopted by the land management agency.In addition, it places impacts of ecotourismin context, relative to potential impactsfrom other possible land uses or fromuncontrolled tourism.

Land management agencies have twomain approaches to controlling impacts(Manning, 1979; Pigram and Jenkins, 1999;Buckley, 2000a, c). Funds permitting, theycan harden the natural environmentagainst impacts, typically through con-struction of infrastructure such as tracks ortoilets. This localizes tourists’ impacts, butat the cost of impacts from the infrastruc-ture itself. It is also expensive, though costscan sometimes be defrayed from entrance,permit and licence fees. Alternatively, theycan control visitors so as to limit the area,timing and type of impacts. There are threebroad approaches. The most common aredirect prescriptive regulations such as bansor quotas on access, pets, fires, firearms ormotorized vehicles in particular areas atparticular times. Alternatively, similarresults may be obtained by charging differ-ential fees for various activities at differenttimes and places, from park entry fees to

seasonal fishing or camping permits. Orfinally, land managers can control visitorsindirectly through permit conditions orpartnerships with commercial tour opera-tors.

A variety of different land and visitormanagement systems and protocols havebeen put forward over recent decades, eachincorporating a slightly different set oftools and indicators (Buckley, 1998,2000a). Most of these incorporate, eitherexplicitly or implicitly, the concepts ofrecreational opportunity spectra and limitsof acceptable change (or LAC) (Stankey etal., 1985). The former implies that differentvisitor activities are either encouraged ordiscouraged, e.g. through facilities or pro-hibitions, in different areas and/or at differ-ent times. The latter implies that the landmanagement agency identifies specificmeasurable parameters to act as indicatorsof environmental quality and the impactsof tourism, and defines thresholds or limitswithin which the primary conservationgoals of the protected area are met.

The idea is that the indicators are to bemonitored routinely, and if they transgressthe limits of acceptable change, the man-agement agency will deploy one or more ofthe various tools and techniques at its dis-posal to reduce impacts. In practice, how-ever, this may be far from straightforward.It is often difficult to identify indicatorswhere visitor impacts can be distinguishedfrom natural ecological fluctuations; wherethere is adequate warning before ecologicalchanges become irreversible (W. Warnkenand R.C. Buckley, unpublished); and whereeffective remedial actions can be pre-scribed if LAC are exceeded. These diffi-culties are by no means confined to thetourism sector (Buckley, 1993).

Irrespective of technical issues in theuse of LACs and an associated set of moni-toring and management tools, ‘M&Mtoolkit’ (Buckley, 1998, 1999b), there arepolitical issues as to who should define therelated parameters. In cases where LACshave been employed in practice, theysometimes seem to have been set quitearbitrarily, with quite inadequate knowl-edge of baseline variation and of the

388 R. Buckley

stress–response relation between theimpacts of tourism and the value of theindicator parameters (Warnken andBuckley, 2000).

Eagles (personal communication) hasidentified various possible constituencieswho might reasonably claim some interestin setting LACs for tourism in protectedareas, but notes that in practice, all thesegroups are part of larger political processes.They include:

• parks staff, because of expertise and on-site experience;

• independent experts, because of broadtechnical knowledge;

• local communities, because of local con-cerns;

• park visitors, since they are the mostdirect users;

• potential visitors, since they have equalrights to actual visitors;

• entire provinces, nations or the globalpopulation, any of whom may visit, orat least value the area for its option andexistence benefits.

As mentioned above, economic issues andimpacts in ecotourism are beyond thescope of this chapter. However, it is worthreiterating that the precise design of feesand charges for individual visitors, non-profit groups and commercial ecotours areimportant not only to raise funds for man-aging impacts on the natural environment,but also as tools in themselves to managevisitor numbers, activities and hence indi-rectly, impacts.

For many protected areas and other pub-lic land and waters, the proportion of visi-tors on commercial ecotours is increasingrelative to those on private recreation. Thisprovides opportunities for land managersto use private tour operators as anothermeans to control environmental impacts.For example, land managers may grant per-mits only to operators who have particularequipment, qualifications or accreditation,or who undertake specified training pro-grammes. They may specify permit condi-tions that set quotas, control activities orrequire specific interpretive programmes,and use tour guides as surrogate rangers to

ensure compliance. They may enlist eco-tour operators, guides and clients to assistin routine or one-off monitoring and man-agement exercises. Or they may lease oper-ating rights for particular areas or facilities,such as campgrounds, heritage buildings,or equipment rentals or guiding facilities,to private concessionaries, under appropri-ate conditions. Many other forms of part-nership are also possible (Buckley, 2000b,c), though all involve risks of environ-mental impact if conditions are not fol-lowed, as well as risks of legal liability ifcommercial clients are injured or even dis-satisfied.

No matter how well ecotourism is man-aged, it will still produce negative impactson the natural environment. With continu-ing growth in the number of visitors, espe-cially commercial tourists, to nationalparks and other protected areas, endan-gered species and ecosystems that wereonce believed safely protected may now bethreatened again. In these areas the envi-ronmental impacts, monitoring and man-agement of tourism are critical forconservation. Ecotourism is preferable touncontrolled tourism, but still of concernfor conservation.

Outside protected areas, however, eco-tourism has the potential to make a majorpositive contribution to conservation of nat-ural environments, by displacing other landuses with much greater local impacts on thenatural environment, such as forestry, farm-ing, fishing, mining or hydroelectric powergeneration (Eagles and Martens, 1997;Buckley, 2000c). Similarly, in countrieswithout effective management and enforce-ment in protected areas, ecotourism mayprovide a local incentive to displacedestructive land-use practices which,though illegal, are still widespread. Thesemay include clearing for agriculture, timbercutting for firewood or construction, graz-ing of domestic livestock, burning off,poaching of wildlife and collecting ofendangered plants. Many of these practicesoccur illegally in the national parks ofdeveloped nations such as the USA, Canadaand Australia as well as the developingnations of Africa, Asia and South America.

Environmental Impacts 389

Conclusions

All forms of tourism produce negativeimpacts on the natural environment.Ecotourism, if it is more than a marketinglabel, has lower per capita impacts thanother forms of tourism, but these impactstend to be concentrated in areas of highestconservation value, especially in protectedareas. Impacts can be reduced by the envi-ronmental management practices of eco-tour operators, environmental education ofclients by ecotour guides, and land and vis-itor management practices by landholdersand land management agencies. The pre-cise impacts of different ecotourist activi-ties, with different equipment, in differentecosystems, at different seasons are notwell known. The effectiveness of differentmanagement tools in reducing theseimpacts is even less well known. In manycases, however, lack of scientific knowl-edge is less of an impediment than lack of

management funds or political support.The ecotourism industry has a responsibil-ity to minimize its impacts in protectedareas. Indeed, the degree to which it doesso is one of the main litmus tests of eco-tourism. The ecotourism industry also hasa role in changing land and water use pat-terns outside protected areas, from higher-impact uses to lower-impact ecotourism.

Acknowledgements

I thank Caroline Kelly, Katie Lawrance,Karen Sullivan, Wiebke Warnken, JanWarnken, Clyde Wild, and Tatia Zubrinichfor assistance in compiling the database ofimpact studies which we have maintainedsince 1991. I also acknowledge my debt toMichael Liddle’s book Recreation Ecology:the summary of different impact typesbroadly follows the layout of his book,updated as relevant.

390 R. Buckley

References

Anderek, K.L. (1995) Environmental consequences of tourism: a review of recent research. In:McCool, S.F. and Watson, A.E. (eds) Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Sustainability. USForest Service Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-GTR-323. Ogden,Utah.

Anderson, D.W. and Keith, S.O. (1980) The human influence on seabird nesting success: conserva-tion implications. Biological Conservation 18, 65–80.

Arthington, A.H., Miller, G.J. and Outridge, P.M. (1989) Water quality, phosphorus budgets and man-agement of dune lakes used for recreation in Queensland (Australia). Water Science Technology21, 111–118.

Australian Alps National Parks (1993) Car Camping Code, (1993) Snow Camping Code, (1994) HorseRiding Code, (1997) Bushwalking Code, (undated) River Users Code. AANP, Canberra.

Bangs, E.E., Spraker, T.H., Berns, V.D. and Baily, T.N. (1982) Effects of increased human populationson wildlife resources of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, USA. In: Sabal, V. (ed.) Transactions of theNorth American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Vol. 47. Wildlife ManagementInstitute, Washington, DC, pp. 605–616.

Basche, C. (1999) Being Green is Your Business. CRC Tourism, Gold Coast and Tourism CouncilAustralia, Sydney.

Batten, L.A. (1977) Sailing on reservoirs and its effects on water birds. Biological Conservation 11,49–58.

Belanger, L. and Bedard, J. (1989) Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance.Journal of Wildlife Management 53, 713–719.

Bell, D.V. and Austin, L.W. (1985) The game fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl.Biological Conservation 33, 65–80.

Bell, K.L. and Bliss, L.C. (1973) Alpine disturbance studies: Olympic National Park, USA. BiologicalConservation 5, 25–32.

Bellamy, D., Radforth, J. and Radforth, N.W. (1971) Terrain, traffic and tundra. Nature 231, 429–432.

Blakesley, J.A. and Reese, K.P. (1988) Avian use of campground and non-campground sites in ripar-ian zones. Journal of Wildlife Management 52, 399–402.

Bocker, E.L. and Ray, T.D. (1971) Golden eagle population studies in the south west. Condor 73,463–467.

Brattstrom, S.P. and Bondello, M.C. (1983) Effects of off-road vehicle noise on desert vertebrates. In:Webb, R.H. and Whilshire, H.G. (eds) Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. Springer,New York, pp. 167–206.

Breton, M. (1996) Guide to Watching Whales in Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,Ottawa.

Brown, J.M. Jr, Kalisz, S.P. and Wright, W.R. (1977) Effects of recreational use on forested sites.Environmental Geology 1, 425–431.

Buckley, R.C. (1993) Biodiversity and EIA: the Mt Todd case study. Australian Environmental LawNews 3/93, 46–47.

Buckley, R.C. (1994) Ecotourism: a framework. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 661–669.Buckley, R.C. (1996) Principles for best-practice leave-no-trace training. Masters Network 11, 3, 15.Buckley, R.C. (1998) Tourism in wilderness: M&M Toolkit. In: Watson, A.E., Aplet, G.H. and Hendee,

J.C. (eds) Personal, Societal, and Ecological Values of Wilderness: Sixth World WildernessCongress Proceedings on Research, Management, and Allocation, Vol. 1. RMRS-P-4. USFS,Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp. 115–116.

Buckley, R.C. (1999a) Green Guide to White Water: Best-Practice Environmental Management forWhitewater Raft and Kayak Tours. CRC Tourism, Gold Coast, Australia.

Buckley, R.C. (1999b) Tools and indicators for managing tourism in parks. Annals of TourismResearch 26, 207–210.

Buckley, R.C. (2000a) Tourism in the most fragile environments. Tourism and Recreation Research25, 31–40.

Buckley, R.C. (2000b) Voluntary Contributions by Tourism to Conservation. CRC Tourism, Gold CoastAustralia.

Buckley, R.C. (2000c) Tourism in wilderness: dancing with the messy monster. In: McCool, S. (ed.)Wilderness Science. University of Montana, Missoula.

Buckley, R.C. and Pannell, J. (1990) Environmental impacts of tourism and recreation in nationalparks and conservation reserves. Journal of Tourism Studies 1, 24–32.

Buckley, R.C., Clough, E. and Warnken, W. (1998) Plesiomonas shigelloides in Australia. Ambio 27,253.

Buehler, D.A., Mersmann, T.J., Fraser, J.D. and Seegar, J.K.D. (1991) Effects of human activity on baldeagle distribution on the Northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 55,282–290.

Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. (1998) Effects of ecotourists on bird behaviour at Lozanhatchee NationalWildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25, 13–21.

Bury, R.B. and Marlow, R.W. (1973) The desert tortoise: will it survive? Environment Journal June,9–12.

Calef, G.W. (1976) Numbers beyond counting, miles beyond measure. Audubon 78, 42–61.Chappell, H.G., Ainsworth, J.F., Cameron, R.A.D. and Redfern, M. (1971) The effect of trampling on a

chalk grassland ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology 8, 869–882.Clevermedia (1999) How to crap in the woods. www.flasharcade.com/crapinthewoods.htmlCluzeau, D., Binet, F. and Vertes, F. (1992) Effects of intensive cattle trampling on soil–plant–earth-

worms system in two grassland types. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24, 1661–1665.Cole, D.N. (1982) Wilderness Campsite Impacts: Effects of Amount of Use. Research Paper INT-3-3

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USFS, Ogden, Utah.Cole, D.N. (1993) Trampling Effects on Mountain Vegetation in Washington, Colorado, New

Hampshire and North Carolina. Research Paper; INT-464. USDA Forest Services IntermountainForest and Range Experimental Station, Ogden, Utah.

Cole, D.N. (1995a) Experimental trampling of vegetation. Relationship between trampling intensityand vegetation response. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 203–214.

Cole, D.N. (1995b) Experimental trampling of vegetation. Predictors of resistance and resilience.Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 215–224.

Crawshaw, P.G.J. and Schaller, G.B. (1980) Nesting of Paraguayan caimen Caimen yacare in Brazil.Papers Auulsos Zoologica (Sao Paulo) 33, 283–292.

Environmental Impacts 391

Cryer, M., Whittle, G.N. and Williams, R. (1987) The impact of bait collection by anglers on marineintertidal invertebrates. Biological Conservation 42, 83–93.

Dearden, P. and Hall, C. (1983) Non-consumptive recreation pressures and the case of VancouverIsland marmot (Marmot vancouverensis). Environmental Conservation 10, 63–66.

Dudley, S.F.J. and Cliff, G. (1993) Some effects of shark nets in the Natal nearshore environment.Environmental Biology Fisheries 36, 243–255.

Duggeli, J. (1937) Wie wirkt das oftere Betreten des Walbodens auf einzelene physikalische und biol-ogishe Eigenschaften. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Furstwesen 88, 151–165.

Eagles, P.F.J. and Martens, J. (1997) Wilderness tourism and forestry: the possible dream inAlgonquin Provincial Park. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 22, 77–79.

Eckert, R.E. Jr, Wood, M.K., Blackburn, W.H. and Petersen, F.F. (1979) Impacts of off-road vehicles oninfiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Rangeland Management 32,394–397.

Eckstein, R.G., O’Brien, T.F., Rongstad, O.J. and Bollinger, J.G. (1979) Snowmobile effects on move-ments of white-tailed deer: a case study. Environmental Conservation 6, 45–51.

Edington, J.M. and Edington, M.A. (1986) Ecology and Environmental Planning. Chapman & Hall,London.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Fitzpatrick, S. and Bouchez, B. (1998) Effects of recreational disturbance on the foraging behaviour of

waders on a Rocky Beach. Bird Study 45, 157–171.Freddy, D.J., Bronaugh, W.M. and Fowler, M.C. (1986) Responses of mule deer to disturbance by per-

sons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14, 63–68.Garton, E.O., Bowen, C.W. and Foin, T.C. (1977) The impact of visitors on small mammal communi-

ties of Yosemite National Park. In: Foin, T.C. (ed.) Visitor Impacts on National Parks: theYosemite Ecological Impact Study, Vol. 10. Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis,pp. 44–50.

Gonzalez, L.M., Bustamante, J. and Hiraldo, F. (1992) Nesting habitat selection by the Spanish imper-ial eagle Aquila adalberti. Biological Conservation 59, 45–50.

Goodrich, J.M. and Berger, J. (1994) Winter recreation and hibernating black bears Ursus americanus.Biological Conservation 67, 105–110.

Griffiths, M., Schaik, C.P. and Van-Schaik, C.P. (1993) The impact of human traffic on the abundanceand activity periods of Sumatran rainforest wildlife. Conservation Biology 7, 623–626.

Grubb, T.G. and King, R.M. (1991) Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classifi-cation tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55, 500–511.

Gurtzwiller, K.J., Krose, E.A., Anderson, S.H. and Wilkins, C.A. (1997) Does human intrusion alterthe seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114, 55–67.

Hall, M. and Lew, A. (eds) (1999) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman,London.

Hampton, B. and Cole, D. (1988) Soft Paths. Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.Hawkins, J.P. and Roberts, C.M. (1993) Effects of recreational scuba-diving on coral reefs: trampling

on reef flat communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 30, 25–30.Heiligenberg, van den T. (1987) Effects of mechanical and manual harvesting of Lugworms Arenicola

marina L. on the benthic fauna of tidal flats in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Biological Conservation39, 165–177.

Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. and Treweek, J. (1997) Bird disturbance: improv-ing the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 275–288.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Hosier, P.E., Kockhar, M. and Thayer, V. (1981) Off-road vehicle and pedestrian effects on the seaapproach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation 8, 158–161.

Hume, R.A. (1972) Reactions of goldeneyes to boating. British Birds 69, 178–179.Hylgaard, T. and Liddle, M.J. (1981) The effect of human trampling on a sand dune ecosystem domi-

nated by Empetrum nigrum. Journal of Applied Ecology 18, 559–569.Jacobsen, T. and Kushlan, J.A. (1986) Alligators in natural areas: choosing conservation policies con-

sistent with local objectives. Biological Conservation 36, 667–679.Jacobson, S.K. and Lopez, A.F. (1994) Biological impacts of ecotourism: tourists and nesting turtles in

Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22, 414–419.

392 R. Buckley

Jeppesen, J.L. (1987) Impact of human disturbance on home-range movements and activity of reddeer Cervus elaphusis in a Danish environment. Danish Review of Game Biology 13, 1–38.

Johns, B.G. (1996) Responses of chimpanzees to habituation and tourism in the Kibale Forest,Uganda. Biological Conservation 78, 257–262.

Kay, A.M. and Liddle, M.J. (1984) Tourist Impact on Reef Corals. Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority, Townsville, Queensland.

Keller, V. (1989) Variations in the response of great crested grebes Podiceps cristatus to human dis-turbance – a sign of adaptation? Biological Conservation 49, 31–45.

Kendall, P.C. (1982) The effect of season and/or duration of trampling in an open forest of South EastQueensland. MSc thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane.

Ketchledge, E.H. and Leonard, R.C. (1970) The impact of man on the Adirondack high country.Conservationist 25, 14–18.

Klein, M.L. (1993) Waterbird behavioural responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin21, 31–39.

Kuss, F.R. and Morgan, J.M. (1986) A first alternative for estimating the physical carrying capacitiesof natural areas for recreation. Environmental Management 10, 225–262.

Langdon, J.S. (1989) Prevention and Control of Fish Disease in the Murray-Darling Basin. Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Native Fish management. Murray-Darling Commission, Canberra.

Layser, E.F. and Burke, T.E. (1973) Northern bog lemming and its unique habitat in north easternWashington. Murrelet 54, 7–8.

Liddle, M. (1973) The effect of trampling and vehicles on natural vegetation. PhD thesis, UniversityCollege North Wales.

Liddle, M. (1998) Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London.Liddle, M.J. and Thyer, N. (1986) Trampling and fire in a subtropical dry sclerophyll forest.

Environmental Conservation 13, 33–39.Lonsdale, W.M. and Lane, A.M. (1992) Vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National Park, in

plant invasions: the media of environmental weed in Australia. Kowari 2, 167–169.Luckenbach, R.A. and Bury, R.B. (1983) Effects of off-road vehicles on the biota of the Algodones

Dunes, Imperial Country, California. Journal of Applied Ecology 20, 265–286.MacArthur, R.A., Geist, V. and Johnston, R.H. (1982) Cardiac and behavioural responses of mountain

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46, 351–358.McLaren, D. (1998) Rethinking Tourism and Travel. Kumarian Press, Connecticut.McLellan, B.N. and Shackleton, D.M. (1988) Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: effects

of roads on behaviour, habitat use and climography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25, 451–460.Mainini, B., Neuhaus, P. and Ingold, P. (1993) Behaviour of marmots (Marmota marmota) under the

influence of different hiking activities. Biological Conservation 64, 161–164.Manning, R. (1979) Strategies for managing recreational use of national parks. Parks 4(1), 13–15.Meinecke, P. (1928) The Effect of Excessive Tourist Travel on the California Redwood Parks.

California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Sacramento.Meyer, K. (1994) How to Shit in the Woods, 2nd edn. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, California.Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World.

Routledge, London.National Outdoor Leadership School (1994) Leave-No-Trace Outdoor Skills and Ethics. NOLS,

Lander, Wyoming.Orams, M.B. (1997) Historical account of human–dolphin interactions and recent developments in

wild dolphin-based tourism in Australasia. Tourism Management 18, 317–326.Pearce, F. (1995) Alternative antifouling widespread in Europe. New Scientist 15 Jan 1995, 7.Pigram, J. and Jenkins, J. (1999) Outdoor Recreation Management. Routledge, London.Price, R. and Lent, P.C. (1972) Effects of human disturbance on Dall sheep. Alaska Co-operative

Wildlife Research Unit Quarterly Report 23, 23–28.Richardson, W.J., Fraker, M.A., Wursig, B. and Wells, R.S. (1985) Behaviour of bowhead whales

(Balaena mysticetus) summering in the Beaufort Sea: reactions to industrial activities. BiologicalConservation 32, 195–230.

Rickard, W.E. and Slaughter, C.W. (1973) Thaw and erosion on vehicular trails in perma frost land-scapes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 28, 263–266.

Roberts, B.C. and White, R.G. (1992) Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre-emer-gent fry. North American Journal of Fish Management 12, 450–459.

Environmental Impacts 393

Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997) Take Only Photographs, Leave OnlyFootprints. IIED Wildlife Development Service, 10. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, London.

Roos, G. Th. de (1981) The Impact of Tourism upon some Breeding Wader Species on the Isle ofVlieland in The Netherlands Wadden Sea. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen,pp. 81–114.

Saris, F.J.A. (1976) Breeding Populations of Birds and Recreation in the Duivelesbert. Free UniversityInstitute of Environmental Studies Working Paper 66. Vrieje Universitat, Brussels.

Schmid, W.D. (1970) Modification of the Sunivian microclimate by snow mobiles. In: Haugen, A.O.(ed.) Proceedings Symposium on Snow and Ice in Relation to Wildlife. Iowa Coop. Wildl. Res.Unit, Iowa State University, pp. 251–257.

Sennstam, B. and Stalfelt, F. (1976) Rapport angaende 1975 ars femdanger-sorienterings inverkan paklouviltet. Rapport 12, 35.

Shackley, M. (1992) Manatees and tourism in southern Florida: opportunity or threat? Journal ofEnvironmental Management 34, 257–265.

Silberglied, R. (1978) Inter-island transport of insects aboard ships in the Galapagos Islands.Biological Conservation 13, 273–278.

Stabler, M.J. (ed.) (1997) Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice. CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Petersen, M.E. and Frissell, S.S. (1985) The Limits ofAcceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. USDAFS, Ogden, Utah.

Stevens, T. and Chaloupka, M. (1992) Whale Watching in Hervey Bay Marine Park and theWhitsundays: Implications for Management. Abstracts, 5 Annual Conference AustralianWildlife Management Society, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Talacko, J. (1998) Being Green Keeps You Out of the Red. CRC Tourism and Tourism CouncilAustralia, Sydney.

Vollmer, A.T., Maza, B.G. and Medica, P.A. (1976) The impact of off-road vehicles on a desert ecosys-tem. Environmental Management 1, 15–129.

Wace, N. (1977) Assessment of dispersal of plant species – the car-borne flora in Canberra.Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 10, 167–186.

Warnken, J. and Buckley, R.C. (2000) Monitoring diffuse impacts: Australian tourism developments.Environmental Management 25, 453–461.

Warnken, W. (1996) Threshold detection of ecotourism impact: microbiological and chemical indica-tors of recreational effects on water quality in a subtropical rainforest conservation reserve. PhDthesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Watkins, W.A. and Goebel, C.A. (1984) Sonar observations explain behaviours noted during boatmanoeuvres for radio tagging of humpback whales (Megaptera novaea ngliae) in the Glacier Bayarea. Cetology 48, 1–8.

Watson, A. (1976) Human impact on animal populations in the Cairngorms. Landscape ResearchNews 1, 14–15.

Weaver, T. and Dale, D. (1978) Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows andforests. Journal of Applied Ecology 15, 451–457.

Wild, C. (1994) Shark control an environmental problem. Griffith Gazette 9, 3.Williams, S.L. (1988) Thalassis testudinum productivity and grazing by green turtles in a highly dis-

turbed seagrass bed. Marine Biology (Berlin) 98, 447–456.Willis’s Walkabouts (1994) Personal hygiene. In: Guide to Bushwalking in North and Central

Australia. Willis’s Walkabouts, Millner, Northern Territories, p. 23.Witherington, B.E. (1997) The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals.

In: Clemmons, J.R. and Buchholz, R. (eds) Behavioural Approaches to Conservation in the Wild.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 303–325.

Woolcott, T.G. and Woolcott, D.L. (1984) Impact of off-road vehicles on microinvertebrates of a mid-Atlantic beach. Biological Conservation 29, 217–240.

Yalden, P.E. and Yalden, D.W. (1990) Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers Pluvialisapricarius. Biological Conservation 51, 243–262.

Yur’eva, N.D., Matveva, V.G. and Trapido, I.L. (1976) Influence of recreation on soil invertebrategroups in birch woods round Moscow. Lesovedenie 2, 27–34.

394 R. Buckley

Chapter 25

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts onLocal Communities

S. WearingSchool of Leisure and Tourism Studies, University of Technology, Sydney, Lindfield,

New South Wales, Australia

Introduction

This chapter investigates the socio-culturalimpacts of ecotourism. It particularlyfocuses on those communities that are liv-ing in marginal or environmentally threat-ened areas and take an economic interest inthe preservation of these areas while alsoattempting to provide an ecotourism experi-ence for travellers. Some claim that eco-tourism is mass tourism in its earlypre-tourism development stage. However, ifthe criteria used to describe the variouscomponents of ecotourism are applied toeach particular tourism situation (seeChapter 1), it becomes clearer if the type oftourist activity being undertaken conformsto what Wallace (1992, p. 7) describes as‘real’ ecotourism. Essential to this is a two-way interactive process between host andguest, and therefore ‘the culture of the hostsociety is as much at risk from variousforms of tourism as physical environments’(Sofield, 1991, p. 56). From definitions ofecotourism proposed in earlier chapterscomes the aim of sustaining the well-beingof local communities. Ecotourism cantherefore be viewed as a development strat-egy leading to sustainable development andcentring on the conjunction of natural

resource qualities, host community and thevisitor that all benefit from tourism activity.

Host Communities

A ‘host community’ refers here to a groupof people who share a common identity,such as geographical location, class and/orethnic background. They may also share aspecial interest, such as a concern aboutthe destruction of native flora and fauna.The host community provides support ser-vices for tourism and may have involve-ment in its management, but some tourismtheories postulate that the sustainability ofthe community in a peripheral area tendsto decline as tourism intensifies. Accordingto Murphy (1985), the long-term success ofthe tourism industry depends upon theacceptance and support of the host com-munity. Therefore, to ensure that eco-tourism is able to be maintained, it isessential to ensure the sustainability ofboth the natural and cultural environmentsof the destination.

Tourism destinations usually involve aseries of separate elements such as land-scapes, wildlife, specific activities, etc. Thepeople who best know and understand

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 395

how these elements function, are the peo-ple in the host community who areexposed to them on a regular basis.However, the community is rarely asked byprivate operators about their vision for thearea. Nor have they been traditionally partof the planning process. Decisions relatingto the likely impacts on the area are oftenmade by planners who do not understandthe intricacies or functions of the host com-munity and local tourism resources.Consequently, the tourism industry thatevolves does not suit community needs oruse the resources to their best advantage,thereby creating unnecessary social pres-sure on the host community. Clearly, aprocess is needed whereby direct knowl-edge, experience and understanding fromthe community forms the basis for themanagement of socio-cultural impacts sothat these communities can engage inongoing development and enhancementthrough ecotourism. One avenue thatallows this to occur is through socio-cul-tural planning appraisals, wherein thecommunity itself has direct involvementand thus influences the process and out-comes.

There are a number of reasons why hostcommunities may consider an ecotourismapproach to tourism development. Themain principles or elements of ecotourismare designed to maximize the social bene-fits of tourism while minimizing the socio-cultural impacts. Ecotourism can, in anideal circumstance, provide the followingbenefits to the socio-cultural environment:

• increase demand for accommodationhouses and food and beverage outlets,and therefore improve viability for newand established hotels, motels, guesthouses, farm stays, etc.;

• provide additional revenue to localretail businesses and other services (e.g.medical, banking, car hire, cottageindustries, souvenir shops, touristattractions);

• increase the market for local products(e.g. locally grown produce, artefacts,value-added goods), thereby sustainingtraditional customs and practices;

• use local labour and expertise (e.g. eco-tour guides, retail sales assistants,restaurant table waiting staff);

• provide a source of funding for the pro-tection and maintenance of naturalattractions and symbols of cultural her-itage;

• provide funding and/or volunteers forfield work associated with wildliferesearch and archaeological studies; and

• create a heightened community aware-ness of the value of local/indigenousculture and the natural environment.

These benefits suggest that ecotourism isabout attracting visitors for the ‘right’ rea-sons and not just promoting tourism for thesake of the ‘tourist dollar’ at the expense ofa community’s natural and cultural attrib-utes. In essence, the overall objective of anecotourism-based approach should be aprocess that a supportive communitywants and controls. It follows that theresult would be an environment that ismore receptive to tourists. The informationgained from socio-cultural consultation canalso be used by planners to guide decisionmaking in matters such as landscapeenhancement, and by the community toinvestigate projects they would like toundertake or even operate themselves. Yet,while a planning process at the communitylevel may appear simple in theory, it iscomplicated by many factors, includingconflicting interests among stakeholdersand lack of prioritization of resource allo-cation to areas that people feel need itmost. If communities can be involved inthe planning process from the beginning,this can reduce the future likelihood ofconflict and misinformation.

Communities and Socio-culturalImpact

There are many challenges that host com-munities experience in pursuing eco-tourism, and as with all forms ofdevelopment there are both costs and bene-fits. Notably, Boo (1990) and Valentine(1987) have voiced their concern with the

396 S. Wearing

leakage of income that occurs whenresources have to be imported. Boo (1990),however, found that ecotourists in particu-lar, when compared with other market seg-ments, are more likely to appreciate localtradition, customs and cuisine. Therefore,it is considered important that the commu-nity is involved in setting up ecotouristprojects, as these types of projects benefitfrom taking into account factors that relateto each community’s lifestyle.

Box 25.1 illustrates the issues that needto be considered when examining theimpacts resulting from tourism. The major-ity of literature relating to socio-culturalimpacts is found in the general tourism lit-erature, but these need to be understood inorder to assess and manage socio-culturalimpacts of ecotourism projects. Basically,the impacts are similar, yet the emphasis isdifferent. Tourism can lead to an increasein the cost of living in the local commu-nity, as is expected for tourism destinationareas (see McNeely and Thorsell, 1989).This exemplifies the way in whichresources can gradually be rendered inac-

cessible to the local people. Inflationarypressures lead to increases in the costs ofconsumer goods and real estate, making itdifficult for some local people to remain inthe area (Cater, 1987). This also illustrateshow economic impacts (see also Chapter23) can have a profound bearing on subse-quent socio-cultural impacts. The differ-ence in consumption patterns of visitorsand nationals may have the outcome of fur-ther widening the gap between the moreand less developed regions (Cater, 1987;Cater and Lowman, 1994). Further, localcommunity members could possibly viewthe areas as being developed exclusivelyfor foreign interests (McNeely andThorsell, 1989). One solution to this prob-lem is the establishment of differentialentry fees, one for tourists and another fornationals. This would be applicable in thecase of publicly owned sites but may beproblematic on private sites. This policyhas already been implemented in somehost communities, with entrance fees tolocal entertainment facilities or protectedareas. The larger problem is whetherentrance fees are retained by the attractionsthemselves. Boo (1990), for example, hasshown how revenues generated by parks inCosta Rica are diverted to other sourcessuch as hospitals.

Socio-cultural impacts are those ‘influ-ences that come to bear upon the host soci-ety as result of tourist contact’ (Prasad,1987, p. 10). These impacts can both bene-fit and impose costs on the community. Inthe case of ecotourism, benefits may stemfrom contact that ecotourists have with thehost culture. The longer duration of staymay promote a deeper understandingbetween the individual ecotourist and indi-vidual community members. In turn, thismay increase the tourist’s understanding ofthe host community. Travis (1982) suggeststhat this contact can also lead to animproved reputation and visibility of thehost community in the society of the eco-tourist. Given that advanced industrialsocieties need to explore less resource-exploitative modes of lifestyle, this contactcan be beneficial to those societies. Theglobal benefits that may accrue will appear

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 397

Box 25.1. Socio-cultural impacts of tourism(Figuerola, cited in Pearce, 1989).

1. Impact on population structureSize of populationAge/sex compositionModification of family sizeRural–urban transformation of population

2. Transformation of types of occupationImpact on/of language and qualification

levelsImpact on occupation distribution by

sectorDemand for female labourIncrease in seasonality of employment

3. Transformation of valuesPoliticalSocialReligiousMoral

4. Influence on traditional way of lifeArt, music and folkloreHabits and customsDaily living

5. Modification of consumption patternsQualitative alterationsQuantitative alterations

less tangible but no less beneficial and far-reaching. As Cater (1987) suggests, onepossible scenario would be the creation ofa wider understanding between nationali-ties. The influence that a host culture canhave on the guest culture is illustrated bythe following anecdote, related by an eco-tourist:

I think the biggest impact was what I wastalking about earlier, and the way that theexperience affected me. I think my tolerancelevel and my acceptance levels, aren’t asblack and white any more. It doesn’tnecessarily have to be about environmentalthings, just generally. You may not agree withthe way someone lives or someone else’svalue system, but you’ve got no right to sitthere and judge it, or try and change it unlessyou really see some benefit in re-educatingpeople to another way of thinking. It doesn’tmatter that they have a totally differentsystem to the way we do things, just enjoythe differences (Amy – ecotourist).

(Wearing, 1998, p. 210)

According to Cater (1987), the dynamicstate of culture means that change isinevitable. However, tourism, with itsdirect contacts between host and guest,accelerates these changes, especially in thehost culture. Butler (1990) suggests that asecotourism penetrates deeper into destina-tions, long-term development results, thuscontributing to impacts on the host culture.In some cases, long-term personal contactscan be overly intrusive, and thus harmfulin their own right despite the best of inten-tions among tourists. Yet, without someshift in the agricultural economic base (orother single economic-based rural commu-nities), younger people may be forced toleave the area to find work, which itselfinitiates its own set of impacts.

Creating Supportive Communities

In principle, ecotourism ensures a support-ive host community by investing controlwithin the community itself. This might beachieved by ensuring the highest level oflocal participation (‘Initiating Action’ as

identified by Paul, 1987). Community atti-tudes can then be monitored to guaranteethat the opinions of residents are consid-ered (Bjorklund and Philbrick inMathieson and Wall, 1982). Monitoring canoccur through a range of formal and infor-mal means, including informal conversations,group discussions and questionnaires.Regular meetings can also be held withcommunity interest groups, as this allowsmembers of the community to voice theiropinions concerning the consequences ofecotourism, while also allowing for thediscussion of strategies that will help tomanage these impacts. A community man-agement plan could be developed which,ideally, would lead to a more integratedform of management.

To ensure that impacts can be managed,the community must be involved in thecomplete tourism development process,from the planning stage to the implementa-tion of tourism projects, through avenuesof consultation. Consultation, in this con-text, involves ‘a process which aims to rec-oncile economic development with thebroader interests of local people and thepotential impact of development on theirnatural, social and cultural environment’(WWF, 1992, p. 25). Methods such as par-ticipatory rural appraisal (PRA) offer anexample of how this might be achieved.According to the World Bank ParticipationSourcebook (1998), PRA is a label given toa growing family of participatory approachesand methods that emphasize local knowl-edge and enable local people to make theirown appraisal, analysis and plans. It usesgroup animation and exercises to facilitateinformation sharing, analysis, and actionamong stakeholders. The Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS, 1996) broadensthis definition when it additionallydescribes PRA as something that enablescommunities to monitor and evaluate theresults of these initiatives. Mukherjee(1993) further defines PRA as a means ofcollecting different kinds of data, identify-ing and mobilizing intended groups andevoking their participation and openingways in which intended groups can partici-pate in decision making, project design,

398 S. Wearing

execution and monitoring. It involves a setof principles, a process of communicationand a menu of methods for seeking vil-lagers’ participation in putting forwardtheir points of view about any issue,including ecotourism. In enabling them dotheir own analysis with a view to make useof such learning, PRA initiates and sustainsa participatory process.

Communities can achieve a range ofbenefits from ecotourism in their region,including employment and infrastructuredevelopments. This may engender a posi-tive predisposition within the host commu-nity, and particularly among the businessesthat see a possible increase in revenue. It isan aim of ecotourism that cultural attrac-tions not only benefit the visitor but alsothe host population. The interactivedimension of ecotourism, that is, relationsbetween the ecotourist, the environment,and the host community, will be influ-enced by both the ecotourist and commu-nity representatives. This interaction maynot always be extensive or congenial, but itdoes offer opportunities for the examina-tion of the influences of the interaction onthe socio-cultural values of the community.Too often cultural attractions through com-modification become overtly commercial-ized in nature, satisfying the visitors’ needsbut losing all meaning and significance forthe local and/or indigenous population.This conservation of cultural integrity con-tinues the idea of sustaining the well-beingof the local people, as highlighted in thedefinition of ecotourism. To illustrate, agroup of Aborigines in central Australiasaw ‘involvement in tourism as a possiblemeans of re-educating and re-establishing apride, and sometimes even a knowledge, oftraditional skills and values amongst theiryounger generations’ (Burchett, 1992, p. 6).Thus the development of cultural attrac-tions can be seen to benefit the local peoplehere as well as the tourist.

Another aim of ecotourism is to ensurethat profits from such programmes flowback into local communities (O’Neill,1991). For example, in the case of indige-nous populations generally, they willencourage ecotourism and will be more

likely to participate in conservation pro-grammes if they can benefit from suchactivities and are included in the manage-ment process. While it is often importantfor ecotourism that traditional values aremaintained, Wallace (1992) suggestsindigenous people must not be asked tomaintain their traditional practices simplyfor the sake of tourists. As cultures undergoa constant process of change and it is thisprocess of genuine culture change andexchange that is a component of the experi-ence of ecotourism, it is important thattourism does not inhibit this change. Inkeeping with the idea of sustaining thewell-being of the local people, Wallace sug-gests that ecotourism is a ‘useful tool forlocally directed rural development andwildland protection’ (1992, p. 6). With thischange can come modifications in attitudesof the indigenous people to the use of pro-tected areas, such as the discontinuation ofslash and burn agriculture.

Local communities should be involvedin the entire tourism development processthrough avenues of consultation, but par-ticipation by local communities in tourismmust not be limited simply to employmentopportunities. Two examples of where par-ticipation levels are significantly high arethe villages of South Pentecost in Vanuatu,and Aboriginal tourism in the NorthernTerritory, Australia. In South Pentecost, thePentecost Land Dive is a traditional cere-mony of the villages in this area that occursannually in April/May. In response toincreasing negative cultural impacts as aresult of tourism, the local chiefs of the vil-lages established ‘The South PentecostTourism Council’ to manage the occasionwith its ‘primary responsibility to safe-guard the cultural integrity of the event’(Sofield, 1991, p. 59). This involves main-taining customs with tourist visits, pre-venting filming of the event and limitingnumbers of tourists attending the perfor-mance. This not only provides the touristwith an authentic cultural experience butalso maintains the cultural significance ofthe ritual to the villagers themselves andallows them some degree of control overthe activity of tourism.

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 399

Similarly, the influx of tourists to theNorthern Territory, Australia, encouragedindigenous groups to participate in tourismin an attempt to control visitation on totheir lands (Burchett, 1992). An example ofthis is the Umorrduk area in North WesternArnhem Land. The aboriginal tribe residingin this area allows a tour operator of abo-riginal origin to conduct safari tours toselected areas allocated by the local aborig-inal people. Control procedures imple-mented by the aborigines, such as entrypermits and the prohibition of photographyat some sacred sites, ensures that the num-bers of tourists are limited and the culturalintegrity of the aboriginal people is main-tained. This type of operation ‘reinforcesthe privileged nature of the opportunity toenter this area and of the capacity of thetraditional owners to maintain absolutecontrol on who enters, where they traveland what information they get in regards totraditional matters’ (Burchett, 1992, p. 12).In this way, both the visitors and the hostsbenefit from the tourism experience whileat the same time avoiding negative culturalimpacts on the local and/or indigenouspopulation. Participation of local commu-nities in the activity of tourism, therefore,is an essential element to sustaining thewell-being of the local people.

As stated earlier, one of the economicbenefits of tourism associated with localcommunities is the increase in employ-ment opportunities and income generationfor the host region. However, ‘flourishingemployment, living standards and con-sumption levels for some, added to theunequal distribution of benefits to a por-tion of the population, can contribute tosocial tensions and hostility’ (WWF, 1992,p. 19). Increasing recruitment of local staffat all levels of the industry would benefitthe host population, but more importantly,less foreign ownership and more locallyowned operations or vested interests inlocal operations would see greater eco-nomic benefits accruing to local communi-ties. However, this is provided that thelatter are not restricted to the existing localelite.

Returning to the case of the Australian

Aborigines, tourism was perceived as beingable to ‘offer some employment in remoteparts of the Territory where alternative eco-nomic opportunities were few’ (Burchett,1992, p. 6). Guided walks, demonstrationsof tracking skills and food processing tech-niques and other aspects of aboriginal lifeare carried out at Uluru or Ayers Rock.Performances of traditional dance areundertaken by three different groups whomaintain control of their dance routines(Burchett, 1992). Specialized, small grouptours are undertaken by the Tiwi commu-nity of Melville Island who see ‘the devel-opment of an isolated, comfortable safaricamp as being an ideal way for them tocombine their needs for employment, cashflow and cultural underpinning’ (Burchett,1992, p. 7). The produce from traditionalhunting and fishing activities undertakenby tourists is returned to the local commu-nity with only sufficient amounts left at thesafari camp for tasting by the tourists(Burchett, 1992). Tourists experience thetraditional and authentic activity and cantaste the ‘catch’ but these vital resources,necessary food stocks for the aborigines, arenot depleted just for the sake of the tourist.

Conversely, the Gagudju people ofKakadu National Park prefer not to activelyparticipate in tourism activities but haveinstead invested in tourism infrastructure(Burchett, 1992). They own two majorhotels in Kakadu National Park and havean investment in a third property. TheGagudju ‘maintain the control and thedirection of their own involvement in thetourist industry’ (Burchett, 1992, p. 14) andgenerate income for the benefit of them-selves. The Aboriginal people are receivingdirect economic benefits and employmentfrom tourism, while presumably conserv-ing their perception of what their culturalidentity should be, allowing them to chal-lenge any form of cultural hegemony thatmay result from tourism. By developing anappreciation of local communities andtheir customs and traditions ‘a process ofmutual respect and understanding betweensocieties can be greatly enhanced’(Burchett, 1992, p. 10) and the achieve-ment of successful interaction between

400 S. Wearing

hosts and guests will only benefit and sus-tain the well-being of local communities.

Ecotourism insists on the understandingand appreciation of both nature and differ-ent and/or indigenous cultures, and alsotheir relationship with each other. Throughthis interactive process, the visitor and thehost population both benefit experientiallyfrom ecotourism. Local communities canbenefit from ecotourism economically ifthey play a greater participatory role in thetourism process. The greater the controlover tourism in their region, the more cul-turally sustainable they will become.

Exploring Employment Further

The primary employment opportunitiesthrough ecotourism appear to be in jobssuch as hotel servicing, craft making, shopownership, tour operations, governmentagency staff, and park rangers. However, inmany circumstances there are limitedemployment benefits from tourism devel-opment because infrastructure such asaccommodation establishments are alreadyestablished and staffed. Also, in sectorssuch as tour operators, most businesses areonly small, one or two person companies.This is further compounded by the fact thatecotourism depends on a lack of infrastruc-ture as its attraction to tourists is partlydue to the ‘pristine’ environment.

Despite this, there are still long-termemployment opportunities resulting fromecotourism that are potentially open tolocals. These are evident in the descriptionof ecotourism as ‘labour intensive’ asopposed to other types of tourism whichare capital intensive. For example, thetraining of small guiding operations offersemployment opportunities for many ruralcommunities with knowledge of the area.Still, in light of the lack of capital intensityof ecotourism, it is still not a viable eco-nomic possibility for many local popula-tions to enter the market. Joy and Motzney(1992) suggest that locals should buy andmanage small accommodation establish-ments, yet this may not be an economicpossibility for many people.

The Central American country of Belizeis attempting to counter this problem bydeveloping policies that provide feasiblefinancial avenues and ‘competitive advan-tages’ for locals to invest in small tomedium scale private tourism enterprises,such as food and beverage outlets, accom-modation establishments and sporting oper-ations. Government enforcement of thepolicies is through the restriction of tradelicences, concessions or duty exemptions,and vetting procedures (Maguire, 1991).

Currently, a general lack of host commu-nity skills and resources has meant thatmany ecotourism ventures are often ownedand operated by expatriates (Weiler andHall, 1992). Clark and Banford (1991) claimthat it is unfeasible to expect the local popu-lation to automatically assume employmentpositions within ecotourism, and state that‘the hard truth is that a local farmer, fisher-man or plantation worker cannot always bechanged overnight into a tourist guide orhotel manager’ (1991, p. 9). Wearing (1998)believes the planning, staff and managementof accommodation and parks by expatriatesin developing countries may have direeffects on the local population and culture.This can lead to a ‘homogenization’ of cul-tures and the overlooking of local and tradi-tional methods of managing the naturalresources, in addition to host-communityhostility and anger toward tourism.

It is generally accepted that training andeducation of locals is needed before theycan gain meaningful employment from eco-tourism (see Wearing, 1993; Wearing andLarson, 1996). Weiler and Johnson (1991)claim that skills need to be developed (inparticular language, environmental andnatural history skills), while Clark andBanford (1991, p. 9) pose a longer-termsolution. They propose a ‘sensible partner-ship’ between the tourism industry and thelocal population, which would ensure thatlocal people benefit from tourism (evenbefore they gain employment) despiteexpatriate domination. Furthermore, theywould develop an education system for thechildren of local people so that they maylater participate fully in tourism operations(Clark and Banford, 1991).

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 401

Clark and Banford, however, may beoverlooking more ideal forms of employ-ment for local people. The skills for run-ning private business enterprises may notbe available within the local community,but local expertise and knowledge can be apowerful tool for tourist guides and parkwardens in protected areas. Bunting (1991,p. 3) supports this by claiming:

proper management of protected areasrequires employment of park rangers andguards, as well as workers to maintain parkbuildings, roads and trails. Ecotourism inprotected areas creates demand for guideservices … providing employment for …local people familiar with the flora andfauna of the area.

According to Ceballos-Lascuráin (1992, p.5) local people possess the ‘practical andancestral knowledge of the natural features’of the area. They have the incentive tobecome dedicated to ecotourism in posi-tions such as park rangers, since ‘their sub-sistence would depend in a major degreeon the sustained preservation of the naturalqualities of their environment’.

Bates (1991) believes that with or with-out ecotourism, Papua New Guinea is themost rapidly Westernizing nation on Earthand, as a consequence, there are growingsocial problems, unemployment and arapidly diminishing culture. The AmbuaLodge in the highlands of Papua NewGuinea is an ecotourism establishment pro-viding employment opportunities to localpeople and therefore stopping the urbandrift towards the crime-ridden major cities.As such, it provides the incentive to pre-serve not only the natural environment, butthe unique features of their culture as well.The construction and operation of AmbuaLodge provides a diverse range of long- andshort-term employment positions for thelocal community such as constructionworkers, art and crafts makers, performers,waiters, cooks, guides, gardeners, roomcleaners, laundry operators, maintenancepersonnel and vegetable growers (Bates,1991).

Generally, in the employment sector, thewidening opportunity for women often

reduces their dependence on family andmay affect family relationships. Also, theemployment opportunities are very lim-ited, and the jobs have relatively low pay(Cater, 1987). There appear to be insuffi-cient training programmes that provide thenecessary language, natural history andenvironmental skills for the local commu-nity. A large number of the operators there-fore come from outside the hostcommunity, increasing economic leakage(Valentine, 1991), even though there is anaugmentation in economic opportunitiesfor communities.

Access and Research

As a result of tourism, local people inmany areas have lost access to land andresources they had previously enjoyed.Ecotourism can lead to a change inresource ownership and management that,while being beneficial to the tourismindustry, is detrimental to the local people.Subsequent local resentment towardnational parks and designated conservationand protected areas can arise when the areais viewed to be of principal benefit totourists rather than locals (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1992). Extreme cases can lead tothe destruction of natural areas or flora andfauna. For example, poaching in Africanand Costa Rican protected areas demon-strates that spiteful destruction may occurif local communities believe that they arenot receiving the benefits from their landsthat are singled out for protection (Westand Brechin, 1991; Western and Wright,1994).

This scenario has been countered inCosta Rica by the establishment of a jointUNESCO-MAB and Costa Rica NationalPark project that intentionally prefers resi-dents to foreign tourists. Other attemptshave also been made to incorporate localcommunities into protected area manage-ment with an emphasis on Costa Ricanrecreational and educational needs, andthe employment and training of local com-munity members in the areas of park main-tenance, interpretation, management and

402 S. Wearing

habitat restoration (see Wearing andLarson, 1996). These sorts of programmeshave the long-term benefit of the gradualtransfer of control of tourism from expatri-ate or developed country influences. Theideal for planning ecotourism developmentis cited by Clark and Banford (1991, p. 7):‘There is no reason why countries or com-munities should not decide what type oftourism they are willing to accept and setlimits to the amount of change they areprepared to put up with. This applies toecotourism’.

Goal setting, policy development andmanagement for socio-cultural impacts areneeded at the national, regional and locallevel. Unfortunately, in practice, the plan-ning system is often set up in a way thatgives local people little or no opportunitiesfor input (West and Brechin, 1991; Westernand Wright, 1994). These events occur andare often designed and implemented in apolitical context in which local and/orindigenous people have minimal voice.Countries such as Bhutan and Nepal, how-ever, have developed a system (throughresource management plans) that specifi-cally benefits local people by giving themincreased power and a greater role in deci-sion making. Increasing access to informa-tion for local and/or indigenous peopleprovides them with more scope forinvolvement in planning and decisionmaking. In Panama and Costa Rica, meet-ings between various groups of indigenouspeoples have been arranged in which prob-lems and difficulties are discussed, andpotential solutions, such as PRA, are pro-posed.

Small, rural communities have certainsocial, cultural and historical relationshipsthat bind them in the form of identifiableunits. The ‘nature’ of these social relation-ships is, therefore, important to identifyand understand in helping to define a com-munity and the socio-cultural values itholds. Tourism has a profound influenceon the socio-cultural environment throughits potential to contribute to the change oflifestyles and behaviour of local communi-ties. It can thus be examined within a dia-logue that allows for struggles and

reformulations, as host cultures or subcul-tures challenge the usual dominant cul-tural forms of the tourist. For example,MacCannell (1992) refers to the interactionbetween ‘moderns’ (that is, tourists) and‘ex-primitives’ or host peoples, as a canni-balistic endeavour. The invading touristswhose dominant white, Western cultureempowers them, are able to consume,devalue and ultimately eliminate the hostculture.

Attempts to research the socio-culturalvalues of the community and the impactsof tourism on these host communities usu-ally focus on community attitudes towardtourism. Questionnaires are often used togauge community opinion of the perceivedpositive and negative impacts of tourism(e.g. Liu and Var, 1986; King et al., 1993;Getz, 1994; Haralambopoulos and Pizam,1996). However, these surveys frequentlydo not take into account non-tourism fac-tors, such as the modernization process ingeneral, that could be influencing theseattitudes and impacts. Research needs toemploy techniques, such as those embod-ied in PRA, that can provide a rapid surveyof community values and attitudes, andthen link these with ecotourism. In general,a more systematic range of techniques andmethodologies, as found within the socialsciences, is necessary to identify andanalyse local attitudes (see Furze et al.,1996). Particular attention should be paidto local attitudes toward the natural envi-ronment, since this is the core attractionbase for ecotourism.

In general, research needs to focus onthe many impacts of tourism to provideinsight into how ecotourism can adopt adifferent and more benign approach.Among the impacts that require furtherinvestigation are the following.

• A high degree of leakage resulting fromforeign ownership of infrastructure(major hotels for example: seeMathieson and Wall, 1982).

• Tourists bringing their own social val-ues and behaviours which can distortsocial habits and customs, especially ifthey are adopted by locals through the

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 403

demonstration effect (see Mason, 1990),an example of which is the number ofevening entertainment venues whichbegin to proliferate.

• Domestic economy impacts, such as theprice of vegetables and other staple fooditems rising while luxury items, such ascheese and chocolate, are increasinglybecoming a staple food which placeshigher expectations and pressure on thelocal residents in terms of purchasing.

• Community members perceiving thatthe area has been developed for foreign-ers only and thus a feeling of resentmenttowards them develops (McNeely andThorsell, 1989, p. 31). Discontent canoccur among communities who find itdifficult to coexist with tourists becausethe tourists are on holidays while thecommunity members must continuewith their work (Mason, 1990).

The general literature on socio-culturalimpacts (Pearce, 1989; van Doorn, 1989;Craik, 1991, 1995; Pearce, 1994, 1995;Sharpley, 1994; Faulkner and Tideswell,1997) provides a negative view. Ecotourismfor the most part is aimed at avoiding someof these impacts, through the use of localhotels, participating in local culturalevents, eating traditional dishes and insome cases working with local communitymembers (Wearing, 1998). Yet as with mostforms of tourism, ecotourism is only oneform that exists in the host area and thescale of impact needs to be addressed incomparison with other market segments.

With regard to the demonstration effect,Murphy (1985) claims that the members ofthe community who are most susceptibleare the youth, who may feel dissatisfiedwith local opportunities and are preparedto imitate the lifestyle of visiting tourists asa way of seeking alternatives to their cur-rent lifestyles. Still, ecotourists are gener-ally aged between 20 and 40, or over 55(Ballantine and Eagles, 1994; Wearing andNeil, 1999). They expect a quieter lifestylewith longer-term interchange which allowsfor a more substantial context for theexchange of lifestyle and behaviour, andcan therefore lessen what has been identi-fied as a primary impact.

Related to demonstration effect is accul-turation. Acculturation is the processwhereby people borrow from each other’scultural heritage (Lea, 1988). In the case oftourism it is common for the Western ideasand practices introduced by tourism to beaccepted by the host culture (for example,see Nash, 1996). In the case of ecotourismthis problem is directly addressed in thatthe ecotourist’s stay is of a markedlylonger duration than that of conventionaltourism. Thus the potentiality in everydayinteraction exists for a more equal transferof cultural values, though this in itselfraises a range of issues relating to suchtransfers.

There is a need to understand eco-tourism and its socio-cultural impactswithin the complexities of the exchangesthat occur between host and guest. Hence,questions should be asked that will pushtheory beyond its current limitations. Byexamining the tourist destination as a siteand space in which dynamic social interac-tions occur, rather than as a static andbounded place, research can link touristexperiences to possibilities for extendingthe self beyond the limitations of culturallyspecific discourses. This expands and mod-ifies the concept of the universalizing gaze,suggesting that the ecotourist in this spe-cific context is interacting in a creative waywith the tourist space so that the self isinvolved. An asymmetrical perspectivefocusing on the one-way action of thetourist upon the host culture gives way to amore symmetrical approach which recog-nizes the two-way interaction betweentourist and host, and includes the subjec-tive experiences of both.

Awareness and Education

Education also plays a powerful role inincreasing local involvement and contribu-tion in ecotourism. Wearing (1998) claimsthat initiatives such as Costa Rica’s univer-sity and high-school ecotourism pro-grammes will eventually lead to greaterlocal involvement in protected areas and,eventually, the tourism industry. This is

404 S. Wearing

achieved when local people are involvedin researching, studying, discussing anddevising strategies to gain control over thedevelopment decision making process.Concern and consideration for the localculture can be incorporated into the plan-ning and marketing of ecotourism destina-tions and products. The local communitycan help to ensure that tourists treat themwith respect by developing and imposingsocial guidelines. According to Blangy andEpler Wood (1992), social guidelines couldincorporate desirable and acceptablebehaviour in the following areas:

1. Local customs and traditions2. Permission for photographs3. Dress4. Language5. Invasion of privacy6. Response to begging7. Use and abuse of technological gadgetry8. Bartering and bargaining9. Indigenous rights10. Local officials11. Off-limits areas

Blangy and Epler Wood (1992) recom-mend that government agencies, tourismboards, the tourism industry and localinhabitants could all play a role in theeducation of tourists about cultural issuesthrough the implementation of socialguidelines. They suggest governmentshould be responsible for developingguidelines, but recommend significantinput from the local community. The localcommunity can be incorporated into thedevelopment of these guidelines by usinggovernment funding (if available) to getassistance with the preparation and edit-ing of brochures for distribution.Alternatively, the local community couldcollaborate with ‘international and localnon-governmental organisations’ (Blangyand Epler Wood, 1992, p. 4) and becomeinvolved with environmental educationprojects. Another source of potential assis-tance is the tourist boards. Blangy andEpler Wood (1992, p. 4) suggest boardsshould allocate funds for all stages of theeducation process, through the ‘genera-tion, printing and distribution of local

guidelines’. In addition to the distributionof brochures and printed matter at touristcentres, tour guides could play an impor-tant role by briefing tourists on what isacceptable and unacceptable in the regionbeing visited.

Several examples exist where local peo-ple have taken measures to ensure theybenefit from ecotourism both personallyand as a community. In many small com-munities living in remote areas such asEaster Island, beds within local houses areopen to tourists and provide the majorsource of accommodation. The additionalincome gained is often spent increasing thequality of life within the local community.In Papua New Guinea’s highlands, villagershave a source of income from the accom-modation huts that they have built on theirproperty (Bates, 1991). By collaboratingwith local tour operators, these huts pro-vide accommodation to groups of tourists.However, a major problem with increasedlocal involvement in ecotourism is thedependency that may result. As tourism isoften seen as the most economically lucra-tive form of employment, other avenues ofresource utilization may be discarded. Thisin turn leads to the replacement of moretraditional industries such as hunting, fish-ing and forestry with ecotourism (Maguire,1991, p. 6).

Despite the often good intentions oftourists and some tour operators, it isapparent that ‘ecotourism can damage thenatural assets on which it rests. The out-come depends on how it is managed’(Lindberg, 1991, p. ix). Thus the implica-tions for management are enormous. Forexample, park managers must find a way to‘capitalise on its potential without jeopar-dising the special features of natural areas’(Boo, 1990, p. xiv). This would enable aproactive interaction with the tourismindustry where they can ensure that capac-ity is set and managed by their ownstandards, rather than by a continualunmanaged growth of tourism numbersand operators.

Any form of ecotourism depends on theuse of the host community’s availabletourist facilities and infrastructure such as

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 405

accommodation, roads, transport, car park-ing and ancillary services such as food andother retail outlets. Ecotourism alsodepends on the host community’s goodwilland positive attitude to tourism. Localcommunities (in many cases via electedrepresentatives) make decisions about theprovision of such resources for tourist use.Decisions about the allocation of scarceresources ultimately favour one or moregroups of residents, or instead, aid thelocal tourist industry in its ability to attracttourists to the area. This dynamic relation-ship needs to be understood, since localand/or indigenous communities usuallycomprise groups with different and poten-tially conflicting interests (see Fig. 25.1).That is, not all groups want the samethings and so they influence the socio-cul-tural environment created through theirattitudes.

To expand, ecotourism requires ahealthy business environment that pro-vides:

• financial security;• a trained and responsible workforce;

and• attractions of sufficient quality to ensure

a steady flow of visitors who stay longerand visit more often and are environ-mentally and culturally aware.

Those interested in the natural environ-ment and cultural heritage issues seek:

• protection of the environment throughprevention, improvement, correction ofdamage and restoration; and

• to motivate people to be more aware andsubsequently ‘care for’ rather than ‘useup’ resources.

Community members seek a healthy placein which to live with:

• adequate food and clean water;• health care;• rewarding work for equitable pay;• education and recreation;• respect for cultural traditions; and• opportunities to make decisions about

the future.

Socio-cultural impact is one concern thatall these groups have in common. Othersmay include:

• issues of access, such as when, whereand how tourists visit and move fromplace to place;

• host and guest issues, such as culturalimpacts or common use of infrastruc-ture;

• land use issues, such as hunting/wildlife habitat, agriculture/recreationand preservation/development, etc.

406 S. Wearing

Environmentaland cultural

organizations

Tourismindustry

Communitygroups

Fig. 25.1. Stakeholders in the local community that might influence the socio-cultural environment.

Conclusion

In order to create a socio-cultural environ-ment that is conducive to the ideals of eco-tourism, the environment needs to bemanaged according to accepted standardswhere the needs and preferences of allgroups are respected. If approaches areadopted that stem from the philosophicalideals inherent to ecotourism (see Wearingand Neil, 1999) all local interest groups inperfect circumstances should be providedwith the opportunity to ‘have their say’early in any policy, management or plan-ning process. This community input willmake it possible to benefit from tourismwithout local residents, business people,park managers and environmental organi-zations feeling that their needs have beenignored which creates a dynamic that pro-duces negative attitudes to ecotourismfrom the outset.

At the risk of stating the obvious, mostexperiences sought by ecotourists, andindeed many experiences sought by main-stream tourists, depend on the natural envi-ronment being in its unaffected (by humans)state. Many ecotourists are sensitive todecreases in water quality and air quality,loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife, soil ero-sion and a change in the character andvisual appeal of an area due to develop-ment. The degradation of the natural envi-ronment will severely reduce visitordemand in the long term as the naturalattributes on which ecotourism dependswill be perceived as less attractive, lesslegitimate and less able to provide satisfyingecologically based experiences. The mostimportant feature in the preservation of acommunity’s nature-based visitor attractionsrequires that the community has a positiveattitude to tourism, as this will affect thevisitor’s experience to a much larger degree.

Thus, ecotourism is identified as notonly concerned with experiencing naturalenvironments but also with understanding

the cultural heritage of indigenous and/orlocal communities. ‘Carefully designedtourism programs can make protected nat-ural areas a focus for fostering local knowl-edge, skills and lifestyle to perpetuatetraditional values among indigenous peo-ple and to educate outsiders about theirculture’ (Kutay, 1990, p. 38). Because localpeople often inhabit or depend on the envi-ronments in the most sought after areas forvisitation by ecotourists, any attempts toestablish ecotourism must incorporate theinhabitants living on or near the naturalresource, as they will, in a sense, becomean integral part of that resource.

Local communities are significantly vul-nerable to the deleterious impacts oftourism development – particularly indige-nous cultures – as they directly experienceits socio-cultural effects. The subsequentimpact of tourism’s dynamic growth oncommunities has in some cases precipi-tated strong protests by community groups,which, being sensitive to the impacts oftourism, have actively opposed large-scaletourism developments for their locality.Other community groups have been moreaccepting of a gradual growth in tourism totheir region over many years, only tobecome aware of the negative impacts at alater date when these impacts cannot easilybe ignored.

Knowledge of socio-cultural impactstells us that the interdependence oftourism and the social/physical environ-ment is fundamental to the future of each.Seeking a way to accommodate the needsof all parties, without control being exter-nal to those who experience its effects mostdirectly, is therefore essential. Features ofthe natural and cultural environment andsupportive host communities are the foun-dations of a successful ecotourism indus-try. Neglect of conservation and quality oflife issues threatens the very basis of localpopulations and a viable and sustainabletourism industry.

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 407

References

Ballantine, J. and Eagles, P. (1994) Defining Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2,210–214.

Bates, B. (1991) Ecotourism – a case study of the lodges in Papua New Guinea. In: PATA ’91 Bali,Indonesia: Conference Record 40th Annual Conference. Pacific Asia Travel Association, SanFrancisco, pp. 228–234.

Blangy, S. and Epler Wood, M. (1992) Developing and Implementing Ecotourism Guidelines forWildlands and Neighbouring Communities. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Bunting, B. (1991) Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. In: PATA ’91 Bali, Indonesia: Conference

Record 40th Annual Conference. Pacific Asia Travel Association, San Francisco, pp. 209–218. Burchett, C. (1992) A new direction in travel: Aboriginal tourism in Australia’s Northern Territory.

Paper presented at the Northern Territory Tourist Commission Environmental Conference, April1992.

Butler, R.W. (1990) Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28,40–45.

Cater, E. (1987) Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism Research 14, 202–206.Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (1994) Ecotourism: a Sustainable Option? John Wiley & Sons, New York.Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1992) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: national parks and protected

areas. Paper presented to the IVth World congress on national parks and protected areas, 10–12February, Caracas, Venezuela, International Union for Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources.

Clark, L. and Banford, D. (1991) Ecotourism potentials and pitfalls. In: The Promotion of SustainableTourism Development in Pacific Island Countries, Seminar Proceedings, Regional Seminar onthe Promotion of Sustainable Tourism Development in Pacific Island Countries, 18–22November, Suva, Fiji, pp. 56–63.

Craik, J. (1991) Resorting to Tourism. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.Craik, J. (1995) Are there cultural limits to tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 87–98.Doxey, G.V. (1975) A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and research infer-

ences. In: The Impact of Tourism, Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings of The Travel ResearchAssociation. The Travel Research Association, San Diego, pp. 195–198.

Faulkner, B. and Tideswell, C. (1997) A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5, 3–28.

Furze, B., De Lacy, T. and Birkhead, J. (1996) Culture, Conservation, and Biodiversity – the SocialDimension of Linking Local Level Development. John Wiley & Sons, Sydney.

Getz, D. (1994) Residents’ attitudes towards tourism: a longitudinal study in Spey Valley, Scotland.Tourism Management 15, 247–258.

Haralambopoulos, N. and Pizam, A. (1996) Perceived impacts of tourism: the case of Samos. Annalsof Tourism Research 16, 503–506.

Institute of Development Studies (IDS) (1996) The Power of Participation. IDS policy briefing, Issue7, August. Sussex.

Joy, A. and Motzney, B. (1992) Ecotourism and ecotourists: preliminary thoughts on the new leisuretraveller. In: Seminar proceedings of the AMA Winter Educator’s Conference. AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago.

King, B., Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993) Social impacts of tourism: host perceptions. Annals ofTourism Research 20, 650–665.

Kutay, K. (1990) Ecotourism: travel’s new wave. Vis a Vis July, 34–80.Lea, J.P. (1988) Tourism and Development in the Third World. Routledge, London.Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximising Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economical Benefits.

International Conservation Financing Project Working Paper. World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.

Liu, J. and Var, T. (1986) Resident attitudes towards tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of TourismResearch 13, 193–214.

MacCannell, D. (1992) Empty Meeting Grounds: the Tourist Chapters. Routledge, London.McNeely, J.A. and Thorsell, J. (1989) Jungles, Mountains and Islands: How Tourism can Help

Conserve the Natural Heritage. World Leisure and Recreation Association, Geneva.

408 S. Wearing

Maguire, P.A. (1991) Ecotourism development policy in Belize. In: Veal, A.J., Jonson, P. andCushman, G. (eds) Leisure and Tourism: Social and Environmental Change, Papers from theWorld Leisure and Recreation Association Congress, Sydney, Australia, 16–19 July. Centre forLeisure and Tourism Studies, University of Technology, Sydney, pp. 624–631.

Mason, P. (1990) Tourism: Environment and Development Perspectives. World Wide Fund ForNature, Surrey.

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: the Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Longman,Harlow, UK.

Mukherjee, N. (1993) Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methodology and Applications. ConceptPublishing, New Delhi, India.

Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: a Community Approach. Methuen, London.Nash, D. (1996) Anthropology of Tourism. Pergamon, Oxford.O’Neill, M. (1991) Naturally attractive. Pacific Monthly September, 25.Paul, S. (1987) Community Participation in Development Projects: the World Bank Experience, World

Bank Discussion Paper 6. The World Bank, Washington, DC.Pearce, D. (1989) Tourist Development. Longman, Hong Kong.Pearce, P. (1994) Tourist-resident impacts: examples, explanations and emerging solutions. In:

Theobald, W.F. (ed.) Global Tourism: the Next Decade. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,pp. 103–123.

Pearce, P.L. (1995) From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange: ideas towards sus-tainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 143–153.

Prasad, P. (1987) The impact of tourism on small developing countries – an introductory view fromFiji and the Pacific. In: Britton, S. and Clarke, W.C. (eds) Ambiguous Alternative – Tourism inSmall Developing Countries. University Press of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, pp. 9–15.

Sharpley, R. (1994) Tourism, Tourists and Society. ELM Publications, Huntingdon.Sofield, T.H.B. (1991) Sustainable ethnic tourism in the South Pacific: some principles. Journal of

Tourism Studies 2, 56–72.Travis, A.S. (1982) Managing the environmental and cultural impacts of tourism and leisure develop-

ment. Tourism Management 3, 256–263.Valentine, P. (1987) Towards an alternative view of tourism. Magnus Taurus, 16–18.Valentine, P. (1991) Nature-based tourism: a review of prospects and problems. In: Miller, M.L. and

Auyong, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. NationalCoastal Resources Research and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon, USA, pp. 475–485.

van Doorn, J.W.M. (1989) A critical assessment of socio-cultural impact studies of tourism in thethird world. In: Singh, T., Theuns, H. and Go, F. (eds) Towards Appropriate Tourism: the Case ofDeveloping Countries. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 71–91.

Wallace, G. (1992) Real ecotourism: assisting protected area managers and getting benefits to localpeople. Paper presented to the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas,February 10–12, Caracas, Venezuela, International Union for Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources.

Wearing, S.L. (1993) Ecotourism: the Santa Elena rainforest project. The Environmentalist 13(2),125–135.

Wearing, S.L. (1998) The nature of change through ecotourism: the place of self, identity and commu-nities as interacting elements of alternative tourism experiences. PhD thesis, School ofEnvironmental and Information Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia.

Wearing, S.L. and Larson, L. (1996) Assessing and managing the socio-cultural impacts of eco-tourism: revisiting the Santa Elena rainforest project. The Environmentalist 16(2), 117–133.

Wearing, S.L. and Neil, J. (1999) Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Weiler, B. and Hall, C. (eds) (1992) Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London.Weiler, B. and Johnson, T. (1991) Nature based tour operators – are they environmentally friendly or

are they faking it? In: Stanton, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the National Tourism Research Conference:The Benefits and Costs of Tourism, Marie Resort, Nelson Bay, 3–4 October. University ofNewcastle, Newcastle, Australia, pp. 115–126.

West, P.C. and Brechin, S.R. (eds) (1991) Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas andStrategies in International Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Exploring Socio-cultural Impacts on Local Communities 409

Western, D. and Wright, M.R. (eds) (1994) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-basedConservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

World Bank Group (1998) World Bank Participation Sourcebook: Participatory Rural Appraisal,Collaborative Decisionmaking – Community-based Method. World Bank Group, New York.

World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) (1992) Beyond the Green Horizon: a Discussion Paper onPrinciples for Sustainable Tourism. WWF (UK), Surrey.

410 S. Wearing

Chapter 26

Developing Indicators for DestinationSustainability

E. Sirakaya, T.B. Jamal and H.-S. ChoiDepartment of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station,

Texas, USA

Tourism should be developed in a way so that it benefits the local communities, strengthens thelocal economy, employs local workforce and wherever ecologically sustainable, uses localmaterials, local agricultural products and traditional skills. Mechanisms, including policies andlegislation should be introduced to ensure the flow of benefits to local communities. Tourismactivities should respect the ecological characteristics and capacity of the local environment inwhich they take place. All efforts should be made to respect traditional lifestyles and cultures.

(The Berlin Declaration, 1997)

Introduction

Rapid change in transportation technologyalong with rising incomes and leisure timein Western nations has enabled a democra-tization of travel, the growth of masstourism and new tourism forms such asecotourism (Mowforth and Munt, 1998).The globalization of capitalism, finance,labour, technology, transportation andcommunication in the 20th century hasenabled tourism to become the world’slargest industry. The World TourismOrganization (WTO) estimates that interna-tional tourism arrivals in 2000 were in thevicinity of 637 million, up from 443 mil-

lion in 1990 (US Department of Commerce,1998). Yet, until recently, tourism and eco-tourism have been mostly evaluated interms of their potential for economicgrowth in many countries and communi-ties around the world. Their contributionto regional and national economies throughincome generation, hard currency earnings,new jobs and infrastructure has been cele-brated as the saviour of many local,regional and national economies. Not sur-prisingly, many destinations have beencaught off-guard in dealing with theadverse impacts of tourism on natural,social and cultural resources1. Meanwhile,ecotourism has been gaining prominence

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 411

1Negative impacts associated with tourism and mass tourism include congestion, pollution, inflation,acculturation and loss of cultural identity, high income-leakage, demonstration effect, and degradation ofphysical and natural environments (Butler, 1990; Gunn, 1990; Farrell and Runyan, 1991; Cater, 1993;Valentine, 1993; Wight, 1993; Allcock and Bruner, 1995; Sirakaya, 1997). For additional social impactssuch as conflict between host and guest, commodification of culture, seasonal low-paying jobs, and loss ofsocial cohesion see (De Kadt, 1979, p. 65; Britton, 1982; Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Cater, 1985; Murphy,1985; Holder, 1988; Greenwood, 1989; Smith, 1989; Butler, 1990; Mowforth and Munt, 1998).

since the 1980s as a more benign form oftourism that is considered to have charac-teristics of a universal remedy for amelio-rating the developmental ills associatedwith traditional mass tourism.

This chapter discusses the developmentof indicators for monitoring tourismimpacts, an essential requirement of strate-gic planning and management of eco-tourism destinations, given the essentialecotourism criterion of sustainability. Tothis end, both the content of ecotourismindicators and the process of developingand using indicators in strategic planningare addressed. A brief overview of environ-mental considerations and the growth oftourism is provided first below, followedby a discussion of sustainability basedindicators, including a brief historicaloverview of indicators, benefits, definitionsand types of indicators. Next, we identifyseveral sets of sustainability indicators forecotourism based on their policy relevance,analytical soundness and measurability.Following this, we discuss the process ofindicator development, since this is a criti-cal aspect of ensuring successful monitor-ing of impacts, and conclude with a call fordeveloping a set of robust, integrated andholistic indicators which can be adaptedby ecotourism destination managers, plan-ners and tour operators to their particularcontext.

An Indicator-based Approach toSustainability

Environmental concerns can be traced backthrough a lineage of well-known writingssuch as Thoreau’s Walden (originally pub-lished in 1854) and Leopold’s A SandCounty Almanac (1949), as well as forwardto the markers of the modern environmen-tal movement, such as Rachel Carson’sSilent Spring (1962) and the 1970 EarthDay event (Nash, 1967, 1968). The Club ofRome’s report The Limits to Growth(Meadows et al., 1972), and a series ofother well-known writings have alsoserved to highlight the environmental

issues facing our planet and the need foraction towards sustaining the Earth forfuture generations. The BrundtlandCommission’s report Our Common Future(WCED, 1987) and a host of related worksoffer ‘sustainable development’ advice tocommercial practice and governments.Interestingly, the Brundtland Commission’sreport makes little reference to the role oftourism in the battle for ecological sustain-ability, despite its ability to create signifi-cant positive and negative impacts onglobal economies, resources and the envi-ronment.

In addition to positive economic andsocio-cultural impacts, tourism is also amajor force of social and cultural change,as well as a major contributor to environ-mental degradation and habitat fragmenta-tion. Despite the criticisms levelled at‘sustainable development’ (see Wheeller,1993, 1997; Peterson, 1997), we find theconcepts and principles of sustainable(tourism) development useful and thusemploy them sensitively in this chapter.As defined by the WTO (1995) (in Agenda21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry,p. 30):

Sustainable tourism development meets theneeds of present tourists and host regionswhile protecting and enhancing opportunityfor the future. It is envisaged as leading tomanagement of all resources in such a waythat economic, social, and aesthetic needscan be fulfilled while maintaining culturalintegrity, essential ecological processes,biological diversity, and life support systems.

Ecotourism has strong correlates withsustainable tourism, so we draw upon indi-cators based on sustainable tourism (devel-opment) as well as ecotourism in the tablespresented below. The Ecotourism Society(Lindberg and Hawkins, 1993) defines eco-tourism as ‘purposeful travel to naturalareas to understand the culture and naturalhistory of the environment, taking care notto alter the integrity of the ecosystem whileproducing economic opportunities thatmake the conservation of natural resourcesbeneficial to local people’. Definitionalissues, and evidence for an emerging con-

412 E. Sirakaya et al.

sensus on the meaning of ecotourism andthe inclusion of a sustainability compo-nent, are pursued further in Chapters 1 and2 of this volume. Yet, with a few excep-tions (e.g. Herremans and Cameron, 1999),tour operators and marketers seem to rushinto ‘eco-selling’ the regions and tourismresources for short-term economic gainswithout considering adverse long-termimpacts, both ecological and socio-cultural(see Wight, 1993; Dann, 1996)2. Ecotourismcan be the thin edge of a wedge whichopens the door to mass tourism, unlesspolicies and measures are put in placeearly on to manage the potential impacts ofintroducing an ecological area to tourism(see Bookbinder et al., 1998; Mowforth andMunt, 1998). The degradation of tourism-related attractions in turn threatens theeconomic viability of the tourism industryin general, and points to the critical needfor tracking changes in the socio-economic,cultural, economic and political systems asthey relate to tourism. As yet, there are noagreed-upon general measurement andmonitoring systems in place to guidetourism decision makers in creating poli-cies and strategies to minimize furtherdegradation and destruction of natural,social and human resources around theglobe. To evaluate the past, guide theaction of the present, and plan for thefuture, we need to know what to monitor,what data to collect and what to measure.In other words, to track changes in social,natural, cultural, economic and politicalarenas of ecotourism destinations, we needseveral sets of sustainability-centred eco-tourism indicators based on their policyrelevance, analytical soundness and mea-surability.

The quest for sustainable ecotourism

indicators requires that we have a referencepoint with respect to the multitude ofinterpretations of sustainable tourism andecotourism (Orams, 1995; Diamantis,1997). Accordingly, for the purposes of thischapter we define ecotourism as the type ofprimarily nature-based tourism that is eco-logically, culturally, politically, as well aseconomically responsible, and specificallypromotes the stewardship of natural andcultural resources. Gunn (1994, p. 87) rec-ommends the following guidelines for awell-designed planning approach to sus-tainable tourism:

• developing tourism goals and objectiveslinked to the broader comprehensiveplan for a region and/or community;

• formulating a set of indicators reflectingthe objectives of tourism development;

• implementing management strategiesdesigned to direct tourism toward theachievement of the stated objectives;

• monitoring the performance of tourismwith respect to these indicators;

• evaluating the effectiveness of selectedmanagement strategies in influencingthe performance of tourism with respectto these indicators;

• developing strategic policies for tourismmanagement based upon the monitoredeffectiveness of these techniques.

Monitoring and evaluation is the finalstep in the planning process. This step isan integral part of the planning process forevaluating the performance and impacts ofthe development or project during theimplementation phase, and developingmitigation measures and new indicators asrequired (Inskeep, 1991). In the late 1960s,indicators were introduced as a majorproduct of the ‘Social Indicators

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 413

2Negative socio-cultural, environmental and economic impacts of ecotourism are now being reported inmany ecologically sensitive destinations of the world stretching from the Caribbean to Antarctica. Increasedland prices and inflation, high leakage of tourism related revenues, cultural degradation, introduction ofexotic species, damage to cultural heritage sites, destruction of coral reefs brought about by tourist use (e.g.in the Caribbean), disturbance of breeding habits of birds in Antarctica by tourist activity and actions, andpollution through waste and sewage disposal in popular eco-destinations are just a few alarming signals ofincreasing ecological destruction (for specific examples see Erize, 1987; Holder, 1988; Wilkinson, 1989;Cater, 1993; Healy, 1994; Place, 1995; Hall and McArthur, 1998).

Movement’ (see Carley, 1981). Since then,the use of indicators has steadily increasedand is now more commonly employed bymanagers and researchers who monitorsocial and biophysical changes in socialand natural settings (Wallace, 1993).

What is an indicator and how is it used?We can answer these questions by usingsimple examples from our daily lives. Ineveryday life, we encounter many types ofindicators that reflect a person’s healthsuch as the colour of the face, body temper-ature, feeling, and so on. Although we rec-ognize these kinds of symptoms and makeinferences based upon them (e.g. ‘I have acold coming on’), our decision falls intothe category of the subjective judgement.This implies that it may result in a baddecision, perhaps causing us to use awrong over-the-counter type of medicineand ending up with no improvement inhealth condition and concomitant waste offinancial resources. Thus, in order to get anobjective evaluation, most people consultan expert, a physician. He or she uses a setof indicators based on tests, scientificknowledge and experience with similarsymptoms. Hence, indicators in variousforms have been with us for a long time,whether subjective or objective, includingindicators for social life, the natural envi-ronment, economics, climate, politicaldomains, etc. Since tourism is a majorsocial phenomenon of post-modern society,social indicators are discussed in somedetail in the historical overview providedbelow.

Historical Overview of Indicators

In the early 20th century, William Ogburn,a well-known sociologist at the Universityof Chicago, was experimenting on measure-ments in social exchange theory. The objec-tive of his study was to create statisticalmeasures that could be used to detecttrends and change in the society. In 1929,President Hoover appointed Ogburn as theDirector of the Research Committee onSocial Trends and his role was to issue anannual report of ‘Recent Social Trends in

the US’ (Rossi and Gilmartin, 1980). Thiscomprehensive statistical report coveredvirtually every aspect of American lifesuch as childhood, youth, medical care ofchildren, school, recreation, religious edu-cation and so on. However, despiteOgburn’s tremendous effort and the find-ings related to the measurement of socialchange, these issues/social trends did notreceive much attention until the mid-1960s, the only exception being the use ofmacroeconomic data to evaluate nationaleconomic conditions (Rossi and Gilmartin,1980). In 1962, President Kennedy com-missioned the Social Advisory Committeeto establish a systematic collection of ‘basicbehavioral data’ for the USA (EPA, 1973).

The mid-1960s saw growing dissatisfac-tion among researchers and governmentdecision makers with the amount of avail-able social information and its quality.This gave rise to the ‘Social-IndicatorsMovement’. According to Carley (1981),this phenomenon can be explained as areaction against one-dimensional measuresof economic performances as indicators ofquality of life and social change. BruceRussett’s book, entitled World Handbook ofPolitical and Social Indicators (1964, seeMiles, 1985) had a strong impact on thefield of political science (but was less influ-ential in practice). In 1966, the term ‘socialindicators’ came into common use. Forinstance, the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration financed a collectionof essays by Bertram Gross, AlbertBiderman, Robert Rosenthal and RobertWeiss, entitled Social Indicators (Miles,1985). This research provoked considerableinterest and expanded the original scope ofthe social impact of the space programmeto predict the impact of technology and toevaluate the costs and benefits of govern-ment programmes. This volume of papersedited by Bauer (see Miles, 1985) con-tributed to the creation of some criticalguidelines for the development of indica-tors, established principles for evaluationof specific social programmes, developed asystem of social accounts and raisedvarious issues pertaining to social policydevelopment (Miles, 1985). Another contri-

414 E. Sirakaya et al.

bution to the social indicators movementwas a collection of articles in two volumes,The Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science (1967, seeLand, 1975) in which authors such asEtzioni and Lehman criticized uni-dimen-sional measurements of social phenomena,asserting that using single measures ofindicators could be dangerous and result indistortion of the indicator system (Land,1975). They thus called for the creation of amulti-dimensional system for measuringsocial change.

The term ‘social indicators’ alsoembraced diverse attempts to establishspecific indicators of socio-economic well-being that ranged from specific measure-ment of childcare quality to expandedmeasurement of the quality of life. In 1972,Wilcox, Brooks, Beal and Klonglan pub-lished an annotated bibliography, whichlisted over a thousand entries of socialindicators (Carley, 1981). Adding to thiscomplexity in indicator development is thelack of consensus on the definition ofsocial indicators. Several definitions areprovided below to illustrate the multi-faceted properties of this concept. The USDepartment of Health, Education andWelfare, in Toward a Social Report,defined a social indicator as follows:

A statistic of direct normative interest, whichfacilitates concise, comprehensive andbalanced judgments about the condition ofmajor aspects of a society. It is in all cases adirect measure of welfare and is subject tothe interpretation that, if it changes in the‘right’ direction, while other things remainequal, things have gotten better or people are‘better off’.

(US HEW, 1969, p. 97)

Generally, ‘an indicator is meant to indi-cate something beyond the property itexpresses prima facie, otherwise the termforfeits its conceptual relevance. An index,on the other hand, indicates the thingitself ’ (Mukherjee, 1975). Furthermore,indicators can be aggregated into compos-ite indicators, as described by theOrganization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD) (1997):

An indicator is an empirical interpretation ofreality and not reality itself. Indicators arecommonly used to present a quantitativeaccount of a complex situation or process.They can also be used to point out or identifysomething, which is not immediately visible,audible or perceived in a precise situation.Indicators usually translate data and statisticsand can be aggregated and attributedweighted values in order to producecomposite measure known as indices.Finally, three major functions of indicatorsare simplification, quantification, andcommunication.

(OECD, 1997, p. 14)

As the use of indicators has grown, itsdimensions have been broadened toinclude broad technical indicators (i.e.indirect/direct, descriptive/analytical andsubjective/objective) and discipline-basedindicators (e.g. economic indicators, socialindicators, tourism indicators or psycho-logical indicators). According to Rossi andGilmartin (1980), direct indicators refer toa measure of the variable itself. For exam-ple, if the interest of concern is the eco-nomic health in a certain country, thechange in the rate of per capita income orgross national product for a certain periodcould be the basis for a direct indicator. Onthe other hand, indirect indicators refer to‘a [proxy] measure of some other concernsthat is assumed (based on experience ortheory) to be closely related to the variableof interest’ (Rossi and Gilmartin, 1980).Using the previous example, war in aneighbouring country would be an indirectvariable that would affect the indicatormeasuring the economic health for thecountry, if that country was trading with itsneighbour.

Subjective indicators reflect the com-ments that people make about their emo-tions, attitudes, attributes and personalevaluation, while objective indicators referto ‘counts of behaviors and conditionsassociated with a given situation’ (Rossiand Gilmartin, 1980). For instance, if aresearcher were measuring residentattitudes in a community toward potentialecotourism development, this would be a

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 415

subjective indicator. Subjective indicatorsare usually developed based on informa-tion obtained from interviews or surveyresearch. In contrast, counts of the numberof political protests against ecotourismdevelopment fall into an objective indica-tor category, in which can be includedmeasures for behaviour, environmentalconditions and physiological attributes,among others. Many social science disci-plines such as sociology, economics, ecol-ogy, tourism, psychology and politicalscience have created their own indicatorsand though different understanding ofvalue and ideas abound, some commonali-ties may be identified. For instance, somemajor tasks of economic indicators are tomeasure national economic health andquality of life, predict economic fluctua-tions, and to control economic cycles.Psychological indicators usually focus onsubjective matters and the range of theirmeasurement is focused on individualwell-being. Environmental indicators rep-resent specific interests in natural andhuman environments such as related tobiodiversity, habitat fragmentation, ecosys-tem management, pollution, etc. The majorconcerns of political indicators revolvearound issues of effectiveness, efficiency,performance and party evaluation. Finally,sociological indicators cover a variety ofsocial elements from individual behaviourto institutional organizations (Liu-Chieh,1976).

In short, indicators have been used for awide range of purposes to evaluate chang-ing conditions of a society. According toRossi and Gilmartin (1980), an indicator:

• assists to describe a state of a societysuch as the quality of life in varioussocial strata (quality of life of poor, qual-ity of life of elderly, etc.);

• is used to conduct analytical studies ofsocial changes including identifyingsources of influence on an indicator’strend and suggesting the causalsequence and importance of relevantvariables used to estimate future valuesof selected indicators (i.e. forecasts orprojections);

• is used to evaluate the effectiveness ofsocial programmes;

• can help policy makers and managers toset goals and establish priorities;

• can be used to develop social account-ing systems.

The growing concern about environmentaland cultural sustainability has led to anincreased need in tourism studies todevelop indicators for monitoring the sus-tainability of tourism-related resources.This is discussed below, commencing witha brief discussion on sustainable develop-ment.

Special Type of Indicators:Sustainability Indicators

Growing worldwide concern over thepreservation of environmental and socio-cultural resources is a driving force for sus-tainable development at the global,regional and local levels. Based on the con-cepts advanced in the Brundtland Report,Our Common Future, the Globe 1990 con-ference on sustainable tourism held inVancouver, Canada in March 1990 pro-duced the following definition of sustain-able tourism development (Wheeler, 1995):‘Sustainable tourism development is envis-aged as leading to management of allresources in such a way that we can fulfilleconomic, social and aesthetic needs whilemaintaining cultural integrity, essentialecological processes, biological diversityand life support systems.’ Among the pol-icy implications forwarded by the confer-ence was the recommendation thatsustainable tourism development shouldbe given policy definition and direction foreach country, region and locality where itoccurs. Managing the actual process oftourism planning and development is,however, a complex task due to varioustourism and destination-specific factors. Asdiscussed by Jamal and Getz (1996), atourism destination has multiple stake-holders, and no individual stakeholder isable to fully control development andplanning. Furthermore, all the main stake-holder groups are not necessarily located

416 E. Sirakaya et al.

within the destination. Transportationcompanies such as airlines are extremelyimportant to a destination’s success, butmay be headquartered in a large city ortourist-originating countries some distancefrom the destination. Fragmentation of con-trol is exacerbated by the element of publicand social good contained in tourismdevelopment and marketing, which enhancespublic sector involvement in tourism. Inaddition, changing consumer demograph-ics and preferences, rapid technologicaladvances, globalization of labour and trade,population mobilization and migration aswell as increasing pressure on the naturalenvironment all contribute to makingtourism a global phenomenon and a majoragent of social and cultural change. Thedomain of destination planning and man-agement is a complex and challenging onedue to the interdependencies and spatio-temporal dynamics outlined above.

Increasing awareness of the negativeimpacts of tourism (Smith, 1977; O’Grady,1990) and the call for growth managementstrategies (Gill and Williams, 1994) withinthe carrying capacity of the natural andsocio-cultural environment (Getz, 1983;Gunn, 1988) has led to a much greaterfocus on developing indicators for monitor-ing the sustainability of the natural andsocio-cultural environment. However, sus-tainable development has more dimensionsthan were reported in the WorldCommission on Environment and Develop-ment report. Sustainable developmentcontains ecological, social, economic, insti-tutional, cultural and psychological dimen-sions at all levels – international, national,regional and community – within variousfields such as agriculture, tourism, politicalsciences, economics and ecology (Bossell,1999). How can these complex dimensionsof sustainability and the global tourismsystem be incorporated within a sustain-ability framework for measuring, monitor-ing and managing the impacts of tourism,both positive and negative? In the rest ofthis chapter, we concentrate on two aspectsof this issue: the content and the process ofindicator development.

Nieto (1996) gave a philosophical

answer to the above question. He arguedthat sustainable development should betreated differently from traditionalapproaches to development because tradi-tional approaches to development empha-size growth and not progress. Growth is aquantitative measure of human develop-ment and a source of many intentional orunintentional socio-economic and environ-mental problems, whereas ‘progress’ is aqualitative concept indicating an improvedstate of being. In other words, economicand technological development should notdegrade and destroy the very resourceupon which the development is based(Gunn, 1994). Moreover, the welfare offuture generations becomes the centre of anethical debate. From an operational per-spective, sustainable progress can be mea-sured by a certain set of pre- andpost-development indicators, with thresh-old levels set to provide warnings of whenlimits are being reached in the availabilityof various resources at the destination (seethe Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide for anexcellent sustainable development plan-ning framework for communities and desti-nation areas (International DevelopmentResearch Centre, 1996).

There is a plethora of studies that havedealt with developing various types ofindicators (Liverman et al., 1988; Kuik andVerbruggen, 1991; OECD, 1994). Theseefforts are criticized because of their heavyfocus on environmental (ecological) aspectsand almost total ignorance of the relation-ships that exist between communities andecosystems (Azar et al., 1996) (see Chapters22 and 25). While not exhaustive in scope,Table 26.1 illustrates the diversity of workson sustainability indicators in regions andareas other than tourism.

Considering the above arguments andthe existing literature on sustainability, anew way of thinking, a new paradigm, isneeded to alleviate some of the problemsassociated with traditional approaches tosustainability. First of all, sustainabilityindicators need to be included in moni-toring and managing all forms of tourismdevelopment. These indicators shouldinvolve environmental, technological, social,

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 417

economic, political and psychologicalaspects and must be planned and imple-mented at all levels: local, regional,national and international. Second, indica-tors of sustainability need to be used insuch a way as to provide an understandingnot only of individual impacts, but also ofthe cumulative effects of various impacts.This requires an integrated approach toexamining, monitoring and managing theimpacts of tourism (development), andhence an integrated approach to develop-ing sustainability indicators.

Indicators of sustainability for tourismdiffer from traditional development indica-tors because they take into considerationthe web of complex interrelationships andinterdependencies of resources and stake-holders in the tourism system. For exam-ple, variables such as gross domesticproduct (GDP), unemployment, number of

companies and number of jobs created aretraditionally used as economic indicatorsto measure wealth of the country or com-munity. However, a single indicator likeGDP does not have the ability to capturethe vital aspects of sustainable progress. Itmay capture all flow of goods/services andsome social costs produced in a domesticeconomy. However, it cannot measure howmuch and how fast natural resources arebeing consumed to produce that GDP, sinceit considers natural resources as free goodswhose costs are externalized rather thaninternalized. Some of the positive external-ities (or spillover effects) produced by soci-ety, like vaccinations and/or environmentalbeautification (see Daly and Cobb, 1989,pp. 52–54; National Grid for Learning, 2000)are used by many of us without any com-pensation but the society and individualsare not worse off because of the availability

418 E. Sirakaya et al.

Table 26.1. The focus of some indicator areas for sustainability (Azar et al., 1996).

Societal Environmental State of theReference Indicated area activitiesa pressureb environmentc

Adriaanse (1993) The Netherlands X XAlfsen and Sabo (1993) Norway XAyres (1995) Mainly USA X XTen Brink (1991) Specific ecosystem XBrown et al. (1994) The world X xx xxCarlson (1994) Sweden X XECE (1985) ECE member nations xx X XEnvironment Canada (1991) Canada X XGilbert and Feenstra (1994) Specific ecosystem xx XHoldren (1990) The world X xxHolmberg and Karlsson (1992) Not specific X XMiljominsteriet (1991) Denmark xx X XNilsson and Bergstrom (1995) Municipality and company X X XOECD (1994) OECD countries xx X xxOpschoor and Reijnders (1991) Not specific X XSNV (1994) Sweden XHaes et al. (1991) Specific ecosystem XVos et al. (1985) The Netherlands X XAzar et al. (1996) The world X X

a Social activity indicator measures activities occurring within a society (i.e. the use of extracted minerals,the production of toxic chemicals and recycling of material).b Environmental pressure indicator measures human activities that will have a direct impact on the state ofenvironment (i.e. emission rates of toxic substances).c Environmental state or quality indicators indicate the state of environment (i.e. the concentration of heavymetals in soils and pH levels in lakes) (adopted from Azar et al., 1996).Note: The symbol ‘X’ indicates the key focus area and ‘xx’ indicates a minor role in the area.

of such services. However, a chemicalplant discharging its pollutants into a riverwhere recreational fishing occurs, can pro-duce disbenefits that will leave the recre-ational fisherman downstream worse off.Moreover, society is left having to dealwith the clean-up and other costs, unlessthe plant is held directly responsible forthe full costs of its actions. Unfortunately,current accounting systems do not takethese interrelated aspects of resourceuse/abuse into consideration. Thus, indica-tors like GDP as currently defined cannotbe objective measures of national wealthand well-being within a sustainability-based framework, although they might helpus to see certain problem areas (see Dalyand Cobb, 1989, for full-cost accountingdiscussions). In tourism, plenty of ex-amples can be thought about in a similarmanner, where the sustainability oftourism-related resources requires full-costaccounting, and where all costs are inter-nalized rather than externalized. For example, environmental enhancementthrough community beautification orrestoration programmes are usually notpaid for by many users of the resultant ben-efits, even though society overall may bebetter off because of these programmes.However, if a tourism provider dischargesuntreated sewage into the natural environ-ment this will cause disbenefits to the com-munity unless the costs are fully accountedfor and assumed by the stakeholder(s)involved.

A number of criteria for developing sus-tainability indicators can be identified fromthe vast amount of research and writing inthis area (Liverman et al., 1988; Kuik andVerbruggen, 1991; Jamieson, 1997; Hart,1998; Bossell, 1999). Some key guidelinesare listed here.

• Indicators must be created to guide poli-cies and decision at all levels of societyand cover the entire spectrum of socio-economic, cultural, natural and politicalenvironments at the local, regional,national and international levels.

• The number of indicators must be man-ageable and be implemented with ease

at the destination and community levelin a timely fashion.

• Community participation must be maxi-mized in order to reflect the visions andvalues of a community-based destina-tion, and a long-term welfare-view ofthe destination is required in order tofacilitate long-term sustainability.

• Indicators must have a high degree ofreliability, predictive capacity and inte-grative ability.

• The process of developing indicatorscannot be haphazard in that it requires asystematic approach to developing indi-cators that are robust, measurable,affordable and able to provide an inte-grated view of specific and overall con-ditions pertaining to the sustainabilityof the destination and its natural andcultural resources.

Table 26.2 shows that sustainabilityindicators are different from traditionalindicators. The above discussion suggeststhat more detailed indicators are neededthat take into consideration interdependen-cies in the system, intangible and cumula-tive effects, and full-cost accounting ofimpacts. For example, diversity and vital-ity of the local job base, number and vari-ability in size of employers, and the diversityof skill levels required for jobs are impor-tant to monitor since economic sustainabil-ity entails addressing factors such asresilience of the job market, and the abilityof the job market to be flexible in times ofeconomic change.

As stated above and in previous chap-ters, ecotourism is meant to be non-con-sumptive of nature, as well as aneducational, low impact and responsibleform of tourism (a new tourism form asMowforth and Munt, 1998, discussed). Itaims to bring travellers to relatively undis-turbed natural areas that may hold ecologi-cal, cultural and historical significance, forthe purpose of understanding and appreci-ating the natural and socio-cultural historyand setting of the host destination. It is aform of tourism that is expected to resultin: (i) minimal negative impacts on the hostenvironment; (ii) increased contribution to

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 419

420E. Sirakaya et al.

Table 26.2. Traditional vs. sustainable indicators (Hart, 1998).

Economic indicators Environmental indicators Social indicators

Emphasis of Emphasis of Emphasis ofTraditional Sustainable sustainable Traditional Sustainable sustainable Traditional Sustainable sustainableindicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators

Median income Number of What wage Ambient levels Biodiversity Ability of the Number of Number of ParticipationPer capita income hours of paid can buy of pollution in Number of ecosystem to registered voters who in democraticrelative to USA employment Need to define air and water, individuals of process and voters vote in process

at the average basic needs in generally key species, assimilate elections Ability towage required terms of measured in such as pollutants Number of participate into support sustainable parts per salmon in a voters who democraticbasic needs consumption million of stream or birds attend town process

specific in a given area meetingspollutants

Unemployment Diversity and Resilience of Tons of solid Amount of Cyclical userate vitality of the the job waste material of resourceNumber of local job base market produced recycledcompanies Number of Ability of the per person asNumber of variability in job market to a ratio ofjobs size of be flexible in total solid

employers times of wasteNumber of economic generatedvariability of changeindustry typeVariability of skilllevels requiredfor job

Size of the Wages paid in Greatest Per capita Ratio of Use ofeconomy by GNP the local possible energy use renewable renewableand GDP economy that local energy used energy

are spent in the financial to non- Conservationlocal economy independence renewableDollar energy used

Total amountof energy usedfrom all sources

environmental protection and conservationof resources; (iii) creation of necessaryfunds to promote sustained protection ofecological and socio-cultural resources; (iv)enhancement of interaction and under-standing between visitors and locals; and(v) contribution to the economic (monetaryprofits and job opportunities) and socialwell-being of the local people. Thus, eco-tourism is fundamentally based on sustain-able use, management and conservation/preservation of natural and culturalresources for present and future genera-tions. Ecotourism incorporates the coexis-tence of the natural environment andpeople (tourists and local inhabitants), andencourages the active involvement oftourists and the local population in preser-vation efforts (Sirakaya et al., 1999). Thecurrent literature in this area suggests thata fair amount of progress has been made inseveral areas of ecotourism research, butnot in the area of monitoring. However, inorder to develop a set of general (‘univer-sal’) indicators of ecotourism for destina-tions to apply (with modifications) to theirown context, clear goals, objectives andprinciples must first be delineated (Boo,1992).

The goal of ecotourism refers neither tosaving disappearing ecosystems nor revital-izing every community from poverty(Whelan, 1991). The goal of ecotourismshould be to improve the quality of life forboth host and guest, provide quality expe-rience for the visitors, and protect the nat-ural and human environment includingcultural, social and political dimensions(McIntyre, 1993). This overall goal (whichis in keeping with sustainability princi-ples) is reflected in several guidelines forecotourism development.

1. Protection of natural and culturalresources.2. Generation of economic benefits to localcommunities.3. Environmental education (includingsocio-cultural and ecological dimensions).4. Provision of a high quality tourismexperience.5. Including local community participa-

tion and stakeholder collaboration in desti-nation planning and tourism management.

The ecotourism literature cites a number ofsimilar or related guidelines (see Boo,1992; Nelson, 1993; Scace, 1993; Wight,1993; Wallace and Pierce, 1996), fromwhich we have attempted to synthesize keyecotourism principles.

• Ethical responsibilities and codes ofconduct need to be undertaken by eco-tourism stakeholders, including govern-ments, tourists, ecotourism destinations,tour operators and other tourism busi-nesses (Fennell, 1999; Herremans andCameron, 1999; Jamal and Everett,unpublished) (see also Chapter 41).

• Participation in ecotourism planningand development requires multi-stake-holder involvement at all levels of plan-ning and policy making, bringingtogether governments, non-governmentorganizations, residents, industry andprofessionals in a partnership process.

• Ecotourism and destination managers/planners need to provide educationalinformation to residents, visitors, touroperators and other stakeholders aboutthe planning and conservation of eco-tourism resources. This requires offeringsome reflexive discussion that raisesstakeholders’ awareness of their preser-vation and/or conservation values.

• Tour operators and other ecotourismventures involving the interpretation of‘nature’ in an ecotourism destinationshould provide quality information anddialogue on the value of the area’s nat-ural and cultural environment. Thisrequires sharing the various interpreta-tions and stories of the natural and cul-tural environment that may be present,rather than controlling what interpreta-tions are to be provided to the visitor as‘authentic’ representations of a naturalexperience (see Chapter 35).

• Ecotourism should provide a sustained,long-term economic linkage betweendestination communities and industries(in order to be beneficial to communi-ties), and also minimize negative

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 421

impacts to the natural environment andto the social and cultural well-being ofcommunities affected by ecotourism(see Chapters 23–25).

In the recent past, there have been somesporadic efforts to develop indicator setsconcerning ecotourism (e.g. Marsh, 1993;Nelson, 1993; Payne, 1993). Table 26.3 pre-sents a sample of some commonly citedindicators, based upon Nelson’s eight indi-cators emphasizing economic perspectives(1993) and Payne’s (1993) indicators usedto measure impacts in parks, wildernessand natural resources from a tourism man-agement perspective. Marsh (1993) for-wards a useful sustainability index toassess ecological, economic, institutionaland social sustainability. His framework isshown in Table 26.4 in order to point outthe importance of taking institutional fac-tors into consideration in the overallsustainability framework. Institutionalindicators could include indicators for: (i)degree and quality of non-governmentorganization involvement; (ii) percentageof ecotourism profits (e.g. from tour opera-tors) funding non-profit organizations andother sustainable projects in the ecotourismdestination; and (iii) green labelling andclassification of ethically responsible eco-tourism operators, guides, destinations, basedon criteria such as application of energyefficient building materials in construction,recycling and reducing waste and pollu-tion, designing lodges and tours that mini-mize pressure on natural habitats, etc.

The WTO has developed a set of indica-tors to assist local managers and decisionmakers to work effectively with eco-tourism. Manning (1999, p. 180) said thatthe objectives of the WTO were to:

identify a small core of indicators set whichis likely useful in almost any situation; tosupplement these with additional indicatorsknown to be useful in particular ecosystem ortypes of destinations; and to additionallyrequire a scanning process for risks notcovered by the aforementioned indicator sets,which produces further indicators critical tothe management of the particularsite/destination.

As Table 26.5 reveals, the WTO’s indica-tor set is an excellent start to furtherresearch and development of sustainabilityindicators, i.e. indicators for monitoringthe sustainability of natural and socio-cul-tural resources in ecotourism development.This broad set of sustainability indicatorsmay need to be tailored to a particular des-tination’s ecological and cultural context,in order to produce effective monitoringmethods (Manning, 1999).

Another useful framework to adaptmight be the pressure–state–responseframework developed by the WorldResources Institute, for environmentalissues. Pressure indicators are indicators ofpressure or stress from human activitiesthat cause environmental change. Stateindicators are indicators of changes ortrends in the physical or biological state ofthe natural world. Response indicatorsreflect the policy and other measuresadopted in response to environmentalproblems (Hammond et al., 1995). Table26.6 (from Jamieson, 1997) demonstratesthe use of this framework.

The Process of IndicatorDevelopment and Use

Integral to the development and use ofindicators for monitoring ecotourismimpacts is a process for stakeholder partici-pation in the development and applicationof sustainability related indicators. Likethat of tourism, the context of ecotourismdevelopment is a highly political one,played out on a global stage. It involves anumber of stakeholders (e.g. national parkmanagers, ecotourism operators and mar-keters, destination area residents, tourists,etc.), many of whom are interdependentand not all of whom may see eye to eye onthe value or use of a natural site (see Jamal,2000). Furthermore, since these stake-holders are generally not all located withinthe destination, the player who has themost legitimate say in decision making onissues pertaining to value, heritage anddevelopment becomes a contested issue.

422 E. Sirakaya et al.

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 423

Table 26.3. Indicators of tourism management (modified from Nelson, 1993; Payne, 1993).

Themes Key issues Indicator

The tourism industry Providers of opportunity • Changes in number and characteristics ofPolicy coordination employees, revenue, capital expenditures, operating

budgets • Change in male/female ratio for available jobs in

tourism• Change in resident to non-residents jobs in tourism• Change in formal to informal types of employment

in tourism• The extent of conflict, competition and cooperation

at all levels• Change in ownership of tourism operation• Change in ownership among groups including

government, private non-resident groups, franchises,residents

• Change in ownership of land• Change in ratio of non-resident to resident

ownership of land: change in ratio of private landownership to community land ownership

• Degree of control maintained by community wheretourism is in conflict with or threatens

Tourism opportunities Opportunities/use • The percentage changes over 5-year period in the of opportunities components of tourism opportunities. Opportunities

can be classified by activity, setting andexperiences

• Local access to training and other forms of supportfor tourism

• Percentage change in use by activity, setting andexperience on all levels and by public, private and non-private providers

Sustainability Ecological sustainability • Changes in biodiversity, naturalness at all levelsCultural sustainability • Degree to which initiative builds on cultural

heritage of community and is culturally appropriate,not conflicting with community vision or plan

Social sustainability • Changes in social relations and organization –qualitative changes in attributes of social sustain-ability including variables of the nature subsistence activities, family and/or kinship structures anddecision making structures for allocating resources

Economic sustainability • Changes in the structure of employmentopportunities

• Income distribution at national, provincial andregional levels

• Regional and community balance of trade impactsof tourism initiatives, strategies or plans

• Backward and forward linkage between tourismactivity and other formal and informal activity in thecommunity

Eagles (1999) points out that naturalresource decision making has to take intoaccount the values and knowledge of thepublic, and that natural heritage destina-tions such as national parks need adecision-making system that allows stake-holders (especially affected publics) toinfluence the direction of ecotourismdevelopment in their destination domain.

An effective monitoring programme willtherefore require an organizational struc-ture and process for ensuring that impactsare monitored, evaluated and acted upon.What set of indicators should a communityuse to ensure that it keeps on top of devel-

opments and changes that affect the resi-dents’ quality of life and well-being? Someimpacts can take a long time to emerge,and realization may come too late to savethe resource by the time severe degradationbecomes visible. Choosing what should bemonitored in tourism planning and devel-opment needs to be guided by the commu-nity’s tourism vision, goals, objectives andaction plans, as well as the principles ofsustainable (eco)tourism development (seeInskeep, 1991; Jamal and Getz, 1996; Rossand Wall, 1999). Once it is agreed thatmonitoring is needed, monitoring strategiesneed to be developed and implemented.

424 E. Sirakaya et al.

Table 26.4. Sustainability index (Marsh, 1993).

Issues Indicator

Ecological Species demographicsWater quantity, quality and useAir qualityRecycling practicesEfficiency of resource useScenery degradationOthers

EconomicCommunity Income from tourism, and who receives it

Costs of tourism, and who pays themInvestment in tourism by community Others

Tourism industry Profits and lossesBusiness initiationBusiness bankruptcyOthers

SocialCommunity Jobs, quantity and quality

Migration in and out of communityComplaints about tourismOthers

Tourists Number of visitors, and trendsProportion of repeat visitorsLength of stayTourist satisfaction and complaints

Institutional Laws and regulations regarding tourismInfractions and court casesRecognition of tourism in official plansExistence of tourism plansTourist and interpretive informationGovernment and private tourism organizationsNGO response to tourismExistence of codes of ethics for tourists and industry

Table 26.7 offers one framework for design-ing a process for indicator developmentand use in the monitoring process.Essential to the success of a monitoringprocess is the establishment of a monitor-ing body that is ongoing, and the develop-ment of a centralized database in whichindicator data can be stored and updatedso that the destination data bank containshistorical and up-to-date informationwhich stakeholders can draw upon to makedevelopment, planning and managementdecisions.

As discussed in Jamieson (1997), con-stant monitoring and adapting of the strate-gic plan is crucial to ensure thatcommunity goals are met, while ensuringthe sustainable development of vitalresources. This is facilitated by establish-ing an organizational body (structure andprocess) for developing and implementingthe monitoring strategy, such that it workseffectively through changing leaderships inlocal elections, i.e. its survival is notdependent on who gets elected into localgovernment. An ongoing threshold andmonitoring body to monitor the tourism-related impacts on the community (bothpositive and negative) is one possiblestructure for such a body, as has beenimplemented in Canmore, Alberta (seeJamal and Getz, 1999). Jamieson’s (1997)sustainable tourism workbook offers sev-eral considerations with respect to theindicator and monitoring body:

• Selection of threshold and monitoringbody/committee participants: howmuch council involvement to include?How much direct community involve-ment in the structure and process?

• Involvement of scientific and planningexperts: Who? When? How?

• Funding for the threshold and monitor-ing committee and for the monitoringactivities: consider sources such ascouncil or the regional government;obtain portion of accommodation, hotelor other tourism taxes or expenditures;raise funds through local/regional cam-paigns, etc.

• Duties and remuneration of threshold

and monitoring committee: volunteer orpaid? Permanent or temporary mem-bers? Length of term of duty?

The importance of an ongoing and commu-nity-based organizational structure fordeveloping and implementing the indicatorand monitoring process cannot be empha-sized enough. Not only does this enable astrategic ecotourism plan to remaindynamic and responsive to short-termissues, it also enables the destination com-munity to direct development throughlocal and regional political and economicshifts over the long term. The ecologicalsoundness of the planning decision and thequality of indicator development is depen-dent upon the stakeholders involved hav-ing good knowledge and information aboutthe issues being addressed.

Conclusions

The use of indicators to monitor impactscan assist destination managers and plan-ners to achieve ecotourism goals, and cansignal social trends and changes inresources related to ecological health andquality of life in the host destinations. Inaddition, a set of effective indicatorsenables a more holistic approach to theplanning and management of tourism des-tinations (Manning, 1999). Indicators arenot a panacea for poor development andplanning; their effectiveness is dependenton the quality of the indicators themselvesand the effectiveness of their use. Goodindicators provide destination decisionmakers with information that enables themto identify, evaluate and make timely deci-sions on critical changes being caused bytourism to the natural environment, com-munities and other resources in the desti-nation (see Buckley, 1999). Indicators haveto be selected so that they are robust, credi-ble, efficient (in time and cost for obtainingthe data), and useful to decision makers. Itmay be best to select a key number of indi-cators that provides the most relevantinformation, since a large number ofimpacts and indicators could potentially be

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 425

426E. Sirakaya et al.

Table 26.5. Sustainable tourism indicator at various types of destinations (urban, cultural site, coastal area, wildlife parks, ecological sites, and small islands) (Manning, 1996).

Issues Indicators Suggested measures Issues Indicators Suggested measures

Ecological destruction Amount degraded • % in degraded condition Human Human population in park • No. of people within 10 km of beach degradation Reduction in catch • % of beach eroded encroachment and surrounding area boundaryfish stocks depletion • Effort to catch fish Activities of people in park • % of park area affected by

• Fish counts for key species and surrounding area unauthorized human activity Extent of erosion caused • % of surface in eroded state (squatting, wood cutting)by tourists • Visual inspection and photographic • % of surrounding land being usedRate of continuing record for human purposes such as erosion agriculture (10 km radius)

Overcrowding Use intensity • Persons per m of accessible beach Ecosystem Number and mix of species • Key species count• No. of visitors (within 10 km degradation Contented presence of key • Count of members of key species/

boundary) species in traditionally changes in mix of species• Ratio of visitors/game animals occupied areas • No. of tourist sightings of key • Traffic congestion Reproductive success of key species• Length of wait species • Areas of species occupation (flora • % of park area affected by Site degradation and fauna)/number of road kills of

unauthorized human activity Changes in flora specified species(wood cutting) Mix and concentration • Primary flora species as a % of

Length of vehicle • No. of hours spent in vehicle total plant coverline-ups • Cost of entry/lowest average • No. of outfitters/guides using site

local wage • No. of boats using site• % of area negatively affected• Visual inspection and photographic

record (local wildlife/biodiversitymanagement offices may provide long-term records for some species)

Violation of social Languages spoken • % of community speaking a Lack of solitude Consumer satisfaction • No. of people at peak period and cultural norms by locals non-local language (accessible area only)

• Questionnaire on whether solitudeobjectives met

Developing Indicators for D

estination Sustainability427

Lack of safety Crime levels • No. and types of crimes reported Loss of aesthetic Site attraction • Visibility of human presence Types of crime • Water-related accidents as a % of qualities/site Restoration costs (e.g. litter counts)committed tourist population degradation Levels of pollutants • Counts of levels of waste on siteAccident levels/ • Traffic injuries as a % of population affecting site • Estimated costs to maintain/restore traffic safety • No. of human–animal contacts reported Measures of behaviour site per annumHuman/animal involving human injury (may be a disruptive to site • Acidity of precipitationinteraction measure of either more contacts • Traffic vibration (ambient level)

or a change in the level of reporting • No. of incidents of vandalism reported

Poor species Reproductive rate • Monitoring of numbers for animal Lack of jobs for Local jobs created • % of jobs supported by tourismhealth of key species • groups local population through tourism • % of seasonal jobs

Species diversity • Species counts High levels of Value of foreign ownership • % of foreign ownership of touristChange in mix of • Key species population counts foreign ownership Measures of capital flight establishmentsanimal species Currency leakage • % of exchange leakage from total

tourism revenues

Displacement of Social impacts • Average net income of tourists/ Health threats Air pollution measurement • Air pollution indices (e.g. sulphurmembers of local average net income of local dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate)population population • No. of days exceeding specified

• No. of retail establishments/no. of pollutant standardsestablishments serving local needs • Availability of clean water (e.g. (as opposed to tourists) Drinking-water quality/ can tap water be consumed on site)

Local satisfaction • % of local establishments open fresh water availability • Statistics on disease prevalenceyear-round • Volume of water used by tourists/

• No. and type of complaints by locals volume used by local populationElectricity Electricity availability • No. of brown outs on per capita basisshortage • Restriction on use • Cost to supply water

• Changes in cost for electricity use • Cost to supply water/no. of touristsSewage disposal Sewage treatment • Volume of sewage treated/total • Estimates of capacity (e.g. volume

facilities volume of sewage Type and extent of remaining in reservoir/aquifer)• Level of treatment communicable diseases • Records on decibel count of key

Noise level locations

measured. Some broad-based indicators(e.g. habitat fragmentation as an indicatorof ecological health) will require specificmeasures (e.g. species loss as a measure ofhabitat fragmentation, with certain speciesselected for monitoring loss criterion).Composite indices (e.g. carrying capacity)are made up of a number of key factors andvariables, which at present seem to be site-specific, though a more systematic deriva-tion may be possible in the future (seeManning, 1996). The criteria and guide-lines for ecotourism outlined in this chap-ter should be reflected in the sustainabilityindicators developed for ecotourism.

As demonstrated in this chapter, thereare a variety of indicator models currentlyin use. The search for sustainability indica-tors is in its infancy, both with respect tothe process and with respect to content ofindicator development. Developing goodindicators for monitoring and measuringtourism impacts, as well as for monitoringand ensuring the sustainability of eco-tourism related resources, remains a criti-cal task in the battle for globalsustainability. Debates continue on whatconstitutes sustainability, what is meant by

sustainable development, what should wesustain and why, and how nature is beinginstrumentally appropriated and controlledthrough ‘ecological modernization’, global-ization of travel and tourism, and commod-ification (Eder, 1996). Creating mutuallyagreed-upon indicators in general, and sus-tainability-based ecotourism indicators inparticular, requires a holistic and inte-grated planning approach that encom-passes all levels of a society from the localto the global. It is crucial that key stake-holders, including local community resi-dents (who stand to be affected byecotourism in their area) are involved inthe decision making process related todeveloping and applying sustainabilityindicators. Therefore we have emphasizedboth the content and the process of indica-tor development and use in this chapter.Further research using a Delphi techniquewith an interdisciplinary group of scholarsand experts in the field may help todevelop a broad ‘universal’ set of indica-tors that can be modified by managers andplanners to suit their specific ecotourismdestination3.

428 E. Sirakaya et al.

Table 26.6. A pressure–state–response framework for monitoring tourism impacts (Jamieson, 1997).

Issues Pressure State Response

Visitor impact, natural Overcrowding at Vegetation destruction Zoning to protect fragilesite degradation natural heritage site Physical infrastructure areas

degradation Limiting accessHabitat loss Expenditures on managing

conservationVisitor impact, culture High demand on Local residents do not Allow visitor access to aloss and tension visiting local religious attend their own select number of events

and cultural events and festivals Involve residents inceremonies Exhibition of hostility by determining how much

residents towards visitors visitation, which events,for intruding and how residents couldLoss of authenticity of benefit furthercultural/religious events Develop code of ethics for

visitor behaviour

3 A Delphi panel of four to five experts in each field including economic, social, cultural, ecological,political, and tourism is suggested. We are in the process of conducting such a study.

References

Allcock, J.B. and Bruner, E.M. (1995) International Tourism: Identity and Change. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, California.

Azar, C., Holmberg, J. and Lindgren, K. (1996) Socio-ecological indicators for sustainability.Ecological Economics 18, 99–112.

The Berlin Declaration (1997) The Berlin Declaration on Biological Diversity and SustainableTourism. International Conference of Environment Ministers on Biodiversity and Tourism 6–8March 1997, Berlin.

Boo, E. (1992) Wild Lands and Human Needs. WHN Technical Paper. WWF and USAID, Washington,DC.

Bookbinder, M.P., Dinerstein, E., Arun Rijal, Cauley, H. and Arup Rajouria (1998) Ecotourism’s sup-port of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12(6), 1399–1404.

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 429

Table 26.7. Monitoring strategies and actions (adapted from Jamieson, 1997).

How to monitor, evaluateand respond?

A Set up a thresholds and A Assign organizational responsibility for formulating thresholds andmonitoring body indicators, and for monitoring these. Example: set up a threshold and

monitoring committee.B Set up control systems and B Develop carrying capacity thresholds and other indicators and

mitigation measures, as well measures. Two distinct sets of indicators are required: performanceas longitudinal database for indicators to measure the results of strategic planning andstoring data implementation, and indicators for measuring carrying capacity, use

and impacts on the resources used in tourism. These two sets ofindicators combined should provide a comprehensive picture of thedestination’s efforts towards sustainable tourism (for its tourismindustry, visitors, natural environment and community)Develop baseline information on the indicators developed, as a bench-mark against which future results can be measured. Develop alternativescenarios for managing or mitigating impacts and changes in use andtolerance levels, e.g. if use is expected to exceed a threshold in Year X,then alternative actions could be YStore results in a centralized database system. Longitudinal data(gathered over an extended time frame) is essential for evaluatingcertain impacts. The lack of noticeable impacts in one year in an areadoes not necessarily mean that there is no change to the resource;some impacts take a longer time to become evident. Set up a centraldatabase system to incorporate base line data and ongoing monitoringresults. The community-level database system would contain macro-level data (community and environmental), as well as micro-level datawhere available from individual organizations

C Conduct integrated C Implement indicator based monitoring with help of the threshold andevaluation, recognize monitoring body set up in Stage A. Use existing standards, thresholdsinterdependence of established and indicator data related to the activity or resource beingresources and actions monitored to conduct an integrated evaluation of the impacts of

(eco)tourism and make adjustments as required. Also ensure that newstandards are established based on evaluation of monitoring data

D Implement management D Implement visitor, site and other management actions (based onresponse, with help of evaluation of indicator and threshold information), to ensurepreviously identified proactive management of the carrying capacity of community andmitigation measures environmental resources. These actions should be related to specific

objectives set in these areas and to the overall mandate of sustainabletourism. Adjust monitoring strategies and actions as required

Bossell, H. (1999) Indicator for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, and Application. IISD,Manitoba, Canada.

Britton, S.G. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of TourismResearch 9(3), 331–358.

Buckley, R. (1999) Tools and indicators for managing tourism in parks. Annals of Tourism Research26(1), 207–210.

Butler, R.W. (1990) Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28(3),91–96.

Carley, M. (1981) Social Measurement and Social Indicators: Issues of Policy and Theory. GeorgeAllen & Unwin, London.

Cater, E. (1985) Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism Research 14(2),202–226.

Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the third world: problems for sustainable tourism development.Tourism Management 14(2), 85–89.

Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J. (1989) For the Common Good: Redirecting Economy toward Community, theEnvironment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Boston.

Dann, G.M.S. (1996) The Language of Tourism: a Sociolinguistic Perspective. CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

De Kadt, E. (ed.) (1979) Tourism: Passport to Development? Oxford University Press, New York.Diamantis, D. (1997) The Development of Ecotourism and the Necessity of using Environmental

Auditing in its Planning Agenda. General Technical Report No. NE-232, Northeastern ForestExperiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Radnor, USA, pp. 19–23.

Eagles, P.F.J. (1999) International Trends in Park Tourism and Ecotourism, 4th edn.http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/rec/inttrends.pdf

Eder, K. (1996) The Social Construction of Nature: a Sociology of Ecological Enlightenment. Sage,London.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1973) The Quality of Life Concept. US Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC, pp. 1–10.

Erize, F.J. (1987) The impact of tourism on the Antarctic environment. Environment International13(1), 133–136.

Farrell, B.H. and Runyan, D. (1991) Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18(1), 26–40.Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, New York.Getz, D. (1983) Capacity to absorb tourism: concepts and implications for strategic planning. Annals

of Tourism Research 10(2), 239–263.Gill, A. and Williams, P. (1994) Managing growth in mountain tourism communities. Tourism

Management 15(3), 212–220.Greenwood, D.J. (1989) Culture by the pound: an anthropological perspective on tourism as cultural

commodification. In: Smith, V.L. (ed.) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism.University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 171–186.

Gunn, C.A. (1988) Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Gunn, C.A. (1990) The new recreation – tourism alliance. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration 8(1), 1–8.Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC.Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S. (1998) Integrated Heritage Management. Stationery Office, London.Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D. and Woodward, R. (1995) Environmental

Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental PolicyPerformance in the Context of Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.

Hart, M. (1998) Indicators of Sustainability. http://www.subjectmatters.com/indicatorsHealy, R.G. (1994) Tourist merchandise as a means of generating local benefits from ecotourism.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(3), 137–151.Herremans, I.M. and Cameron, W. (1999) Developing and implementing a company’s ecotourism

mission statement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(1), 48–76.Holder, J.S. (1988) Pattern and impact of tourism on the environment of the Caribbean. Tourism

Management 9(2), 119–127.Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: an Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

430 E. Sirakaya et al.

International Development Research Centre (1996) The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: anIntroduction to Sustainable Development Planning. International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Toronto, Canada.

Jamal, T. (2000) The social responsibilities of environmental groups in contested destinations.Tourism Recreation Research 24(2), 7–18.

Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1996) Does strategic planning pay? Lessons for destinations from corporateplanning experience. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 2(1), 59–78.

Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1999) Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: the dialectics ofconsensus and process structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(34), 356–378.

Jamieson, W. (ed.) (1997) Sustainable Tourism Workbook prepared by the Centre for EnvironmentalDesign Research and Outreach, The Faculty of Environmental Design, The University of Calgary.

Kuik, O.A. and Verbruggen, H. (eds) (1991) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Land, K.C. (1975) Social indicator models: an overview. In: Land, K.C. and Spilerman, S. (eds) SocialIndicator. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D. (eds) (1993) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. TheEcotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Liu, Ben-Chieh (1976) Quality of Life Indicators in US Metropolitan Areas. Praeger Publishers, NewYork.

Liverman, D.M., Hanson, M.E., Brown, B.J. and Merideth, R.W. Jr (1988) Global sustainability:towards measurement. Environmental Management 12, 133–143.

McIntyre, G. (1993) Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners. WTO, Madrid.Marsh, J. (1993) An index of tourism sustainability. In: Nelson, J., Butler, R. and Wall, G. (eds)

Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Department ofGeography, University of Waterloo, Canada, pp. 257–258.

Manning, T. (1996) Tourism: where are the limits. Ecodecision Spring, 36.Manning, T. (1999) Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tourism Management 20(1), 179–181.Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Longman,

Harlow, UK.Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Nad Behrens, W.W. (1972) Limits to Growth.

Universal Books, New York.Miles, I. (1985) Social Indicators for Human Development. St Martin’s Press, New York.Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World.

Routledge, London.Mukherjee, R. (1975) Social Indicators. Prabhat Press, Meerut.Murphy, P.E. (1985) Community attitudes to tourism: a comparative analysis. International Journal of

Tourism Management 2(3), 189–195.Nash, R. (1967) Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Nash, R. (ed.) (1968) The American Environment: Reading in the History of Conservation. Addison-

Wesley Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts.Nelson, J.G. (1993) Are tourism growth and sustainability objectives compatible? Civil, assessment,

informed choice. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R. and Wall, G. (eds) Tourism and SustainableDevelopment: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Department of Geography, University ofWaterloo, Canada, pp. 259–268.

Nieto, C.C. (1996) Toward a holistic approach to the ideal of sustainability. Society for Philosophyand Technology 2(2), 41–48.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1994) Environmental Indicators.A Core Set. OECD, Paris.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1997) Better Understanding OurCities: The Role of Urban Indicators. OECD, Paris.

O’Grady, R. (1990) Acceptable tourism. Contours (Bangkok) 4(8), 9–11.Orams, M.B. (1995) Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management 16(1), 3–8.Payne, R.J. (1993) Sustainable tourism: suggested indicators and monitoring techniques. In: Nelson,

J., Butler, R. and Wall, G. (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning,Managing. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Canada, pp. 249–254.

Peterson, T. (1997) Sharing the Earth: the Rhetoric of Sustainable Development. University of SouthCarolina Press, Columbia.

Developing Indicators for Destination Sustainability 431

Place, S.E. (1995) Ecotourism for sustainable development: oxymoron or plausible strategy?GeoJournal 35(2), 161–174.

Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999) Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. TourismManagement 20(1), 123–132.

Rossi, R.J. and Gilmartin, K.J. (1980) The Handbook of Social Indicators: Source, Characteristics, andAnalysis. STPM Press, New York.

Scace, R.C. (1993) An ecotourism perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R. and Wall, G. (eds) Tourismand Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Department of Geography,University of Waterloo, Canada, pp. 59–81.

Sirakaya, E. (1997) Attitudinal compliance with ecotourism guidelines. Annals of Tourism Research24(4), 919–950.

Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V. and Sonmez, S. (1999) Redefining ecotourism: the need for a supply-sideview. Journal of Travel Research 38(2), 168–172.

Smith, V.L. (ed.) (1977) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism. University of PennsylvaniaPress, Philadelphia.

Smith, V.L. (ed.) (1989) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn. University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

US Department of Commerce (1998) International Travel and Forecast for the U.S. 1997–2001,Tourism Industries. International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce, May.

US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (USHEW) (1969) Toward a Social Report. USGovernment Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Valentine, P.S. (1993) Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some recent develop-ments in Micronesia. Tourism Management 14(2), 107–115.

Wallace, G.N. (1993) Visitor management: lessons from Galapagos National Park. In: Lindberg, K. andHawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. Ecotourism Society, NorthBennington, Vermont, pp. 55–82.

Wallace, G.N. and Pierce, S. (1996) An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals ofTourism Research 23(4), 843–873.

Wheeler, D. (1995) California’s Ocean Resources: an Agenda for the Future. Resource Agency, Stateof California, July.

Wheeller, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(2), 121–129.Wheeller, B. (1997) Here we go, here we go, here we go eco. In: Stabler, M.J. (ed.) Tourism and

Sustainability: Principles to Practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 39–50.Whelan, T. (1991) Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development. In: Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature

Tourism. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3–22.Wight, P.A. (1993) Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell? Journal of Travel Research 31(3), 3–9.Wilkinson, P.F. (1989) Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of Tourism Research 16(2),

153–177.World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1995) Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards

Environmentally Sustainable Development. World Travel and Tourism Council, WTO, and EarthCouncil, London, Madrid, San José, Costa Rica.

432 E. Sirakaya et al.

Chapter 27

Rural Development

R.W. ButlerSchool of Management Studies for the Service Sector, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Introduction

The linking of ecotourism and rural devel-opment may appear rather paradoxical tosome readers, for if there is a single defin-ing characteristic of ecotourism, it is proba-bly its positive relationship with what isthought of as the natural environment.Clearly, not all, if even many, rural areasinclude much natural environment in thestrict sense of the term. The problems anddifficulties of defining ecotourism havebeen fully discussed earlier in this volumeand will not be repeated here, however, itis necessary to return briefly to this issue toplace the development of ecotourism inrural areas in an appropriate context. Theunderstanding of ecotourism here is takento include a focus on one or more elementsof the natural environment such as wildlifeor vegetation, a small rather than a largescale of operation, low rather than highlevels of impact (particularly of negativeimpacts), an emphasis on conservation andsustainability, and a pattern of activity anddevelopment which is in harmony withboth existing natural and cultural activitiesand processes in an area. As noted fre-quently in the literature, such attributes arevery similar to those of sustainable tourism(Aronsson, 1994; Burton, 1997; Barkin,2000).

The problems of defining ecotourism aremirrored in defining the term rural andclarifying what is meant by rural area andrural development (Bramwell and Lane,1994; Butler et al., 1998). The most simple,but hardly helpful definition might be‘non-urban’, but some further elaboration isclearly necessary. To most people, ruralimplies agriculture, and certainly a settledand modified, normally farmed, environ-ment. Rural rarely, if ever, means anuntouched or pristine landscape, thusareas which have never been deliberatelymodified by mankind are unlikely to beincluded in such delineation. The Polarregions, high unpopulated mountainranges, major deserts, uninhabited islands,and even very extensive forests and wet-lands are generally excluded from such adefinition, at least in part because theyhave not been permanently settled andmodified by humans. Areas such as thefoothills of the Rockies, large parts of theAlps, even much of the interior ofAustralia could be included, however, asthese areas are settled and used for agricul-ture, albeit often in a marginal sense. Largeareas of tropical forest are more problem-atic, for although they may be part of theagricultural landscape in the sense thatthey are periodically cut and burned, set-tlement is normally periodic or nomadic

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 433

and evidence of human modification oftenrelatively fleeting. Small tropical islandstend to have much of their coastal area atleast under some form of agriculture andvillage-based settlement, and thus the termrural is more applicable there. In the con-text of this chapter, therefore, rural areasare taken to be settled areas which are usedprimarily for agriculture, in which the pat-tern of settlement is permanent but may beeither village based or dispersed. Underthis definition, inevitably little of the landis pristine or free from human modifica-tion.

Issues

The working definitions noted above raisesome important issues with respect to thelinks between ecotourism and rural devel-opment. Present-day agricultural practicesin many parts of the Western world haveresulted in very great modification of theenvironment in which they are undertaken.Most recently the appearance of geneticallymodified crops and animals has addedanother dimension to the distancing ofagriculture from nature. Much present-dayrural visitation and residency for leisurepurposes is bound up in nostalgia and thedesire to recapture a rural idyll which maynever have existed except in art and litera-ture (Dann, 1997; Hopkins, 1998), andalready finds itself at odds with agribusi-ness and a landscape which is oftenmonotonous and bereft of wildlife.Agribusiness and modern large-scale agri-cultural practices make conventional farmtourism and other traditional rural leisurepursuits increasingly difficult to experi-ence. Farming in many Western countriesis under very considerable pressure toincrease efficiency and financial returns tothe point that the traditional family farm israpidly disappearing as it becomes diffi-cult, if not impossible, to make a reason-able living solely from a small acreage inmost situations, compared with returnsfrom very large, highly mechanized farms.To counteract this, many small-scale farm-ers need to engage in additional economic

activities to remain economically viable.While such a process has meant increasinginterest in tourism as one of these options,the maintenance of the original mixed agri-cultural landscape is under increasingthreat. The process of rural change is welldocumented (Ilbery, 1998) and in general itis a process which does not bode well forecotourism or most forms of tourism andrecreation in rural areas which rely on atraditional farming landscape of consider-able diversity.

On the other hand, such a state of affairsdoes provide an environment in whichalternative and supplementary forms ofincome are particularly welcome (Opper-mann, 1998). Thus over the past two orthree decades, tourism and recreation havebeen viewed as potentially positive ele-ments in strategies to preserve the familyfarm and traditional farming practices inmany marginal areas in Western countriesin particular (Greffe, 1994). The inclusionof tourism into rural development policieshas become extremely common in manystrategy and policy documents (Pigram,1993; Augustin, 1998; Jenkins et al., 1998).The results have not always been success-ful, it must be stated, in no small partbecause of a frequent failure to appreciatethat tourism of any kind has specificrequirements, in both the natural resourceand the human resource areas. Locationswhich cannot produce agricultural outputto a satisfactory level are not automaticallycapable of producing suitable attractionsfor tourism, and individuals who fail atfarming do not automatically succeed intourism. Nevertheless, many areas whichare now marginal for agriculture, becauseof the trends in that activity noted above,do possess environmental characteristicswhich may make them suitable for tourism,such as attractive upland scenery, remote-ness and quietness, wildlife, and an overallabsence of development, along with cleanwater, woodlands and clean air. Combinedwith traditional cultural activities and her-itage structures and a local populationwhich may be well versed in local naturelore and inherently sociable and friendly tonon-locals, potential does exist in many

434 R.W. Butler

areas for some ecotourism development(see Chapter 20).

Difficulties include the fact that fewlocal communities wish to remainuntouched and ‘primitive’ or ‘backward’.While that image may be desired or soughtafter by visitors, it is one which is oftenshed as quickly as possible by many localresidents. Thus the rural idyll is rapidlychanging, and tourism is itself an agent ofchange and often welcomed as such inmany rural areas. Tourism may be seen asone of a very few alternatives to traditionalagriculture which allows the local popula-tion to remain in their traditional settle-ments and continue to engage, even if on areduced scale, in some form of agricultureand other rural activities (Bourke andLuloff, 1996; Sharpley, 1996; Page andGetz, 1997). This can cause some potentialconflicts between visitors who wish to seetraditional, even mythical rural settingsand activities, and local residents whowish to become modernized and abandonwhat may well be inefficient and uncom-fortable ways of life. Ecotourists as muchor more than other tourists may be particu-larly attracted to what they view or expectto view as traditional activities in ruralareas and be disappointed if such activitiesare not present (Ballantine and Eagles,1994).

As well, many rural activities areincompatible with some of the basic princi-ples of ecotourism. Hunting and fishinghave long been staple rural activities, notonly for essential food purposes, but alsoas means of keeping wildlife populationswithin acceptable limits, and for recreationand pleasure purposes (Hinch, 1998).Trapping and killing of wildlife for skinsand fur was a traditional activity in manyrural areas and is still practised in parts ofnorthern North America and Russia, and inthe southern hemisphere, and is in diamet-ric opposition to the beliefs of many eco-tourists and others. A key consideration inrural areas is that such areas are workinglandscapes, not normally passive settingsfor nature and most farmers, even tradi-tional family farmers, have scant time fornature given the pressures they are under.

The preservation of natural areas andprocesses will rarely be supported unless itcan be shown that by so doing, the rurallandowner is also serving his or her owninterests. It should not be surprising thatsupport for the establishment of naturereserves, national parks, and other forms ofprotected environments is often strongestin areas far distant from the proposed areasand often opposed by those in and aroundsuch areas. Such proposals are often seenas depriving locals of traditional resourcesand simply opportunities to meet thedesires and preferences of urban and for-eign residents at local expense. If eco-tourism is to be successful in suchsituations, then it must yield what is oftenproposed as one of its key characteristics,economic benefits for local residents (Sleeet al., 1997) and, if possible, do so withoutrequiring the sacrifice of other traditionalactivities and sources of revenue. As willbe discussed below, such situations can befound and developed, but are far fromautomatic or inevitably successful.

Trends

Trends that are apparent in tourism andleisure are both positive and negative forthe involvement of ecotourism in ruraldevelopment, as are trends in agricultureand other rural activities in many areas. Asthe world’s population becomes moreurban, more densely settled, more removedfrom ‘natural’ conditions and processes,and under more stress, so the potentialattraction of non-urban, thinly settled,more natural and less stressful environ-ments increases for at least some segmentsof society (Cavaco, 1995). Thus the demandfor ecotourism and other forms of tourism(from short-term leisure trips to full-timeretirement) in rural areas is likely to grow.Similarly, as noted above, as economicpressures grow more severe on marginalagriculture, the search for alternative andsupplementary forms of income becomesmore significant, and tourism of manyforms is increasingly seen as a potentiallyacceptable addition to the frequently limited

Rural Development 435

range of rural economic activities (Mossand Godde, 2000). As some marginal areasgo out of agricultural production, tourismand leisure use may be seen as one of, oreven the only, alternative productive eco-nomic use of the area (Oppermann, 1998;Saeter, 1998).

One of the more significant and positivetrends in rural areas from the point of viewof compatibility with ecotourism has beenthe widespread growth in the market forfarm produce and particularly organic and‘natural’ agricultural produce. While farmgate sales of products have long been a fea-ture of the rural environment in all parts ofthe world, in recent decades the deliberatedirect marketing of rural produce from theproducer has expanded considerably.Marketing of things rural (whether authen-tic or not) has now become widespread(Hopkins, 1998) and excursions into ruralhinterlands for purchasing of rural pro-duce, from food to wine (Hall andMacionis, 1998), and antiques to ruralreproductions is now a major form oftourism and recreation. Allied to this trendis the emergence of rural festivals (Butlerand Smale, 1991; Janiskee and Drews,1998), only some of which have well-established roots in local traditions. Thistrend of increasing popularity of thingsrural serves to make rural areas popular fora wide range of forms of tourism, of whichecotourism is only one. However, the char-acteristics of ecotourism noted above makeit one of the more compatible forms oftourism with many traditional farm activi-ties and landscapes.

Other trends, however, are less encour-aging for the development of ecotourismactivities in rural areas. Tourism and recre-ation uses of rural areas are becomingincreasingly varied in number and many ofthe newer forms of leisure activities whichare being pursued in the rural landscapeare at the opposite end of the spectrum toecotourism. These new activities are char-acterized by being mechanized and depen-dent on high technology, are oftenindividualistic and competitive, have ahigh per capita user impact on the environ-ment, are urban related and place little

value on the innate naturalness of theenvironment in which they are practised(Butler, 1998). They include activities suchas snowmobiling, mountain biking, all-terrain/off-road vehicle operation, endurance/extreme sports and off-piste downhill ski-ing and snowboarding. They are, therefore,very different in participant characteris-tics, motivations, resource requirementsand compatibility with other activities,both of a tourism and a traditional ruralnature. This is in contrast to the more tra-ditional rural tourism activities such aswalking, nature study and observation,sightseeing, visiting historic artefacts andviewing rural operations (Butler, 1998), allof which are compatible with, if not a partof, some forms of ecotourism in ruralareas. At a time when ecotourism is beingconsidered as one form of tourism suitablefor development in rural areas, thoseregions are thus experiencing an oftenrapid growth of participation in the newerforms of tourism and recreation. It isunlikely that these two divergent groups ofactivities will be able to coexist simultane-ously in the same area.

As agriculture is becoming increasinglyfinancially non-viable in some parts of theworld, other land uses, generally less com-patible with tourism, are competingstrongly for the rural land base. In Europein particular, where distances from metro-politan centres to rural areas are small,land no longer viable for agricultural pro-duction is often highly desired for residen-tial or commercial use. The value assignedto the land from such a conversion is muchhigher than if the land remained in agricul-tural use or even for low-intensity tourismand recreation. Thus other pressures areexerted on such lands as well as moreintensive forms of tourism and recreation.In association with non-agricultural landuses come demands for rural land for trans-portation routes, storage for a range ofproducts including waste of many kinds,and a range of other land uses not deemedsuitable for densely populated areas. In thepast, the latter have included military areasand nuclear power stations.

Ironically, as military bases, particularly

436 R.W. Butler

in Western Europe and North America arereduced and phased out, some areas whichhad been used for military training, forexample bombing ranges, have becomehighly suitable for ecotourism. The absenceof humans on a permanent basis, and thefact that natural processes have beenallowed to continue for many decades,have left many such areas with a uniquepopulation of wildlife and vegetation. Inone sense they are ‘islands’ of natural ornear-natural landscapes in a sea of other-wise intensely modified landscapes. Thereoften remain problems such as unclearedexplosives and relative lack of access, butin most cases the former has to be resolvedbefore the area is released for public access(Butler and Baum, 1999). In Canada, partsof the prairies and southern Ontario havealready fallen into such categories,although public access for activities suchas ecotourism may face problems withissues of native land claims for such areasand demand for the land for other uses.

The final trend noted here is the generaltrend towards large-scale commercial farm-ing or agribusiness referred to earlier.Potter (1998) has discussed in some detailthe rise of concern over loss of natural val-ues through changing methods of agricul-tural production and scale of operation andthe appearance and implementation of arange of measures designed to conservenatural values in rural areas. He notesincreasing concerns from the 1980sonwards as to the ways in which modernfarming methods have impacted on naturalprocesses and features in agricultural areas.Larger fields have appeared in the drive for greater economic efficiency throughincreasing use of mechanization, in turnnecessitating removal of hedgerows andtrees, increasing drainage and channeliza-tion of natural waterways, increasing use ofpesticides and fertilizers, and mostrecently the introduction of geneticallymodified plants and perhaps animals. Tofinance the increasing cost of mechaniza-tion producers have sought to enlarge farmsize and to reduce farm labour, thusencouraging the disappearance of the fam-ily farm. Farms have become more special-

ized and increasingly involved in mono-culture. All of these processes result indecreased variety in rural areas, both interms of agricultural production and thefarmed landscape, and more importantlyfrom the point of view of ecotourism, indecreased biodiversity in terms of bothvegetation and wildlife. A large part of eco-tourism’s attraction and the motivation ofparticipants (Eagles, 1992; Ballantine andEagles, 1994) is the opportunity to viewfeatures and elements of the natural orsemi-natural landscape. The more variedthe landscape and its components, floraland faunal, as well as geologic and aquatic,the more attractive it generally is and thegreater the appeal. The appeal of thestereotypical English country landscape,beloved by Christmas card and biscuit tinillustrators, is very much based on its vari-ety, featuring domesticated and wild ani-mals, arable crops and woodland, farmchickens and birds of prey, untamedstreams and mill ponds, and peaceful set-tlements and wild hill scenery. A monocul-tural landscape of wheat fields with fewbuildings and no animals or song birdsmay yield large volumes of low price grainbut has little appeal to any form of tourist,least of all an ecotourist.

This is a rather negative picture of ruralareas, particularly those in developed‘Western’ countries, against which to dis-cuss ecotourism and rural development,yet it is possible to find the successfulintroduction or expansion of what can beviewed as forms of ecotourism in somerural areas. The following section discussessome examples of ecotourism developmentin rural areas and endeavours to identifyconditions and requirements for the suc-cessful introduction and operation of suchdevelopments.

Examples

Wheeller (1994) has pointed out veryclearly the problems with the cynical mar-keting of ecotourism and sustainabletourism and the labelling of a wide varietyof forms of tourism with these terms in

Rural Development 437

order to penetrate the growing market inthis area. Despite these valid concerns,there are examples of what appear to be, atleast so far, serious attempts to developecotourism opportunities in rural areas in awide variety of settings. This section dis-cusses a limited number of cases in orderto identify characteristics and issues aris-ing which may be of use in the furtherdevelopment of such opportunities in otherrural areas.

Fiji

The Fijian islands represent a destinationwhich has experienced a variety of formsof tourism, but which is particularly suit-able for the development of ecotourism in arural context. The natural environment ofthe South Pacific islands is a major elementin the attraction of the region to tourists, asis the local culture of the different islandgroups. Thus a form of tourism which com-bines opportunities to experience theundeveloped natural environment and atthe same time experience contact withrural Fijians in their home settings and cul-ture has high potential. The distancesinvolved are relatively small and whileaccess is not always easy, compared withlong distance interior destinations in otherlocations, it presents few problems. Arange of opportunities exists from one-daytrips from conventional tourist resorts toexcursions of several days, staying at anumber of different villages.

Fiji is one of the few locations which isin the process of developing a policy andstrategy specifically for the development ofecotourism in the context of rural villages(Harrison, 1997). It is argued that this spe-cific policy has to be placed in the contextof the overall tourism policy for Fiji andreflect the great significance of the landreserve of Fiji as an integral part of theFijian culture, as well as being a resourcefor food production and development. Theform of ecotourism envisaged in the policyinvolves small-scale operations, an empha-sis on nature and indigenous culture, beinglocally owned and operated, conserving

the natural environment and improving thewelfare of local communities (Harrison,1997, p. 5). Perhaps significantly, it makesthe distinction between village-based tourismand ecotourism, a distinction based pri-marily on the responsibility of tourists andconservation of the human and non-humanenvironments. It recognizes a large numberof stakeholders and the need to coordinatecurrent offering and define what is meantby an ‘ecotourism product’, in part, it isassumed, to avoid the problems noted byWheeller (1994).

As well as having the goal of improvingthe welfare of the rural people of Fiji(Harrison, 1997, p. 10), the document alsonotes the crucial importance of localwishes and aspirations and linkages withtraditional arts, crafts and traditions. Itcalls for a high level of governmentinvolvement in training, support and regis-tration of developments, and strong link-ages with other elements of tourism in theislands. There is also clear recognition thatecotourism is not a panacea, that not allecotourism projects are beneficial, that theydo result in impacts (some of which maybe unforeseen), that they do not result inthe influx of vast sums of money, and thatnot all ecotourism is environmentallyfriendly.

Since the preparation of the policy,research has been undertaken on eco-tourism and village-based tourism in Fiji(Francis, 1998; Reddy, 1998). Reddy (1998)conducted four in-depth case studies of vil-lage-based tourism, one of which was anecotourism development, and two othershaving minor links with ecotourism. Sheconcluded that the key to the success of theBouma Forest Park, which linked both thenatural and the cultural heritage, waslandowner involvement and a commitmentto maintaining the integrity of both her-itages together. The park, on the island ofTavuni, offers interpretation, forest trails, a spectacular waterfall and, close by,snorkelling, as well as a village visit. Theother two projects, a campsite on a smallisland and a village site were more con-cerned with catering to general touriststhan ecotourists for the most part. She con-

438 R.W. Butler

cluded that strong personal or family con-trol and commitment was the key to suc-cess, and the greater the number of peopleand agencies involved, the less successfulthe project was likely to be (Reddy, 1998,p. 150).

Despite the apparent desire of the gov-ernment to stimulate and encourage eco-tourism ventures as a way to stimulaterural development, Francis (1998) is gener-ally critical of both the government andother major tourism sector bodies for theiractual commitment to the concept. Non-participation on committees and boards,allocation of a very small proportion oftourism-related funding to ecotourism pro-motion and development, and an apparentlack of appreciation of the potential of eco-tourism are all cited as reasons for this seg-ment not achieving its full potential(Francis, 1998, pp. 152–153). In reviewingsome 68 village-based proposals seekinggovernment support, he concluded ‘theirventures appear to be more like what couldbe called village tourism than ecotourism,involving predominantly village tours,treks to nearby forest areas or the provisionof island accommodation’ (Francis, 1998,p. 142). He notes, however, that theMinistry for Tourism had titled the list ofprojects ‘Ecotourism Development’. Francisconcludes that while ecotourism can makea successful contribution in Fiji, to date ithas helped individual Fijian families andentrepreneurs rather than communities andstill has a high non-Fijian involvement(Francis, 1998, p. 168). While one wouldfind it hard to disagree with this conclu-sion, his definition of ecotourism istowards the ‘hard’ rather than the ‘soft’ endof the spectrum. Accepting a softer versionwould allow one to expect that the futurefor the development of ecotourism in con-junction with the more established village-based tourism would be more successful.

Australia

Australian tourism operates at a very dif-ferent scale to that of Fiji, but the land-scape and wildlife resources of Australia

are major tourist attractions, as is the ruralheritage and image, particularly of theOutback. Australia is one of very few coun-tries to have a policy or strategy on ruraltourism, and The National Rural TourismStrategy (CDT, 1994b) represents a signifi-cant advance in tourism planning. Its defi-nition of rural tourism as ‘a multifacetedactivity that takes place outside heavilyurbanised areas … characterised by smallscale tourism … in areas where land use is dominated by agricultural pursuits,forestry or natural areas’ (CDT, 1994b, p. 3),provides scope for the inclusion of eco-tourism. The document, however, does goon to indicate that ‘rural tourism can repre-sent to the traveller the essence of countrylife’, which takes much of the emphasis offthe natural environment and its attractions.Furthermore, the potential activities listedare much more related to farm-related pur-suits and cultural participation. It doesinclude hiking in national parks, raftingand caving, and visits to wildlife reserves,nature-based tours and ecotourism tours(pp. 3–4). Beyond some reference to theNational Ecotourism Strategy (CDT, 1994a)in the context of environmental benefits,however, there is nothing specific dealingwith ecotourism in the strategy document.

The Rural Tourism Needs Analysis(Morrison, 1995) follows a generally simi-lar line with respect to the limited refer-ence to and role of ecotourism-relatedprojects in rural tourism in Australia. It tooplaces an emphasis on farm tourism,although it does make reference to ‘contactwith nature and the natural world’, her-itage, ‘traditional’ societies and ‘traditional’practices (p. 2), and lists among ‘optional’elements nature and indigenous peoplesand lifestyles (p. 4). Among the case stud-ies examined in this report, however, themajority include references to ecotourismand the natural environment as being sig-nificant attractions and elements in thetourism offerings in locations includingKatherine (Northern Territory), Cooktown(Queensland) and the Snowy Mountains(New South Wales). Elements include cavetours, wildlife viewing opportunities includ-ing crocodiles and birds, guided excursions

Rural Development 439

into the outback, aboriginal tourism visits,and trails through rainforest and desertenvironments from rural settlement bases.It is clear, however, that such activities areseen as optional additional elements to theconventional farm tourism focus on whichrural tourism would be firmly based(Australian Rural Management Services,1995).

Europe

Interest in ecotourism and green concernsare reasonably well established in manyEuropean countries (Becker, 1995), particu-larly those in the north, and much of the rel-atively wild and thinly populated landresource is also found in these countries.Much of Scandinavia, upland areas ofScotland, and mountainous regions inGermany, Austria and France, in particular,offer a wide range of natural or semi-naturalhabitats in highly attractive scenic settings,many of which have long been popular withtourists. Relative freedom of public accessin many of these countries, particularly tovisitors on foot, has meant that the visitorpopulations have traditionally used theseareas for activities that were low impactingand often involved natural elements of thelandscape. In recent years the decline ofmany upland and marginal peripheral agri-cultural regions has meant that rural resi-dents have been eager to turn to other formsof income generation, particularly thosewhich could be conducted in situ usingtheir local knowledge and expertise. Liedler(1997, p. 64) claimed that for farms in thehighest parts of the Austrian Alps, tourismaccounted for over 30% of total income, andRickard (1983) has argued that tourism canhelp stabilize the rural economic base indeclining rural areas in England.

Given the absence of pristine wild landfrom much of mainland Europe, however,and the widespread nature of agricultureon this continent, conventional ‘hard’ eco-tourism can only be found to any degree inthe far north or the highest central moun-tains. The spread of ski slopes and accom-panying technology even on to glacier

slopes in the Alps (Zimmermann, 1995)has meant that most of the forms of eco-tourism in Europe are of the ‘soft’ variety(Becker, 1995) and often tied in with formsof adventure tourism, other wildernessactivities such as cross-country skiing andhiking, water-based activities such askayaking, canoeing and sailing, or withconventional farm tourism activities. Thereis a well-established tradition in Northernand Western Europe of the use of local resi-dences for tourist accommodation, ‘bedand breakfast’ opportunities abound in theUK and signs indicating ‘zimmer frei’(room available) are common in Germany,Austria and Switzerland, as are their equiv-alents in other countries. There is thusfamiliarity and acceptance of using localhouses, including farms and other prem-ises in rural areas, as the accommodationbase for holidays, and the rental of self-catering accommodation, for example, the‘Gites Ruraux’, begun in France in the1950s to stem rural depopulation (Fleischerand Engel, 1997), is equally common andgrowing rapidly.

Much of the rural-based ecotourism par-ticipation is undertaken in parks and pro-tected areas of some kind. Becker (1995,pp. 218–219) notes that 22% of Germanyand 8% of France lies within nature parks,with further areas in these countries beingunder conventional national park protec-tion. All European countries have a varietyof protected areas, many of which areactively promoted for tourism in conjunc-tion with neighbouring rural communities.In England and Wales the national parksencompass a large number of rural commu-nities and private land, and rural tourismand ecotourism activities are promoted bybodies such as the Countryside Agency andthe National Park Authorities (Parker andRavenscroft, 2000). In many other coun-tries in Europe and elsewhere, the estab-lishment of national parks and similarreserves was in no small part to stimulatenature-based tourism in an era before eco-tourism had been conceived, and to aidrural communities in and adjoining suchparks (Butler and Boyd, 2000).

The term ecotourism has not been heav-

440 R.W. Butler

ily used in much of Europe to date (seeChapter 10). However, the creation of fea-tures such as ecomuseums in France(Dewailly, 1998) and the integration ofmountain recreation with rural develop-ment in Switzerland and the Alps gener-ally (Becker, 1995), have resulted inincreased participation in what are clearlyecotourism activities in many parts ofEurope. The development of ecotourismopportunities and participation in suchactivities is more common in northernEurope than in regions bordering theMediterranean, which traditionally havenot been as environmentally conscious astheir northern counterparts. In what maybe viewed as a somewhat ironic turn ofevents, however, rural development involv-ing at least some forms of ecotourism isnow taking place in the hinterlands ofsome of the declining mass tourism resortsin areas such as Spain. Integrated ruralplanning in areas such as Valencia (Veraand Rippin, 1996) has seen the develop-ment not only of wine tourism and moreconventional farm tourism, but also trails,natural areas and other opportunities for amore nature-based tourism. The LEADERprojects of the European Union (Cavaco,1995) have been significant in developingsuch forms of tourism in Portugal andSpain in particular (see Chapter 10).

The Americas

North America can be thought of as thecultural hearth of the concept of eco-tourism, and the largest market for itsopportunities. Initially most developmentstook place in the traditional wildernessareas of the north and the west, oftenwithin or adjacent to the national andstate/provincial parks in the USA andCanada, and the market was heavily inter-nal to North America (Eagles, 1992) (seeChapter 7). Over the past two decades inparticular, many ecotourism opportunitieshave been developed in more clearly rurallocations. This reflects the critical need foralternative forms of economic developmentin rural areas because of similar problems

facing family farmers in North America tothose discussed above in the context ofEurope and elsewhere. The realization ofthe rapidly growing market for nature-based tourism and the appeal of the nameecotourism have also encouraged this pat-tern. Weaver (1997) and Weaver andFennell (1997) have discussed such devel-opment opportunities in the context ofSaskatchewan, a province that might rea-sonably be thought initially to have littleopportunity for ecotourism, but which hasbeen shown to have considerable potentialfor targeted development in specific loca-tions, based particularly on wetlands andbirdlife.

Central America has long been noted forits ecotourism development, much of itsfirst developments occurring in interiormountainous regions, such as the MonteVerde Cloud Forest in Costa Rica (Fennelland Eagles, 1990). In more recent yearsthere has been widespread development ofecotourism opportunities into many otherareas, not only in Costa Rica, but particu-larly in Belize and in South America(Horwich et al., 1993; Wallace, 1993; Cater,1996). Some of these newer developmentshave occurred in rural rather than wildareas, and some doubts have beenexpressed, both about the suitability ofsome of the developments and their valid-ity in terms of ecotourism principles(Place, 1998). The rapid growth of eco-tourism in parts of Central and SouthAmerica, particularly in rural areas, raisessome concerns over the nature of suchgrowth and subsequent development. Ifrural residents are to benefit appropriatelyfrom such developments, they need to beactive participants and have their concernsand desires included in the developmentand protection of areas.

In Mexico ecotourism potential in ruralareas is considerable, and perhaps one ofthe best examples is in the Sierra Madre ofcentral Mexico, the wintering grounds ofthe monarch butterfly. Barkin (2000, p. 160)dates interest in this area from publicationof details of the migration in NationalGeographic in 1976, and the creation of abiosphere reserve in 1986. The numbers of

Rural Development 441

visitors increased rapidly from 25,000 toover ten times that figure before the end ofthe century, and he notes the incompatibil-ity of such visitation and development withindigenous rural resident aspirations andtraditional activities. The lack of local par-ticipation in the designation and manage-ment of the reserve, the lack of ability tomaximize local economic benefits from thelarge numbers of ecotourists, and the gen-eral lack of integrated planning identifiedby Barkin (2000, p. 166) show all tooclearly that while ecotourism in rural areascan be extremely attractive to tourists, itdoes not necessarily have the desired eco-nomic or other benefits for local rural resi-dents. Similar conflicts between ecotourismdevelopment and protection of areas andlocal rural activities and aspirations havebeen noted in other areas (Wallace, 1993).

Implications

It seems clear from the above discussionthat the form of ecotourism developed inrural areas will vary considerably from areato area, as might be expected. However, inthe vast majority of rural areas it will be aform of ‘soft’ ecotourism (Ziffer, 1989;Acott et al., 1998), where the emphasis ison more passive activities such as viewingand collecting images, than involvingintensive physical activity and requiringskill, knowledge and commitment. Long-distance, physically challenging trekkingor canoeing opportunities are limited, ifnot absent, in many rural areas, and thenormal substitute is walking along well-established trails with accommodation informal establishments available close to thefootpaths. Exotic wildlife is absent frommost rural areas, almost by definition,unless it is contained within wildlife parksor farmed, and thus of only marginal inter-est to most ecotourists even where it is pre-sent. Avifauna is probably the mostimportant element in ecotourism in manyrural areas and birdwatching is a major andgrowing element in most ecotourism offer-ings in rural areas.

In addition, it is likely that most eco-

tourism opportunities are or will be offeredin conjunction with other forms of tourism,particularly variations of farm tourism. It islikely that in most rural areas ecotourismwill not be the primary purpose or motiva-tion of participants but an ancillary activityengaged in for a part of the vacation or hol-iday period, rather than the predominantor only reason for the visit to that area.Linking ecotourism opportunities withmore traditional rural tourism activitiessuch as walking, photography, art, naturestudy and visiting heritage sites is likely tobe the norm. Increasingly, however, therewill probably be a range of more contempo-rary activities offered as well, such ascanoeing, rafting, wild camping, moun-taineering, caving, fossiking (searching forartefacts and natural deposits primarily forenjoyment, see Jenkins (1992)) and evencatch and release fishing, which once mayhave been regarded as somewhat unsuit-able to be linked to ecotourism.

To purists in the ecotourism field suchsuggestions may be viewed as anathemas,and represent the dilution or ‘dumbingdown’ of ecotourism to cater to populartastes. In rural areas, however, unlike ‘nat-ural’ or wilderness areas where there is nolocal population in need of jobs andincome, there is and will continue to be areal need to find alternative forms of eco-nomic activity to agriculture. ‘Pure’ or‘hard’ ecotourism opportunities, as notedabove, are unlikely to be found in mostrural areas and to pretend otherwise is tocourt economic failure and market rejec-tion (Blamey, 1997). The combination ofsome limited forms of ecotourism andother generally compatible tourist activitiesis likely to fit much better into many ruralareas, particularly in Western countries,and appeal to a much larger market. Inrural areas which are relatively close tomajor urban centres or established touristdestinations, as is the case in much ofEurope and parts of North America,Australia and New Zealand, participationin ecotourism and other forms of tourism islikely to be on a short-term basis, for a fewdays’ duration rather than for the majorholiday. Furthermore, a variety of activities

442 R.W. Butler

is likely to attract participants back forrepeat visits more than a single opportu-nity. Ecotourism, like all forms of tourism,has to achieve economic viability (Slee etal., 1997; Stabler, 1997) as well as meetingenvironmental and social sustainable crite-ria in order to survive for any period oftime in rural, as in other settings.

The development of such forms of eco-tourism in rural areas may imply that eco-tourism is entering the mainstream oftourism and becoming simply another partof the overall tourism phenomenon, losingsome of its ideological and philosophicalfocus in the process. It may also imply thatecotourism could become even more polar-ized in its offerings, rather than being rep-resented by a spectrum of opportunities,with only soft forms appearing in ruralareas and hard ecotourism being pushedever further to the periphery. Such aprocess is already visible and even in sometraditional pure or hard ecotourism areassuch as Costa Rica, concerns have alreadybeen expressed over the ‘softening’ anddilution of what were once more exclusiveand protected opportunities (Weaver, 1998)(see Chapter 11).

The question has to be raised in thiscontext then, of whether ecotourism inrural areas is little more than a new labelon a parcel of fairly traditional leisureactivities that have been repackaged andadjusted to complement other, oftendeclining, rural activities such as farmingand forestry. It might represent ecotourismbeing reduced in such areas to a mentalconstruct and an advertising label only. Amental construct in the sense that partici-pants want to participate in ecotourism forthe ‘feel good’ factor described so bitinglyby Wheeller (1993) as ‘egotourism’, and anadvertising label because so many publicsector agencies are willing to support pro-jects described as ecotourism or sustain-able, as noted by Francis (1998) in Fiji. Inreality such a state of affairs might not beimportant if the desired benefits of thedevelopments, such as sustaining ruralincomes and employment, regeneration ofrural communities, heritage, traditionalcrafts and culture, and conservation of

potentially endangered habitats, speciesand biodiversity are achieved. Many ofthose goals fit very well with the ideologyand principles of ecotourism (Western,1993) even if the setting is not an exotictropical rainforest but an upland farmingarea in Wales, Canada or New Zealand.

We can argue that village-based trekkinginto interior woodlands to see birds andplants in Fiji is a legitimate form of eco-tourism, because it has a focus on elementssuch as wildlife and vegetation, is locallybased, is small-scale, uses local people andresources, shares in their cultural activi-ties, and has a low impact on the environ-ment. It is logical then to argue that peopleon individual holidays staying in a bed andbreakfast establishment in an English vil-lage, visiting the local inn, eating localfood, engaging in walking and birdwatch-ing on neighbouring moorland and wood-lands are equally engaged in ecotourism. Itis more difficult and confusing to decide ifthe visit is ecotourism when, for example,the tourists in Fiji return after one or twonights, or even only a long day, to a luxuryhotel for the rest of their holiday. If the vis-itors in the English village have drivenfrom their home in a metropolitan centreperhaps only 100 km away for a weekendbreak, are they really ecotourists or peopleengaged in leisure and recreation? Suchsemantic arguments surely miss the pointthat ecotourism based in any settled areahas to be accepted as just one other form oftourism, albeit with certain characteristicsand motivations.

Birdwatching is one of the most defini-tive ecotourism activities, and probably theoldest established form of nature-basedtourism. It is practised throughout theworld and over the past half century hasgrown markedly in popularity, movingfrom a hobby that was often the butt ofmuch humour to a major element in inter-national tourism and domestic recreationand leisure. It now takes many forms, fromintensive specialized trips led by experi-enced guides to Amazonia, Antarctica andwherever interesting or rare bird popula-tions exist, to day trips to municipalsewage works to spot rare migrants. The

Rural Development 443

first type would be regarded clearly as eco-tourism of the ‘hard’ variety, but from first-hand experience this author will vouchthat in terms of aspects such as commit-ment, discomfort, excitement, low impact,and contribution to local economies thelatter is equally valid as a form of ‘hard’ecotourism. The location is not as impor-tant as the activity, the motivation and theparticipants. Large numbers of birdwatchersparticipating in intensive birdwatching at alocation such as Point Pelee National Parkin Canada during migration periods tend tobehave and appear more like conventionalbeach tourists than ecotourists, and arelikely to have significant, if unintentional,impacts upon both the birds they are tryingto see and the environment they are visit-ing. It is likely that they would reject suchan analogy on the basis that they are com-mitted to the well-being of the birds theyare watching, and their environment, and

have made major efforts, normally on anindividual basis to participate in the activ-ity. They might well regard those onescorted expensive trips where newspecies are guaranteed as being the ‘soft’form of the activity.

Thus, the forms of ecotourism to befound in rural areas should be regarded asmuch a part of ecotourism as those formswhich only occur in remote wilderness.Ecotourism has to be regarded as oneextremely varied element in the overallphenomenon known as tourism. When itoccurs as part of rural development, its rolecan be just as crucial in terms of environ-mental conservation and nature apprecia-tion as when it occurs in remote tropical orpolar areas. In terms of fulfilling its role inproviding local economic benefits, it is infi-nitely more successful in a rural settingthan in an unpopulated wilderness one.

444 R.W. Butler

References

Acott, T.G., La Trobe, H.L. and Howard, S.H. (1998) An evaluation of deep ecotourism and shallowecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(3), 238–253.

Aronsson, L. (1994) Sustainable tourism systems: the example of sustainable rural tourism inSweden. In: Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds) Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development.Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK, pp. 77–92.

Augustin, M. (1998) National strategies for rural tourism development and sustainability: the Polishexperience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(3), 191–209.

Australian Rural Management Services (1995) Rural Tourism Needs Analysis. ARMS, Parkside,South Australia.

Ballantine, J.L. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1994) Defining the Canadian ecotourist. Journal of SustainableTourism 2(3), 210–214.

Barkin, D. (2000) The economic impacts of ecotourism: conflicts and solutions in highland Mexico.In: Godde, P.M., Price, M.F. and Zimmermann, F.M. (eds) Tourism and Development inMountain Regions. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Becker, C. (1995) Tourism and the environment. In: Montanari, A. and Williams, A.W. (eds)European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp.207–220.

Blamey, R.K. (1997) Ecotourism: the search for an operational definition. Journal of SustainableTourism 5(2), 109–122.

Bourke, L. and Luloff, A.E. (1996) Rural tourism development: are communities in Southwest ruralPennsylvania ready to participate? In: Harrison, L.C. and Husbands, W. (eds) PractisingResponsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy, and Development.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 277–295.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds) (1994) Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development. ChannelView Publications, Clevedon, UK.

Burton, R. (1997) The sustainability of ecotourism. In: Stabler, M.J. (ed.) Tourism and Sustainability:Principles to Practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 357–374.

Butler, R.W. (1998) Rural recreation and tourism. In: Ilbery, B. (ed.) The Geography of Rural Change.Longman, Harlow, pp. 211–232.

Butler, R.W. and Baum, T. (1999) The tourism potential of the peace dividend. Journal of TravelResearch 38(1), 24–29.

Butler, R.W. and Boyd, S.W. (eds) (2000) Tourism and National Parks. John Wiley & Sons, London.Butler, R.W. and Smale, B.J.A. (1991) Geographic perspectives on festivals in Ontario. Journal of

Applied Recreation Research 16(1), 3–23.Butler, R.W., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (eds) (1998) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John

Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Cater, E. (1996) Ecotourism in the Caribbean: a sustainable option for Belize and Dominica? In:

Briguglio, L., Butler, R., Harrison, D. and Filho, W. (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands andSmall States: Case Studies. Pinter, London, pp. 122–146.

Cavaco, C. (1995) Rural tourism: the creation of new tourist spaces. In: Montanari, A. and Williams,A.W. (eds) European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 127–150.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism (CDT) (1994a) National Ecotourism Strategy. Commonwealthof Australia, Canberra.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism (CDT) (1994b) National Rural Tourism Strategy.Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Dann, G.M.S. (1997) The green green grass of home: nature and nurture in rural England. In: Wahab,W. and Pigram, J.J. (eds) Tourism, Development and Growth: the Challenge of Sustainability.Routledge, London, pp. 257–276.

Dewailly, J.M. (1998) Images of heritage in rural areas. In: Butler, R.W., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J.(eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 123–138.

Eagles, P.F.J. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 3, 3–7.Fennell, D. and Eagles, P. (1990) Ecotourism in Costa Rica: a conceptual framework. Journal of Park

and Recreation Administration 8, 23–24.Fleisher, A. and Engel, J. (1997) Tourism incubators, a support scheme for rural tourism in Israel in

World Tourism Organisation. Rural Tourism: a Solution to Employment, Local Development andEnvironment. World Tourism Organization, pp. 82–89.

Francis, J. (1998) Tourism development in Fiji: diversification through ecotourism. MA thesis,University of the South Pacific, Suva.

Greffe, X. (1994) Is rural tourism a lever for economic and social development? In: Bramwell, B. andLane, B. (eds) Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development. Channel View Publications,Clevedon, pp. 22–40.

Hall, C.M. and Macionis, N. (1998) Wine tourism in Australia and New Zealand. In: Butler, R.W.,Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 197–224.

Harrison, D. (1997) Ecotourism and Village-based Tourism: a Policy and Strategy for Fiji. Ministry ofTourism, Transport and Civil Aviation, Suva.

Hinch, T. (1998) Ecotourists and indigenous hosts: diverging views on their relationship with nature.Current Issues in Sustainable Tourism 1(1), 120–124.

Hopkins, J. (1998) Commodifying the countryside: marketing myths of rurality. In: Butler, R.W., Hall,C.M. and Jenkins, J. (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 139–156.

Horwich, R.H., Murray, D., Saqui, E., Lyon, J. and Godfrey, D. (1993) Ecotourism and communitydevelopment: a view from Belize. In: Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guidefor Planners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 152–168.

Ilbery, B. (1998) The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow.Janiskee, R.L. and Drews, P.L. (1998) Rural festivals and community reimaging. In: Butler, R.W., Hall,

C.M. and Jenkins, J. (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 157–176.

Jenkins, J. (1992) Fossikers and rockhounds in northern New South Wales. In: Weiler, B. and Hall,C.M. (eds) Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven, London, pp. 129–140.

Jenkins, J.M., Hall, C.M. and Troughton, M.J. (1998) The restructuring of rural economies: ruraltourism and recreation as a government response. In: Butler, R.W., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J.(eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 43–68.

Liedler, A. (1997) Tourisme rural et Protection de l’environment. In: World Tourism Organisation(ed.) Rural Tourism: a Solution to Employment, Local Development and Environment. WorldTourism Organization, Madrid, pp. 63–67.

Rural Development 445

Morrison, J.B. (1995) Rural Tourism Needs Analysis. Australian Rural Management Services Pty Ltd,Parkside, South Australia.

Moss, L.A.G. and Godde, P.M. (2000) Strategy for future mountain tourism. In: Godde, P.M., Price,M.F. and Zimmermann, F.M. (eds) Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions. CABInternational, Wallingford, pp. 323–338.

Oppermann, M. (1998) Farm tourism in New Zealand. In: Butler, R.W., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J.(eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 225–254.

Page, S.J. and Getz, D. (eds) (1997) The Business of Rural Tourism: International Perspectives.International Thomson Business Press, London.

Parker, G. and Ravenscroft, N. (2000) Tourism, ‘National Parks’ and private lands. In: Butler, R.W.and Boyd, S.W. (eds) Tourism and National Parks. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 95–106.

Pigram, J.J. (1993) Planning for tourism in rural areas: bridging the policy implementation gap. In:Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. Routledge,London, pp. 156–174.

Place, S.E. (1998) How sustainable is ecotourism in Costa Rica? In: Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds)Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK, pp. 107–118.

Potter, C. (1998) Conserving nature: agri-environmental policy development and change. In: Ilbery, B.(ed.) The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow, UK, pp. 85–105.

Reddy, S.W. (1998) The prospects of small-scale village-based tourism in Fiji: problems and opportu-nities. MA thesis, University of the South Pacific, Suva.

Rickard, R.C. (1983) The Role of Tourism in the Less Favored Areas of England and Wales.Agricultural Economics Unit Report 218, University of Exeter, Exeter.

Saeter, J.A. (1998) The significance of tourism and economic development in rural areas: aNorwegian case study. In: Butler, R.W., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (eds) Tourism and Recreationin Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 235–246.

Sharpley, R. (1996) Tourism and Leisure in the Countryside. Elm Publications, Huntingdon, UK.Slee, W., Farr, H. and Snowdon, P. (1997) Sustainable tourism and the local economy. In: Stabler, M.J.

(ed.) Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK,pp. 69–88.

Stabler, M.J. (ed.) (1997) Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice. CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

Vera, F. and Rippin, R. (1996) Decline of a Mediterranean tourist area and restructuring strategies: theValencian Region. In: Priestley, G.K., Edwards, J.A. and Coccossis, H. (eds) SustainableTourism? European Experiences. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 120–136.

Wallace, G.N. (1993) Visitor management: lessons from Galapagos National Park. In: Lindberg, K. andHawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society,North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 55–81.

Weaver, D.B. (1997) A regional framework for planning ecotourism in Saskatchewan. The CanadianGeographer 41(3), 281–293.

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford.Weaver, D.B. and Fennell, D.A. (1997) The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: a profile of opera-

tors. Tourism Management 18, 357–365.Western, D. (1993) Defining ecotourism. In: Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide

for Planners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 7–11.Wheeller, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(2), 121–129.Wheeller, B. (1994) Tourism and the environment. A symbiotic, symbolic or shambolic relationship?

In: Seaton, A.V. (ed.) Tourism. The State of the Art. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 647–655.Ziffer, K. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance. Conservation International, Washington, DC.Zimmermann, F.M. (1995) The Alpine region: regional restructuring opportunities and constraints in

a fragile environment. In: Montanari, A. and Williams, A.W. (eds) European Tourism: Regions,Spaces and Restructuring. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 19–40.

446 R.W. Butler

Section 6

Planning, Management and Institutions

K.F. BackmanDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson,

South Carolina, USA

Ecotourism is a field very dependent oneffective and efficient planning and policydevelopment at all levels of government,the non-government organization (NGO)sector and business. Thus, it is essentialthat ecotourism researchers and practition-ers are aware of and utilize the best knowl-edge from the available literature. Whethercommunity or tourism focused, planninginvolves many actions, participants, fieldsof knowledge, and levels of decision mak-ing and implementation (Branch, 1985).But, according to Gunn (1994), planningfor tourism must also consider a number ofuniversal principles. These include a focuson the present, a perspective that goesbeyond economic development, the incor-poration of all three tourism sectors (business,non-profit organizations and governments),an interactive approach, and integration ofthree planning scales (community, destina-tion and region). All these principles areequally relevant to ecotourism planning.Furthermore, tourism policy must identifygoals and objectives that assist govern-ments in planning the tourism industry(Fennell, 1999). What follows in the nextfive chapters is current knowledge andinsights regarding the best practices in eco-tourism policy development, planning andmanagement. The primary institutional

players in the field of ecotourism today arealso considered.

Chapter 28, titled ‘Management Toolsand Techniques: an Integrated Approach toEcotourism Planning’ by Sheila Backman,James Petrick and Brett Wright, reviews thecomplex phenomenon that involves theintegration of all ecotourism actions. Thechapter provides an overview of many ofthe integrated conservation and visitor usemodels that have been discussed in theecotourism planning and development lit-erature. Relatively simple frameworks thatamplify the interrelationships betweencommunity development and resource con-servation give way to more complex mod-els such as the ecotourism opportunityspectrum, which incorporates conceptsfrom the recreation opportunity spectrum.These provide a conceptual frameworkfrom which policy development and opti-mal decision making can occur. The chap-ter then focuses on the presentation of anintegrated systems model for ecotourismplanning developed by the authors. Themodel starts with ecotourism organizationsand their missions, emphasizing the needfor coordination between agencies toreduce the fragmentation of the industry.The second major component of the modelis the management information system.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 447

Given the scope and amount of informationnecessary to successfully develop andmanage an ecotourism industry, two mainelements must be addressed: (i) human sys-tems planning; and (ii) resource systemsplanning. On the human side knowledge isnecessary and usually provided from needsassessments, social and economic impactassessments, attitude surveys and marketsegmentation studies. Measures relevant toresource systems planning include naturalresource inventories, cultural/historicalinventories, environmental impact assess-ments, biodiversity studies and resourcesustainability studies. From these twomanagement information system elements,clear and informed ecotourism manage-ment decisions can be made which areused to develop measurable objectives forecotourism planning. Also integrated intothe model are elements of ecotourism prod-uct and experience that affect image andrepeat patronage, and an evaluative/feed-back component. In sum, this chapteroffers insight into current ideas regardingecotourism management planning models,and presents an alternative integratedmodel of decision making that contributesto the planning or management of eco-tourism destinations.

Chapter 29, titled ‘Policy and Planning’by David Fennell, Ralf Buckley and DavidWeaver, evaluates the complexity of con-temporary ecotourism policy and planningin major world regions. The authors beginby discussing the nature and role of policydevelopment and planning in tourism.Their subsequent analysis shows thatAustralia’s world leadership in this area isrelated to the interaction and cooperationof the public and private sectors at all lev-els. In particular, the Australian NationalEcotourism Strategy demonstrates a visionfor ecological and culturally sustainableecotourism that serves as a prototype forother countries. Each region of the globefaces its own challenges in regard to policyand planning. For example, the geographicdiversity and complexity of the Americasis mirrored in the region’s ecotourism poli-cies and plans, as evident in the authors’description of developments in Manitoba,

Florida, Guyana and Brazil. In Manitoba,Canada, in development of ecotourismpolicy, public and private research identi-fies eight different policy areas as impor-tant to the industry’s success. These aresustainability, business viability, integratedresource management planning, infrastruc-ture, leadership and cooperation, market-ing, aboriginal involvement and awarenessand understanding. In the USA, Floridahas focused their ecotourism policy aroundfive main components, strategic relation-ships (between stakeholders), inventory,protection, education and marketing.

In Chapter 30, titled ‘Ecotourism-relatedOrganizations’, Elizabeth Halpenny dis-cusses the organizations that attempt tominimize the negative impacts and maxi-mize the positive impacts of ecotourism.The chapter begins by reviewing the threecategories of organization type, i.e. mem-bership and non-membership NGOs, andpublic sector or governmental agencies.Halpenny then engages in the difficult taskof estimating the number, scope and loca-tion of ecotourism organizations. Thoughthese organizations vary in composition,Halpenny demonstrates that they alsoshare many similarities, such as their rea-sons for formation and their mission. Formand structure of ecotourism organizationsvaries between NGOs, member NGOs andgovernment agencies, but within these sep-arate types of organizations, form andstructure is similar. Other areas of similar-ity are in organizational funding, the part-nerships formed and the stakeholdergroups involved. Regardless of their differ-ences, all indications suggest that eco-tourism organizations are going to increasein number and importance worldwide asthe tourism industry continues to expandin the next century.

Chapter 31, by Judy Cohen, titled‘Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context’discusses the three primary aspects relatedto ecotourism and the external arena: (i)the inter-sectoral conflict in ecotourism; (ii)intra- and inter-sectoral coalitions; and (iii)strategies for the intra- and inter-sectoralalliance to achieve ecotourism. In assessingthe inter-sectoral conflicts, many industry

448 K.F. Backman

segments are discussed in relation to theirincompatibility in the use of ecosystemresources, e.g. forestry, mining, gas and oilproduction, manufacturing, etc. The majorelement of contention here is that theseindustries do not care whether ecotourismexists in or around their operations. But,for ecotourism to be successful, it is neces-sary to preserve the pristine environmentof an ecotourism area even if these otherindustries exist there as well. Thus, fromthe analysis, Cohen identifies two goals forecotourism to survive. First, the industrycan not allow incompatible industries toenter ecotourism areas. Second, the sectormust take actions to ensure that ecotourismindustry growth does not destroy itself inthis growth process. In regard to the coali-tion, success depends on ecotourism’scapacity to provide economic benefits thatare distributed equitably to the local popu-lation. Also, efforts must be made to ensurecompatible industries employ the localpopulation, and that strategies to generatelocal support for ecotourism are imple-mented. Suggestions include the empower-ment of local people in planning anddecision making, making the benefits fromtourism clear to all shareholders, ensuringthat benefits are equally distributed to localpeople and recognizing the uniqueness ofeach ecotourism site. In the chapter’s sec-tion on intra- and inter-sectoral alliances toachieve sustainable ecotourism the authorprovides a number of strategies for influ-encing public policy. The first of these islobbying of agencies and the petitionprocess. Lawsuits can be used as a meansof confrontation. Further, public relationscampaigns can be used to either threatenindustries or inform the public on damageor potential damage from incompatibleindustries. A proactive though contentiousmeasure to achieve influence over policy isthe formation of alliances with incompati-ble industries to achieve common goals.

In Chapter 32, titled ‘The Place ofEcotourism in Public Policy and Planning’,Steven Parker uses worldwide examples toassess how ecotourism operates within thepublic policy and planning context. Parkerexamines the numerous governmental pro-

grammes, functions and conditions whichare external to ecotourism but still have adistinct and significant impact on the eco-tourism industry. The first condition ispolitics and administration. Globally, gov-ernment ministries such as departments ofpublic works, transportation, environment,immigration, investment and education allset policies impacting ecotourism. Oneaspect that amplifies the impacts is indus-try fragmentation, because of its close tieswith local units of government and coun-cils of indigenous peoples. A second issuepresented is security and the role govern-ments play in the protection of visitors.This is a very important issue to the travel-ling public particularly in less-developedcountries. Numerous examples are pro-vided related to breaks in tourist securityand the governmental response to disasterand terrorism in a global context.

Next, Parker describes how governmentinfrastructure policy concerns the plan-ning, finance and construction of eco-tourism in a country. Regardless of the sizeof the project, impacts will occur and sub-sequent government reaction can lead tosuccess or failure in the ecotourism indus-try. Two elements related to ecotourismthat figure into national policy develop-ment are the issues of dependency andleakage. Dependency is a political condi-tion wherein one nation is controlled eco-nomically by another. In response, policiesneed to ensure that countries retain a muchgreater share of ecotourism profits. Leakageof revenues, on the other hand, requirespolicies, such as import substitution, subsi-dization of local labour training, controlsover foreign ownership, and transport sub-sidies, which stop the outflow of revenuesgenerated in the local economies. Parker,like Halpenny, also cites the challenge ofconvincing former adversaries in incom-patible industries to form coalitions.

Fiscal policy, relating to governmentdecisions, includes taxation and publicexpenditure that affect the ecotourismindustry. Areas such as Ecuador’s GalapagosIslands, which generate fees from over80,000 visitors annually, find that this rev-enue is simply deposited into the country’s

Planning, Management and Institutions 449

general treasury. Yet, these destinationsneed to retain these revenues in order tomaintain themselves. Other examples of fis-cal policy are the use of various types oftaxes such as departure taxes, hotel taxesand custom duties to provide revenues forsupporting and preserving areas critical toecotourism. Finally, the largest issue relat-ing to fiscal policy and foreign countries isthe nation’s international balance of pay-ments. One measure presented is the ‘debt-for-nature swap’ process. An example ofthis is Bolivia, where US$650,000 debt wascancelled in exchange for making a 1.4 mil-lion ha addition to the Beni BiologicalReserve and thus saving more of thisendangered ecosystem.

Financial incentives are closely relatedto fiscal policy and deal with governmentalstimulation and subsidization of an indus-try. An example at the micro-level is the

Costa Rican Tourism DevelopmentIncentive Law which offers tax breaks forconstruction of such facilities as ecolodges.Parker also addresses the maintenance ofsecurity in unstable political situations,where policy operates on a macro-level.For ecotourism to continue to grow and tobe successful, policies such as those pre-sented in this chapter must be imple-mented more often and more consistentlyin the future.

These five chapters approach the subjectof planning ecotourism from differentdirections, perspectives and scales, but allpresent a similar theme that for this indus-try to evolve, effective planning is criticalregardless of whether the venue is in theUSA or Kenya. The only sure means of sus-taining vital environments and local popu-lations is through planning, policydevelopment and enforcement.

450 K.F. Backman

References

Branch, M.C. (1985) Comprehensive City Planning: Introduction and Exploration. AmericanPlanning Association, Planners Press, Washington, DC.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basic Concepts and Cases, 3rd edn. Taylor and Francis, New

York.

Introduction

Ecotourism has been described as ‘a com-plex phenomenon, involving integration ofmany actors including tourists, residentpeoples, suppliers, and managers and mul-tiple functions’ (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1993,p. 124). Moreover, these actors, or stake-holders, are engaged in a symbiotic rela-tionship revolving around the idea oftourism as a means of economic develop-ment and as a means of promoting conser-vation of natural resources. If theecotourism industry is to be developedmore fully, and sustained for future genera-tions, it will be necessary to understandthe connections between conservation andtourism. In the 1987 report of the WorldCommission on Environment and Develop-ment, Our Common Future, it was sug-gested that problems of the environmentand development could be solved if plan-ning and decision making in those twospheres could be linked with cooperationbetween the tourism industry and govern-ment. Therefore the purpose of this chapteris to propose a model of planning, develop-ment and management of ecotourism thatmaximizes the opportunity to solicit input

from the various stakeholders groups whocould potentially be affected by manage-ment decisions.

Lessard et al. (1999) described a ‘GeneralFramework for Integrated EcologicalAssessments’ in which they argued that‘Managers are faced more and more withthe need to make decisions involving com-plex cultural, social, economic and envi-ronmental issues’ (p. 35) and must adaptmanagement strategies and goals to fluidsituations. Ecotourism management is anundertaking of such complexity. Accordingto Lessard et al. (1999), this involves ‘acontinuing process of action-based plan-ning, assessment, monitoring, research andadjustment with the objective of improvingimplementation and achieving desiredgoals and outcomes’ (p. 35).

Fennell and Eagles (1990) described aframework for understanding and integrat-ing conservation and visitor use. They sug-gested that tour companies, governmentagencies, remote communities and visitorscould all prosper through cooperation andsuitable planning. Within their conceptual-ization (Fig. 28.1), the resource tour (i.e.tourism to see a specific resource) is identi-fied as the central focus of ecotourism,

Chapter 28

Management Tools and Techniques: anIntegrated Approach to Planning

S. Backman1, J. Petrick1 and B.A. Wright21Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson,South Carolina, USA; 2Center for Recreation Resources Policy, George Mason University,

Manassas, Virginia, USA

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 451

influenced by both the service industry andthe visitor. While some ecotourists seektheir own experiences, many avail them-selves of the infrastructure and assistanceprovided by tour operators, guides and/orinterpreters. The natural settings that eco-tourists desire are typically owned andmanaged by governments through institu-tions such as resource management agen-cies responsible for managing public parksand wildlife refuges. The framework fur-ther amplifies the interrelationship betweencommunity development and resource con-servation.

The visitor component of the modelincludes marketing, visitor managementand visitor attitudes. Marketing is essentialto create visitor desire for the destinationand can occur at the international, nationaland local level. The policies created by vis-itor management ultimately affect the visi-tors’ experience by controlling allowableactivities and proscribing others. Finally,the ecotourists’ attitudes will be affected bythe positive and/or negative experiencesduring their visit, which may in turn affecttheir cognitive assessment of their tour.This cognitive assessment will aid in thedetermination of whether or not to revisitthe destination, and will also influence thedecisions of others to travel to that destina-tion. Fennell and Eagles (1990, p. 33) con-clude that successful ecotourism ventures

are dependent upon the ‘complicated inte-gration of public policy and private enter-prise’.

Another framework for understandingand integrating conservation and visitoruse is the ecotourism opportunity spec-trum (ECOS) developed by Boyd andButler (1996). ECOS incorporates conceptsfrom the recreational opportunity spectrum(Clark and Stankey, 1979) and the tourismopportunity spectrum (Butler and Wald-brook, 1991) and was developed to giveecotourism destination management a sim-ilar conceptual framework with which toguide decision making. The eight compo-nents included in the ECOS framework are:(i) accessibility; (ii) relationship betweenecotourism and other resource uses; (iii)attractions offered; (iv) existing tourisminfrastructure; (v) level of user skill andknowledge required; (vi) level of socialinteraction; (vii) degree of acceptance ofimpacts and control over level of use; and(viii) type of management necessary toensure long-term sustainability of the des-tination’s resources.

In order to identify the viability ofpotential ecotourism offerings, the firstseven components are assessed on scalesranging from eco-specialist to eco-general-ist, with a midpoint of intermediate. Aneco-specialist is a tourist requiring minimalinfrastructure, having little impact, and

452 S. Backman et al.

Fig. 28.1. Ecotourism conceptual framework (Fennell and Eagles, 1990).

generally participating as an individual orin a small group immersed in the local nat-ural and cultural environment. On theother extreme, eco-generalists require atourism infrastructure in order to be com-fortable, have more impact, and usuallyparticipate in larger groups. These twopoles are comparable to the hard–soft con-tinuum that was described in Chapter 2,where the eco-specialist is the same as thehard ecotourist, and the eco-generalistequates to the soft ecotourist.

With the use of the ECOS, potentialopportunities for ecotourism may be iden-tified by management. Further, accordingto Boyd and Butler (1996, p. 565), if theECOS can aid tourism marketers in ‘attract-ing and maintaining the desired and appro-priate type of ecotourist to a destination,then it could reduce the pressure on thearea which a set of undifferentiated userswould exert’.

While each of these models is instruc-tive, they do not address the broad natureof ecotourism beyond the ecotour, noracknowledge the diverse set of organiza-tions and stakeholders that are the hall-mark of the ecotourism industry. Therefore,this chapter now proceeds to propose anddescribe an integrated model for eco-tourism planning that acknowledges themulti-organizational structure that consti-tutes the ecotourism industry and thecooperation and collaboration necessary tomake such a structure work efficiently.

An Integrated Systems Model forEcotourism Planning

Ecotourism organizations and their missions

The ecotourism industry comprises organi-zations that run the gamut from governmentalagencies to non-government organizations(NGOs) and private enterprises (seeChapter 30 for more detail). Stakeholdersin this process refer to these organizations,as well as local residents. Also includedare interest groups that may benefit from orbe affected in some way by the outcome ofecotourism development in a community,

even if they themselves are not directlyparticipating in the ecotourism sector (seeChapter 31). This organizational diversitycomplicates the challenge of ecotourismmanagement, often leading to fragmenta-tion of efforts, a high potential for conflict,and an overall lack of synergy and focus.Even among governmental agencies, theresponsibility for managing ecotourism israrely consolidated under a single depart-ment. The management of wildlife, forests,water and other natural resources, forexample, is typically assigned to a singleagency (e.g. the primary responsibility formanaging wildlife is assigned to state wild-life agencies). In contrast, responsibility fordeveloping and managing tourism mostoften falls under the purview of departmentsof commerce, economic development, orsimilar organizations. Coordination betweenthese agencies is often sporadic at best. Inmany ways, ecotourism suffers from theproblem of ‘everybody’s business isnobody’s business’.

Fragmentation results from what Wight(1994, p. 39) termed as the two prevailingviews of ecotourism: (i) that public interestin the environment may be used to marketa product; and (ii) that this interest may beused to conserve the resources upon whichthe product is based. But she argues thatthese views need not be mutually exclu-sive, and may be complementary. More-over, ecotourism has suffered historicallyfrom fragmentation of efforts among thedifferent strata of organizations whose mis-sions and policies affect the ecotourismindustry (i.e. governmental, NGOs and pri-vate enterprises). For example, governmen-tal agencies have regulatory power, as wellas responsibilities for management of nat-ural resources and economic development.In similar fashion, NGOs have traditionallyreflected the more singular orientation oftheir affiliates in government. Long a stal-wart of protection of critical ecosystemsthrough land acquisition, The NatureConservancy’s stated mission, for example,is ‘to preserve plants, animals and naturalcommunities that represent the diversity oflife on earth by protecting the lands andwaters they need to survive’. For their part,

Management Tools and Techniques 453

private enterprises traditionally have beenthe ‘front line’ of suppliers of ecotourismproducts and services. They benefit eco-nomically from the provision of ecotourismgoods and services and are the catalyst ofeconomic development within the commu-nity. Whereas governmental and non-governmental organizations have beenprimarily oriented toward management andprotection of resources, private businesseshistorically have been profit-oriented. Afterall, businesses that do not make a profit donot stay in business long (see Chapter 36).

However, a blurring of the historical dis-tinctions between these organizations isbeginning to occur, manifest in programmesrelated to the concept of ecotourism. Anexcellent example of this is The NatureConservancy’s Ecotourism Program. Thisprovides ‘technical assistance to [their]international partners in order to better har-ness the potential of ecotourism as a con-servation tool that contributes to thelong-term protection of biodiversity and thenatural resources upon which it is based’(Ecotourism Society, 2000, p. 19). Addition-ally, private enterprises aspiring to capital-ize on societal interest in the environmentand recreational travel can no longer fail torecognize their dependency on the naturalresource base, nor acknowledge the impor-tance of resource protection and sustain-ability. Conversely, natural resourcemanagement agencies cannot afford toignore the recreational use of natural andcultural resources. Although arguably stillin its infancy, the recent movement bythese agencies into the human dimensionarena is encouraging, and moves govern-mental agencies further in line with thecommon purpose of ecotourism. Manyresource management agencies, particularlystate wildlife agencies, have begun todevelop active human dimensions researchprogrammes, develop positions specificallyrelated to human dimension management,or revise their missions to include the pro-vision of recreation and tourism opportuni-ties. Illustrative of this evolution, in thepast decade, is the Virginia Department ofGame and Inland Fisheries’ initiative tobecome more aggressive in conducting

research with external stakeholders and tohire a ‘human dimension specialist’ to coor-dinate these efforts. Further, their missionstatement was revised to include the provi-sion of outdoor recreation opportunities

To manage Virginia’s wildlife and inland fishto maintain optimum populations of allspecies to serve the needs of theCommonwealth; to provide opportunity forall to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating andrelated outdoor recreation; to promote safetyfor persons and property in connection withboating, hunting and fishing.

(Board of Directors, Dept. of Game andInland Fisheries, 16 May 1990)

Even the longstanding distinction betweenprofit-oriented private enterprise and thenon-profit-oriented governmental and non-governmental entities is being eroded(Ziffer, 1989; Fennell, 1999). Many publicagencies and NGOs are now actively pro-moting and delivering ecotourism pro-grammes, tours and events, for a profit.Whether the motivation is economic orstewardship, organizational missions andstrategies are beginning to coalesce aroundthe idea of ecotourism, capitalizing on pub-lic interest in the environment. Therefore,the need for collaboration, cooperation andsynergy among this multitude is as obviousas it will be challenging. In the past, eco-nomics have often run counter to protectionand preservation interests. But ecotourism,perhaps for the first time, provides a feasiblemechanism to align economic incentiveswith stewardship of the environment. It is atthis interface, between the resource systemsand human systems, that ecotourism existsand has the potential to flourish.

Management information system

The information necessary to successfullydevelop and manage a sustainable eco-tourism industry is vast. Information needsrange from advancing the knowledge ofecology and the tolerance of naturalresources to human use, and the market seg-mentation of ecotourists. Research of inter-est to the ecotourism industry is regularly

454 S. Backman et al.

conducted by seemingly disparate organiza-tions. For example, resource managementagencies typically conduct research onwildlife populations, forests, wilderness andother common resources of interest to eco-tourism managers. Inventories of naturalresources, as well as cultural and historicalresources, are commonly conducted by pub-lic agencies, including universities. Theenvironmental impacts of development andthe tolerance of resources to increasinghuman encroachment are assessed and miti-gated through environmental impact assess-ments. Most of this research is undertakenfor the purpose of protecting biodiversity,and promoting the preservation and sustain-ability of our natural and cultural heritage.Unfortunately, even though it has relevance,this research often has not been translatedinto the context of ecotourism, nor theresults disseminated widely.

On the human side, private businessesand tourism-oriented corporations havegreat knowledge of their customers: theirlikes, dislikes, motivations and constraints.Chambers of commerce and economicdevelopment authorities invest large sumsin gathering intelligence on which to basebusiness and development decisions.Attitudinal surveys, needs assessments andsocial impact assessments have traditionallybeen the domain of marketers and social sci-entists, and are only beginning to find theirway into natural resource management orga-nizations. The melding of both natural andsocial science into comprehensive eco-tourism research, therefore, is a relativelyrecent phenomenon. What is needed is abetter mechanism for increasing the numberof organizations involved in the collabora-tive conceptualization of ecotourismresearch, thus increasing the views of morestakeholders in the planning process, andproviding better ways of disseminating theresults throughout the industry.

The management information systemdescribed in our integrated systems modeladvocates broadening the number andtypes of organizations involved in eco-tourism planning (see Fig. 28.2). Thismulti-organizational approach to eco-tourism planning research has the advan-

tage of being more cost-effective, as well asincreasing the efficiency of informationdissemination. However, gathering intelli-gence is only the first step in planning eco-tourism projects. Involving stakeholders inthe ensuing decision-making process is asimportant to the success of projects as gath-ering good intelligence.

Ecotourism management decisions

Although resource systems and human sys-tems planning are depicted in this modelas two separate components, this does notsuggest that they function independently.Information is transferred between the two.Failure to include information related tostakeholders’ preferences and opinionscannot be ignored. Using the informationgleaned from the management informationsystem (see above), ecotourism decisionmakers can begin the process of planningpolicies, programmes and development ofecotourism experiences. From this, consen-sus related to plans may emerge. Importantactors in the management decision processare the stakeholder groups referred to ear-lier. Stakeholder participation in the eco-tourism management planning process iscritical to its success. Stakeholder partici-pation refers to the opportunity for stake-holders to take part in the process ofecotourism development. If governmentalbodies are to manage resources for futuregenerations, then it is critical that suchorganizations gain the support for thisapproach to ecotourism development fromthe beginning. Stakeholders such as com-mercial operators may perceive no harm inattracting unlimited numbers of visitors tothe resource each year. Resource plannerson the other hand, are likely to espouseanother view, considering their missionstatement. Resource planners, cognizant ofthe social and environmental impacts thattoo many visitors will have on the resourceand ultimately contribute to its demise,will have an opinion that may be in oppo-sition to that of some commercial opera-tors. Community residents may have anotheropinion.

Management Tools and Techniques 455

Stakeholders have a variety of opportu-nities or times during which they can par-ticipate in the process, including theplanning stage, during implementation andevaluation, and in the distribution of bene-fits. Participation in the planning processincludes such tasks as problem identifica-

tion, formulating alternatives, activityplanning, and resource allocation. Partici-pants may also manage or co-manage eco-tourism projects, hence stakeholdersreceive economic, social, cultural and/orother benefits from the project either aloneor together.

456 S. Backman et al.

Ecotourismorganizations and

their missions

Resource systems planning

• Natural resource inventories• Cultural resource inventories• Environmental impact assessments• Biodiversity studies• Resource sustainability studies• Etc.

Human systems planning

• Needs assessments• Social impact analysis• Attitudinal surveys• Economic impact assessments• Market segmentation studies• Etc.

Managementinformation

system

Ecotourism managementdecisions

Stakeholder involvement

Objectives

Ecotourism development

• Product/experience• Distribution• Price• Communications

Evaluation

• Effectiveness• Efficiency• Equity

Fig. 28.2. An integrated systems model for ecotourism planning.

Paul (1987) suggests these four levels ofstakeholder participation: (i) informationsharing; (ii) consultation; (iii) decisionmaking; and (iv) initiating action. Infor-mation sharing refers to the exchange ofinformation between stakeholders in orderto facilitate action. For example, plans toexpand a beachfront hotel should beshared with the stakeholders who may beimpacted, negatively or positively, by theexpansion. Failure to do so will onlyencourage the development of negativerumours and result in opposition to theproject. In the next phase, consultation,stakeholders are not only informed, butalso consulted on essential issues duringthe planning process. Stakeholder groupsmay possess the type of informationneeded by an agency to make timely andaccurate decisions. The third level, deci-sion making, involves stakeholders in mak-ing decisions about the ecotourism project.In these situations, stakeholders are equalpartners. When stakeholders take the ini-tiative in terms of actions and decisionsrelated to the ecotourism project, theythemselves begin the process.

There are many advantages to incorpo-rating stakeholders in ecotourism projects.One advantage lies with the early warningsystem that they bring to the table.Stakeholders may provide informationthat, if suppressed or inaccessible, couldotherwise cause conflict. Because stake-holder involvement fosters better planningand decision making, conflicts are broughtout earlier and have a greater chance ofbeing resolved. In addition, inclusion ofstakeholders would provide opportunitiesfor these participants to become aware ofthe benefits of the project, and to be morelikely to provide support for the project. Ifstakeholders understand an ecotourismproject, they are more likely to becomeproactive and involved with the project.Their inclusion also provides some aspectof legitimization to the ecotourism project,especially if they represent a diverse arrayof interests. Additional benefits, such ascost sharing and the protection of culturalnorms, may accrue to the ecotourismproject.

Ecotourism objectives

Management decisions regarding eco-tourism projects and related issues willresult in the need to establish specific,measurable project objectives. Just as themissions of the various organizations willvary with respect to its approach to eco-tourism management, the objectives formu-lated for projects will also be somewhatdifferent. Competing objectives result inconflict during implementation. Therefore,care must be taken to be cognizant of theopinions among the various stakeholdergroups regarding objectives. Project objec-tives assist managers in guiding develop-ment. Objectives should be couched interms that are measurable, results-oriented,and time dependent. They should addressthe concepts of effectiveness, efficiencyand equity and form the bases of projectevaluation.

Ecotourism development

It is important to consider the developmentof ecotourism products/experiences in thecontext of policy. Essential to the develop-ment of sustainable ecotourism is consider-ation of each of the impacts that amanagement decision may have on theresource’s ability to deliver the experiencethe ecotourist seeks. Several aspects of eco-tourism development must be consideredtogether, as follows.

Product/experienceEcotourism destinations can produce abroad range of experiences. They range fromwildlife watching, to mountain biking, riverrafting experiences and other activities thatincorporate an adventure or cultural compo-nent (see Chapter 5). However, these activi-ties are only the means by which ecotouristssatisfy their needs. Research has shown thatecotourists are often motivated by the desireto escape or to relax, to see nature, and toparticipate in nature experiences as a meansof socializing with friends (see Chapter 3). Ifmanagers concentrate on activities rather

Management Tools and Techniques 457

than the benefits visitors seek, the experi-ence may be less than satisfactory to the vis-itor. When experiences do not fulfilecotourists’ needs, then the ecotourist islikely not to return. Failure to manage thebenefits associated with the ecotourist’sexperience can also result in conflict amongecotourists. Mistakes of this nature will ulti-mately result in product or even destinationfailure.

Ecotourism managers are also asked tomanage interactions between ecotouristsand the resource. Vickerman (1988) statedthat wildland fauna are particularlyimpacted by tourist development. Inter-action with wildlife is often the criticalaspect of the ecotourism experience. Tothat end, some tour operators provide regu-lar feeding of wildlife such that they willappear and perform at the correct time,thus performing for tourists. But, while thismay facilitate the ease with which visitorsview wildlife, in most cases, feedingwildlife is frowned upon. These practicesmay actually do harm to wildlife, thus vio-lating the premise of protecting theresource. Therefore, a common dilemmafacing management of ecotourism destina-tions is how to minimize environmentaldamage and provide visitors with a memo-rable tourist experience, while affordinglocal communities benefits from theprocess. A management tool that can aid inthis process is the use of visitor codes.Visitor codes, also termed visitor guide-lines or codes of conduct, put in writingprinciples that a destination would liketheir patrons to follow. It is believed thatwith the proper use of well-formulated vis-itor codes, incorporated within an overallmanagement strategy, the impacts of visi-tors on natural environments can bereduced.

Several ecotourism destinations, includ-ing Belize, Madagascar and Nepal, havealready instituted visitor codes. TheCountryside Commission in England wasone of the initial organizations to employthe use of a code of ethics for visitors morethan 20 years ago (Mason, 1994). This codeadvises visitors to take their refuse homewith them, help keep water clean and pro-

tect wildlife, plants and trees. TheInternational Association of Antarctic TourOperators has a code of ethics for visitorsto the Antarctic which cites the need todispose of waste materials properly, andinforms visitors not to leave footprints infragile environments or encroach upon thehabitat of seabirds and animals in pro-tected areas. It is hoped that this initiativewill decrease the environmental damagecaused by shipborne tourism to Antarctica(see Chapter 14).

Ecotourism managers may also utilizetemporal and/or spatial zoning as a meansof protecting resources and the ecotourismexperience. The number of visits may belimited or restricted. For example, back-country visitation is restricted in areas ofYellowstone and other national parks whenthe danger of bear–human encounters ishigh. Man-made structures, such as view-ing stands and boardwalks, may beemployed to restrict foot traffic in wetlandsor other fragile ecosystems to protect theresource from too many ecotourists andtheir activities.

Distribution of products/experiencesIn the past, many environments were pro-tected from ecotourists because they wereinaccessible, or due to the high cost ofaccessing the site. This, however, is nolonger the case with most natural areas.The introduction of low cost airfares, new,lightweight backcountry equipment, andother lower participation costs haveremoved these barriers for many, thusincreasing access to the pristine environ-ment. This aspect of ecotourism planningrefers to the ecotourists’ access to thetourism product/experience. First, the des-tination must be accessible. How difficultis it for ecotourists to arrive at the destina-tion? What are the destination’s hours ofoperation and seasons? Additionally, deci-sions related to the use of tour wholesalers,tour brokers, travel agents or other travelintermediaries are made at this time.Selection of partners to distribute eco-tourism experiences is critical to the effec-tiveness of ecotourism development.

458 S. Backman et al.

Ecotourism destinations must ensure thatall members of their distribution networkshare the same code of ethics for eco-tourists. Recently, conflict between tourdive ships and those interested in protect-ing the resource has occurred. Althoughdive captains are supposed to instruct theirdivers not to touch coral reefs, many diversstill do so as dive captains watch. Selectionof dive ships in which to issue permitsbecomes an issue of distribution and pro-tection of the ecotourism resource. Otherconflicts among stakeholders in marineprotection and ecotourism are described inChapter 17.

PricePrice is one of the four major variables thatthe ecotourism manager controls. Price isimportant because it affects ‘profitability’.Guided by an organization’s objectives andmission statement, ecotourism managersmust develop a set of pricing objectivesand policies to guide their pricing deci-sions. These policies should spell out howflexible prices are, at what levels they willbe set, and who shall receive discounts.Ecotourists exchange money and non-mon-etary costs for the benefits they expect toreceive from the ecotourism experience.Monetary costs refer to user fees, admis-sion charges, rates, fines, or fees. Monetarycosts can also be attributed to the costsassociated with travelling to the resource,or with the cost to obtain the equipmentnecessary to participate. Non-monetarycosts include time, opportunity and effortcosts.

Not all ecotourism agencies will chargefor the experience. The decision to chargeor not to charge often depends upon thecosts associated with collecting the fees. Insome cases it will cost more to collect thefees than the fees collected. Prices are usu-ally charged if ecotourism agencies wish torecover costs or part of the costs from thetourists. Fees can also be charged to moti-vate the tourist to become aware of thevalue of the resource. In other instances,fees are charged to motivate resource man-agers. User fees can also be charged for

admission to protected areas, as discussedin Chapters 18 and 23. However, agenciesmust determine their pricing objectivesprior to determining the price to charge.These pricing objectives must be consistentwith the agency’s objectives. Prices may becharged to generate revenue, or for effi-ciency, equity or income redistribution, toreduce demand to place it in balance withthe area’s existing carrying capacity, or toincrease the carrying capacity. Efficiency isconcerned with getting the most out of agiven set of resources. Equity means thatthe price should be fair. Income redistribu-tion refers to the use of subsidies to assisttourists in the use of the resource.

Ecotourist managers must next decidewhich proportion of their costs they wishto recover. They can recover all fixed andvariable costs, a proportion of fixed or vari-able costs, only fixed costs or only the vari-able costs. The key factor for ecotourismagencies to decide in setting the price is todiscover what it costs them to deliver theexperience. Next they must decide howmuch of their costs they wish to recoverand why. Another consideration in using aprice to recover agency costs is the lifecycle stage of the experience. New eco-tourism destinations may be expensivebecause access is limited, the costs arehigh, or because the destination may wishto communicate a value image using price.During the growth stage of the experiencethe pricing strategy may differ. The pricecharged to ecotourists could be used todeter certain types of tourists, or to keepvisitation levels within manageable para-meters. Increasing the price of the experi-ence during peak seasons can also detersome ecotourists for the same reason.Changing the price serves to distributedemand for the experience across otherseasons. Prices may be lowered to reflectlower costs, or they may be increased orthey may stay the same. During decliningpopularity ecotourism managers maydecide to lower the price so that they coverthe minimum costs. The price to charge forthe ecotourism experience may be restatedas the cost of the experience to stake-holders. What will it cost stakeholders if

Management Tools and Techniques 459

the ecotourists do not come and what willit cost if the ecotourists do come?

CommunicationsEcotourism destinations must developcommunications programmes that portraythe destination’s desired image. The eco-tourist destination may include the follow-ing components:

1. Advertising2. Personal selling3. Public relations4. Incentives.

Advertising refers to all paid forms of com-munication from print to broadcast.Personal selling is the act of personal com-munication between individuals and/orgroups. Public relations are those activitiesthe destination engages in as a corporatecitizen. For example, ecotourist destina-tions may sponsor a children’s nature pho-tography contest as a means of raising thelevel of awareness about the ecotourismexperience.

Evaluation

Perhaps the most important component ofthe process is evaluation. Ecotourism man-agers must evaluate the effectiveness of allof their programmes and policies. Feedbackfrom tourists’ evaluation of their experi-ences can give destination managers theinformation necessary to change, modify,or delete existing programmes or policies.Problems associated with communication,pricing, products/experiences or distribu-tion can only be addressed if ecotourismmanagers are aware of the problems.Information needed by ecotourism man-agers can be obtained from internal andexternal records held by the agency.Internal records are the data that the orga-nization already have, such as guestrecords, permits, revenue generated, etc. Toanswer questions for which the agency

does not have the information will requirethe agency to obtain the data. They mayconduct research to answer the questions,or they may use outside sources, govern-ment documents for example, to answerthe questions. Additionally, ecotourismmanagers will not be able to assess theagency’s progress toward their goals if theyare not evaluated.

Ecotourism managers may be interestedin the efficiency with which a programmeoperates. Are the current visitor codesworking? On the other hand, ecotourismmanagers may wish to know about equity.Equity refers to fair allocation of resources,when decisions are made. This attempts toaddress the issue of balance and who winsand who loses as the consequence of adecision. For example, how does the devel-opment of an ecotourism resort affect theresidents of the community?

Conclusions

Agencies interested in ecotourism are mul-tifaceted, and as such operate under manyconflicting mandates at times. Thus there islikely to be conflict between the stakehold-ers in the management process. The ideaspresented in this chapter offer a processconsisting of management tools focused onan integrated approach to decision making.Adoption of this integrated model offersseveral advantages. Using the model pre-sented in this chapter, assessments con-ducted at appropriate scope can providemore relevant and cost-effective informa-tion for decision making than some limitedperspectives. A quality assessment can pro-vide a synthesis of relationships of humanand natural resources. Better experiencedevelopment can be achieved by focusingon the needs and wants of the ecotouristand balancing this with the resources andcapabilities of the agency. From humansystems planning, stakeholders can learnabout the social and economic issues fac-ing ecotourism planners.

460 S. Backman et al.

References

Boyd, S.W. and Butler, R.W. (1996) Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach.Tourism Management 17(8), 557–566.

Butler, R.N. and Waldbrook, B.J. (1991) A new planning tool: the tourism opportunity spectrum.Journal of Tourism Studies 2(1), 1–14.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1993) Ecotourism as a worldwide phenomenon. In: Lindberg, K. andHawkins, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. Ecotourism Society, NorthBennington, Vermont, pp. 12–14.

Clark, R.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979) The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a Framework forPlanning, Management, and Research. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-98.

The Ecotourism Society (2000) International Membership Directory. Ecotourism Society, NorthBennington, Vermont.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, New York.Fennell, D.A. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1990) Ecotourism in Costa Rica: a conceptual framework. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration 8(1), 23–24.Lessard, G., Jensen, M., Crespi, M. and Bourgeron, P. (1999) A general framework for integrated eco-

logical assessments. In: Cordell, H.K. and Bergstrom, J.C. (eds) Integrating Social Sciences withEcosystem Management. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, Illinois.

Mason, P. (1994) A visitor code for the Arctic. Tourism Management 15(2), 93–97.Paul, S. (1987) Community Participation in Developing Projects: the World Bank Experience. World

Bank, Washington, DC.Vickerman, S. (1988) Stimulating tourist and economic growth by featuring new wildlife recreation

opportunities. Transactions of the Fifty-Third American Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 414–423.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Board of Directors’ Official Minutes. May 16,1990.

Wight, P. (1994) Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G.(eds) Ecotourism: a Sustainable Option? John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 39–55.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Ziffer, K. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance, Working Paper No. 1. Conservation International,Washington, DC.

Management Tools and Techniques 461

Chapter 29

Policy and Planning

D.A. Fennell1, R. Buckley2 and D.B. Weaver31Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation,

Brock University, St Catherines, Ontario, Canada; 2International Centre for EcotourismResearch, School of Environmental and Applied Science, 3School of Tourism and Hotel

Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Queensland, Australia

Introduction

Effective ecotourism management at themacro level is fundamentally related to theexistence of appropriate and realistic pol-icy and planning frameworks. The purposeof this chapter is to outline the current sit-uation worldwide with respect to policyand planning within ecotourism itself. Thefirst section defines both of these conceptsand indicates their role within the contextof tourism. The issue of complexity in thepolicy context is then addressed. Subse-quent sections deal with ecotourism policyand planning in major world regions,including Australia, Asia, the Americas,Europe and Africa. Given space restric-tions, this chapter does not include each ofthe hundreds of jurisdictions worldwidethat engage in tourism and ecotourism pol-icy and planning. Instead, a case studyapproach is adopted to demonstrate thevariation among destinations, best practice,and general regional patterns. These casestudies include both national and sub-national examples.

Nature and Role of Policy andPlanning in Tourism

‘Policy’ can simply be defined as a courseof action that is adopted and pursued by agiven stakeholder, and especially one ingovernment. Policy provides the broadguidelines that are intended to shape thedevelopment of a particular sector or sec-tors in a way presumed by the relevantauthority to be desirable. ‘Planning’ is theprocess by which policy is implemented,and a ‘plan’ is a document that articulatesthis intended process, usually after havingbeen the focus of public consultation andpolitical debate (Wilkinson, 1997). Whileplans are usually well defined, policy canbe situated along a continuum from thatwhich is formal and highly articulatedwithin some kind of official document, tothat which is informal, unwritten, andbased on implied convention or consensus(Boothroyd, 1995).

In the tourism sector, the existence ofpolicy and planning is associated with thepotential for market failure, which describes

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 463

the inability to attain equilibrium betweendemand and supply over the long term atthe macro (i.e. destination) level. This canoccur because of the unwillingness of indi-vidual businesses to undertake or con-tribute toward the management ormarketing of the broader destination inwhich they are situated, since such invest-ments will benefit their business competi-tors as well as themselves. (See the relateddiscussion on ‘social traps’ in Chapter 41.)Given the relative weakness and fragmenta-tion of the tourism sector as a whole, it isalso unlikely that tourism-related industryassociations will fulfil these essential mar-keting and management functions, theneglect of which leads to product deterio-ration and diminishing demand (Williamsand Shaw, 1998). The fact that macro-levelmarket failure does not occur in most desti-nations is due to the intervention of gov-ernment as the vehicle through whichdestination management and marketing areinvested and undertaken in the interests(theoretically) of all individual stakeholders.Accordingly, it is government that nor-mally formulates and approves tourism-related policy and planning at the macrolevel, toward the fostering of a sustainabletourism sector. The main governmentengine driving the tourism policy andplanning process at a country level is com-monly referred to as a national tourismorganization (NTO).

Complexity of the Policy andPlanning Context

The clear positioning of tourism policy andplanning as a government prerogative,however, does not mean that implementa-tion is therefore a simple or taken-for-granted task. First, there is the problem ofachieving compromise among all the stake-holders who constitute the tourism sectorwithin a particular planning jurisdiction.Beyond this internal context, tourism pol-icy can be pursued concurrently and in anoften contradictory way by authorities at alocal, regional, national and internationallevel, each of which assiduously maintains

and often attempts to expand its ownsphere of influence. Similarly, just astourism does not exist independently ofcompeting resource sectors (see Chapter31), tourism policy and planning is neces-sarily affected by the policy and planningthat occurs within those other spheres, andby the public policy that governs the coun-try, province or municipality as a whole.The most articulate tourism plan, for exam-ple, will be effectively derailed if thenational government decides suddenly toimpose strict visa requirements and dissua-sive entry fees on all foreign arrivals inresponse to a perceived problem with ille-gal immigration (see Chapter 32). Thetourism sector and their NTOs, in responseto such threats, have often failed to demon-strate effective lobbying clout, therebyplacing themselves in the disadvantageousposition of having to react and adapt to,rather than influence, those external forces(Goeldner et al., 2000). Adding to this com-plexity are the overlapping life expectan-cies of tourism and other plans; overallpolicy, for example, might change dramati-cally as a result of a national election, eventhough the tourism sector for that countrymay be only half way through its own 5-year plan.

Clearly, the framework within whichpolicies and plans are actually articulatedand implemented is immensely complex,leading Ackoff (1979) to use the term ‘mess’to describe the real nature of the policycontext. It is for this reason that policystatements are often deliberately worded ina vague and non-specific fashion, and thatmany tourism plans do not progress sub-stantively beyond their release to themedia. For a subsector such as ecotourism,the situation is even more perilous. In thefirst instance, it is highly unlikely that anested hierarchy of tourism destinations(e.g. municipal, state, national) will all rec-ognize the importance of ecotourism withinthe overall tourism sector, and even if theydo, that they will all agree on its definition.Some, furthermore, may choose to articu-late a discrete ecotourism plan, while oth-ers may imbed ecotourism within theoverall tourism plan.

464 D.A. Fennell et al.

Ecotourism policy makers and plannersmust, in addition, contend not only withpotentially incompatible external sectorssuch as the forestry and agriculture indus-tries, but also with tourism activities thatmay interfere negatively with ecotourism,such as hunting and mass beach-basedtourism. With few exceptions, and even inecotourism strongholds such as Costa Ricaand Kenya, it is often the interests of thesemore conventional tourism sectors thatprevail. Accordingly, it is even less likelythat an ecotourism plan will be carriedthrough to full fruition, especially at anational scale where the ‘mess’ is evidentin its full glory. More promising is the pol-icy and planning framework that attendsthe scale of an individual protected area,since in such situations the array of poten-tially conflicting stakeholding sectors andjurisdictions is more curtailed.

This critical assessment is in no wayintended to imply that the process of eco-tourism-related planning and policy formu-lation should be abandoned. For one thing,such issues attend policy and planningwithin any sector. To the contrary, theseprocesses at the very least provide anopportunity for ecotourism stakeholders toconsult, interact, negotiate and hopefullyemerge with some kind of consensus as tohow the sector currently situates, how itshould subsequently evolve, and what con-certed action therefore needs to be taken.Allowance is usually made for periodicreview and reassessment to take intoaccount changes in the internal and exter-nal environment. If undertaken properly,plans and policy statements can exercise asignificant amount of influence within andbeyond the ecotourism sector, even if onlysome or none of this material is actuallyadopted as official policy.

Australia

Australia is the first ‘region’ to be pre-sented, given its status as a world leader inecotourism policy and planning. In reality,there is no indication that the mainstreamtourism industry as a whole has necessarily

moved further towards ecotourism inAustralia than in other countries. However,where Australia arguably leads the world isin the explicit adoption of ecotourism prin-ciples, in name as well as in concept, ingovernment planning and policies and inassociated industry initiatives. Public-sectorexamples include the National EcotourismStrategy (Australia, Commonwealth Depart-ment of Tourism, 1994) by the federal gov-ernment of the day, ecotourism plans andstrategies by several state governments,notably Queensland (see below), and arange of ecotourism plans, policies andprinciples prepared or adopted in piece-meal fashion by local governments through-out the country. High profile private-sectorinitiatives related to policy and planninginclude the very active Ecotourism Asso-ciation of Australia and its NationalEcotourism Accreditation Program (seeChapter 37), which has been endorsed byvarious government agencies. Other rele-vant initiatives include the National Natureand Ecotour Guide Certification Program,and references to ecotourism principles inthe Strategic Plan produced by Australia’speak tourism industry association, TourismCouncil Australia’s Our Heritage OurBusiness.

One of the reasons that this progress hasbeen possible may well be that there is nohistorical tradition of competing terminol-ogy, and few organized lobby groups toimpede the institutionalization of eco-tourism. It was therefore possible for a rela-tively small number of individualsdedicated to the promotion of ecotourism,in government as well as industry, conser-vation groups and research organizations,to generate relatively rapid understandingand acceptance of the term. However, thereare still many tour companies which adver-tise ‘ecotours’ that at best fall under thecategory of ‘nature-based’ (Buckley andAraujo, 1997). On the other hand, the StateGovernment of Western Australia has accu-rately described its tourism strategy forparks and public lands as a nature-basedtourism strategy, recognizing that not all ofthe tourism activities concerned wouldqualify as ecotourism.

Policy and Planning 465

National Ecotourism Strategy

Australia’s National Ecotourism Strategywas produced by the federal governmenttourism portfolio in the mid 1990s with thevision that Australia should have ‘anecologically and culturally sustainable eco-tourism industry that will set an interna-tional example for environmental qualityand cultural authenticity’. Its aims were toidentify issues, develop a national frame-work, and formulate policies and pro-grammes. It followed on from a NationalTourism Strategy released in 1992, and aNational Strategy for Ecologically Sustain-able Development, also formulated in 1992.The Strategy incorporated comments from149 submissions and 103 critiques of adraft report. It was coupled with small gov-ernment funding programmes intended toencourage ecologically sustainable tourism.

The Strategy argues that ecotourism is amanagement philosophy, a market segment,and an integral part of the tourism industry.It summarizes stakeholders, definitions,impacts, issues and means of implementa-tion. In concert with many policies andplans, it is comprehensive rather thandetailed, addressing important issues suchas integrated regional planning, infrastruc-ture creep, impact monitoring, operatoraccreditation, public liability insurance,and economic instruments. The Strategyidentifies ecotourism-related priorities,including accreditation, market research,energy and waste minimization, minimal-impact infrastructure, education and base-line studies and monitoring. Chapter 5 ofthe National Ecotourism Strategy for exam-ple, listed issues, objectives and actionsunder the following headings:

• Ecological sustainability• Integrated regional planning• Natural resource management• Regulation• Infrastructure• Impact monitoring• Marketing• Industry standards and accreditation• Ecotourism accreditation

• Involvement of indigenous Australians• Viability• Equity considerations.

Each of these, in turn, is associated withvarious sub-issues. Under the heading of‘impact monitoring’, for example, theStrategy listed issues such as:

• sustainable levels of usage in differentenvironments,

• which activities relate to which environ-mental impacts, and

• how to avoid and control degradation.

It specified, as Objective 6 of the Strategy,to ‘undertake further study of the impactsof ecotourism to improve the informationbase for planning and decision making’.And it suggested seven actions, namely:

• develop the information base of naturaland cultural attractions;

• investigate relevant indicators to moni-tor the environmental, social and cul-tural impacts of tourism;

• undertake ecological baseline studiesand investigate the limits of acceptablechange for ecotourism destinations;

• initiate long-term monitoring of theimpacts of current tourism and recre-ation activities within, and adjacent to,protected areas and fragile ecosystemsand review past experience;

• investigate means by which the eco-tourism industry could contribute toresearch and monitoring of ecotourismimpacts;

• investigate the economic and social sig-nificance of ecotourism;

• promote and facilitate the wide dissemi-nation of ecotourism data.

Under the heading of industry standardsand accreditation, the Strategy lists fiveactions, namely:

• develop and promote industry standardsfor ecotourism as a basis for industryself-regulation;

• investigate methods to identify and giverecognition to ecotourism operators whoestablish and adhere to high standards;

• examine options for developing a nationalecotourism accreditation system;

466 D.A. Fennell et al.

• develop environmental accreditationmodules to encourage the adoption ofbest practice in ecotourism;

• explore the use of a logo for marketingof ecotourism products.

As of 2000, the National EcotourismStrategy was apparently no longer officialpolicy of Australia’s federal government,which was of a different political persua-sion from that which originally adoptedthe document. It was a very influential doc-ument, however, and clearly ahead of itstime. The federal tourism portfolio has infact followed up with actions or moredetailed studies on each of the prioritiesidentified, with one glaring exception:environmental baseline studies and impactmonitoring remain almost completelyneglected, except for independent initia-tives by academic ecologists and protectedarea agencies.

Queensland

The maturity of Australia with respect toecotourism policy and planning is indi-cated by the active involvement in eco-tourism at the state and regional level. TheQueensland Ecotourism Plan is a state gov-ernment publication produced by theQueensland Department of Tourism, Sportand Youth. A draft plan was circulated forpublic comment in 1995, and a final ver-sion published in 1997. Its vision is for‘ecotourism in Queensland to be ecologi-cally, commercially, culturally and sociallysustainable’. Ecotourism, moreover, isexpounded as a model for other forms ofenvironmentally responsible tourism.

The Queensland Ecotourism Plan definesecotourism as ‘nature-based tourism thatinvolves education and interpretation ofthe natural environment and is managed tobe ecologically sustainable’. It recognizesthat this ‘involves an appropriate return tothe local community and long-term conser-vation of the resource’. The Plan acknowl-edges three broad styles of ecotourism,which it refers to as self-reliant, small-group and popular. The last of these is

essentially the mass nature-based tourismor ‘soft ecotourism’ that is described inChapter 2.

The Plan contains numerous sugges-tions for practical implementation, butsince many of these are within the domainof other government agencies and littlefunding has been provided, few have yetbeen adopted. However, the environmentbranch of the state tourism promotionagency, Tourism Queensland, has subse-quently done a great deal to promote andenhance ecotourism in Queensland. Forexample, it has been a strong supporter ofthe National Ecotourism AccreditationProgram, has carried out market surveysand studies of ecotourists, liaises closelywith land management agencies, and pub-lishes a very useful newsletter, Ecotrends(also available on the Internet).

Differences between the draft and finalversions of the Queensland EcotourismPlan provide an interesting illustration ofthe way in which such documents evolve.Both versions contain tables listing visitorcharacteristics, biogeographical regions,and responsibilities of various levels ofgovernment, for example, but the draft ismore detailed. Similarly, both versionsnoted that the Commonwealth (federal)Government is responsible for ‘protectionof outstanding universal values of WorldHeritage properties’, and that it does thisthrough ‘regulations to prohibit activitieswhich might place World Heritage valuesat risk’. In the draft this was in the maintext (Table 6.1); in the final version it wasin an appendix (A 3.1).

The draft version contained six detailedtables of strategies, listing policy areas,desired outcomes, existing situations, rec-ommended actions and agencies involved.The six major strategy areas were:

• environmental protection• product development• infrastructure development• marketing and promotion• local community involvement• planning and management.

In the final version, these were expressedas Action Plans, listing actions, responsi-

Policy and Planning 467

bilities and time frames. Environmentalprotection and management planning werelinked, and so were product developmentand marketing and promotion. Infra-structure development was unchanged, butcommunity involvement was divided intotwo categories, local and general commu-nity development.

South Pacific

Despite its high profile as an ecotourismdestination, New Zealand is embryonicwith respect to the development of its eco-tourism policy and planning (see Chapter9). Ironically, Fiji is more advanced in thisrespect, despite that country’s concentra-tion on mass beach-based tourism, havingprepared an official ecotourism plan in1997 (see Chapter 9). Among the remainingSouth Pacific destinations, Samoa isnotable for its apparent pursuit of an eco-tourism-dominated tourism policy that isevident in the formulation of a NationalEcotourism Programme and a SamoanEcotourism Network (Weaver, 1998).

Asia

Historically, tourism in Asia has beenfocused on cultural and architecturalattractions, ancient and modern, and insome enclaves (e.g. Singapore, Hong Kong,Bangkok) on shopping, nightlife and gam-bling. In recent years, however, specialisttour operators in a number of Asiannations have begun to offer adventure andnature-based tours, often linked with cul-tural attractions, and some marketed underthe term ecotourism (see Chapter 8).Adventure tourism opportunities havebeen promoted through international out-door sport competitions, and by magazinessuch as Action Asia.

Ecotourism planning and policy inAsian nations has most commonly beeninitiated by non-government organizationsrather than national government tourismagencies. The Worldwide Fund for Nature,for example, initiated work on a National

Ecotourism Plan for Malaysia, adopted bythe Malaysian Government in 1997. In1999 the World Conservation Union, afterseveral years of planning, held a nationalworkshop on a National EcotourismStrategy for Vietnam, in conjunction withthe Vietnam National Administration forTourism and other relevant governmentagencies including both the investmentsand environment portfolios. The workshopwas co-funded by multilateral and bilateralaid agencies. While the workshop was verysuccessful, it is worth noting that advertis-ing by the Vietnamese government andgovernment-run tourism agencies at a largeinternational tourism trade show in HongKong, held at the same time, did not reflectan ecotourism theme. It remains to be seenwhether this will change in future years.The Vietnam workshop produced a pro-ceedings volume (Luong et al., 1999), buthas not yet yielded any official governmentstrategy on ecotourism.

Thailand

According to an article in one of Thailand’sregional newspapers, the Pattaya Mail(www.pattayamail.com/306/features), theThailand Institute for Scientific andTechnological Research (TISTR) producedan ‘action plan to facilitate a national eco-tourism strategy’ some time in the mid1990s. The publication list on the TISTRweb site (www.tistr.or.th), however, makesno mention of such a strategy. Other sites,including that of the Tourism Authority ofThailand (TAT) (www.tat.or.th) mentionvarious promotional campaigns and direc-tories for nature and adventure tourism,such as the ‘Amazing Thailand’ Campaignand the Thailand Travel and AdventureGuide (www.thailand-travelsearch.com).The ‘Amazing Thailand’ site includes ‘eco-adventure’ company listings, but no poli-cies. There are also references in magazinessuch as Action Asia, to a Green Hotels pro-ject, TAT environmental awards, a ThaiEcotourism Tour Operators Association,and a Thai Ecotourism and AdventureTravel Association. It is not clear whether

468 D.A. Fennell et al.

these are functioning organizations or justgood ideas. They do not appear to maintainweb sites. In any event, there does notseem to be any coordinated national eco-tourism strategy that is actually used as abasis for government policy or action inThailand. Government publications fromthe mid-1990s, however, do state that TATin 1996/97 was pushing for the formulationand adoption of a national ecotourism pol-icy (TAT, nd).

Bhutan

The Kingdom of Bhutan, a small country inthe eastern Himalayas, apparently does nothave a written ecotourism strategy by thatname, but its management of foreign visi-tors and attractions effectively means thatits entire national tourism industry isarguably a form of upmarket ecotourism.Hence, this may be described as an exam-ple of de facto ecotourism policy. Bhutanhas been predominantly Buddhist since the7th century, and still has a very rich nat-ural environment that supports over 700bird species and larger mammals such assnow leopard and golden langur. Visitorsare limited to about 5000 per year in total(5361 in 1999) and must travel on pre-planned itineraries and stay in touristhotels (www.kingdomofbhutan.com).

The Americas

The Americas (North, Central and South)comprise over 50 countries and dependen-cies which, combined, contain a tremen-dous variety of social and ecologicalconditions. This unbroken chain of land isthe most geographically extensive in theworld, ranging from about 80°N in Canada,to 55°S in Chile. It is also the most ecologi-cally rich, containing almost all of themajor world ecoregions found on Earth.These range from icecap and tundraprovinces in the northern portions ofCanada, to rainforest and rainforest altitu-dinal zones in Central and South America.

Such heterogeneity has meant that, until

recently, there was virtually no unifiedlook at ecotourism in the Americas.Edwards et al. (1998a, b) changed thisthrough their comprehensive overview ofecotourism policy in this broad region,which examined each country and depen-dency (and separate states and provinces inthe USA and Canada) on the basis of defin-ition, policy development, and otherrelated policy issues. These authors foundthat in Anglo-America, for example,Canada has developed written policy at thenational level, whereas the USA has not. Inthe Latin American countries (LAC), 25nations/dependencies had developed eco-tourism policy documents (Box 29.1). Theauthors also discovered differences in thenature of policy among US states andprovinces, and the policy developed inLAC nations. For example, more of the USand Canadian ecotourism contact personswere found in marketing-related positionsthan their LAC counterparts. In addition,more of the LAC contact people (19%)were housed directly in ecotourism orenvironment positions, whereas only 6%of US and Canadian contacts were in simi-lar positions. This finding suggests thatLAC countries have governmental struc-tures that are more ecotourism specific intheir orientation in comparison to those inAnglo-America.

More specific analysis of ecotourismpolicy in the Americas, beyond the

Policy and Planning 469

Box 29.1. Country/dependency demonstratingpolicies in ecotourism (Edwards et al., 1998a).

Antigua and Barbuda GrenadaBelize GuatemalaBolivia GuyanaBrazil HondurasCanada MexicoChile NicaraguaColombia ParaguayCosta Rica PeruCuba SabaCuraçao St LuciaDominican Republic SurinameEcuador Trinidad and TobagoEl Salvador

Edwards et al. study, demands a focus onthe policies that have been developed byindividual countries, states/provinces, ordependencies. While some documentshave been in print for up to 5 years (in thecase of Brazil), others are still evolving.Consequently, this section is very appliedin response to the dearth of theoretical andconceptual literature on the subject. Fourcase study destinations (the province ofManitoba in Canada, the state of Florida,USA, Brazil and the Republic of Guyana)will be featured to represent policy devel-opment initiatives in this broad region.

Manitoba, Canada

In Canada, provinces and territories areresponsible for recreation and tourismplanning. In such a large and diverse coun-try, this gives political jurisdictions theneeded flexibility to develop policies thatare reflective of their unique social andecological milieux. In response to theincreased demand for ecotourism inCanada, policy documents have emergedover the past few years from severalprovinces and territories. The mid-westernprovince of Manitoba is a representativeexample of ecotourism policy develop-ment in Canada. Travel Manitoba is theagency responsible for tourism in theprovince, and also for the discussion paperon ecotourism (Keszi, 1997). This docu-ment has the following policy goal: ‘tocontribute to Manitoba’s economic andenvironmental well-being by promotingthe development of an ecotourism industrythat is domestically viable, internationallycompetitive, and sensitive to the surround-ing ecological, cultural and economic envi-ronments’. To accomplish this end,objectives have been established for eightdifferent policy areas: sustainability, busi-ness viability, integrated resource manage-ment planning, infrastructure, leadershipand cooperation, marketing, aboriginalinvolvement, and awareness and under-standing. As an illustration, the policydirectives for sustainability have beenarticulated as follows:

Sustainability: Adopting a supply-drivenapproach to tourism development requiresthat activities be limited according to theability of an area to deliver a sustainabletourism experience.

Policy 1.1: Ecotourism activities shall beplanned and developed in amanner that respects theeconomic integrity, and theecological, cultural and visitorcarrying capacity of the hostarea.

Policy 1.2: Monitoring efforts shall beundertaken to ensure thatecotourism development is beingcarried out in a manner that isrespective of the environmentand people.

Policy 1.3: The economic involvement oflocal residents in ecotourismdevelopment activities shall beencouraged.

Policy 1.4: The incorporation ofconservation efforts intoecotourism developmentactivities shall be promoted.

A key policy issue in Manitoba relates toincidental or secondary activities (seeFennell, 1999). Joe Keszi, of TravelManitoba (personal communication, 4November 1999), suggests that more con-sumptive activities, such as fishing, areoften central to the ecotourism experience(in addition to wildlife viewing and inter-pretation). He suggests that one of the onlyways to sell ecotourism to the northernoutfitters is to include a more well-roundedpackage of ecotourism, adventure tourismand cultural tourism. Tourists from abroadhave come to expect this type of diversifiedexperience as part of the overall ‘eco-tourism’ package. A similar issue relates tothe principle of sustainability and itsapplicability to ecotourism. It appears thatin Manitoba, like many other Canadianprovinces, consumptive tourism productssuch as fishing are considered ecotourismif they are deemed sustainable. However,as the literature on tourism sustainabilitysuggests, any form of tourism has thepotential to be sustainable, which is not tosay that it is also ecotourism.

470 D.A. Fennell et al.

Florida, USA

In Florida, ecotourism policy has beendeveloped through a cooperative effort ofmany public, private and not-for-profitenterprises, including all levels of govern-ment, commercial enterprises, conservationorganizations, historical and archaeologicalgroups, museums, the tourism industry,tourism commissions and councils, andoperators. Florida’s ecotourism policy,developed by the Ecotourism/HeritageTourism Advisory Committee (1997), is ablueprint for the state’s future developmentof ecotourism and heritage tourism. It iden-tifies goals, strategies and recommenda-tions to protect and promote the natural,coastal, historical and cultural assets ofFlorida, with the purpose of linking theseto commercial tourism in Florida.

Florida’s policy is based on five maincomponents: strategic relationships (betweenstakeholders, as identified above), inven-tory (of natural and cultural resources),protection (of the natural and cultural her-itage of the state), education (of thoseinvolved in the industry), and marketing(recommendations on how to overcome thefragmented state of ecotourism marketingin Florida). Each of these components isfurther broken down into a series of goalsand strategies. For example, the educationcomponent has three goals, the first ofwhich is as follows:

Goal 1. Develop local and regional trainingand credentialing/certificationprograms for ecotourism andheritage tourism providers.

Strategies.1.1 Support and encourage the creation

of guidelines to support local andor regional and state incentive-based credentialing/certification programs developed for ecotourism and heritage tourismproviders.

1.2 Develop incentives for thoseparticipating in thecredentialing/certificationprograms.

1.3 Develop a system to recognize andapprove credentialing/certificationprograms.

Like many other political jurisdictions inNorth America, Florida has developed aliberal definition of ecotourism. In Floridaecotourism is defined as: ‘Responsibletravel to natural areas which conserves theenvironment and sustains the well-being of local people while providing a qualityexperience that connects the visitor to nature’ (Ecotourism/Heritage TourismAdvisory Committee, 1997). Included inthis definition are nature-based tours; man-aged access to sanctuaries; wildlife view-ing; visitation to natural areas such asbeaches, forests, lakes and greenways;Native American Reservations; and out-door recreational activities such as hiking,canoeing, snorkelling, horseback riding,boating, diving and fishing. As such, virtu-ally any type of outdoor activity is eco-tourism. There is an inherent danger in this‘shotgun’ approach to ecotourism, as itassumes that more consumptive forms ofoutdoor recreation, like fishing, are syn-onymous with other non-consumptive,low-impact forms of ecotourism like bird-ing and nature appreciation (see Fennell,2000). However, given the massive extentto which conventional tourism has infil-trated the state of Florida, such a broadapproach may be appropriate.

Brazil

As the world’s fifth largest country by size,Brazil is one of the most biologicallydiverse regions on Earth. The AmazonRiver basin, as Brazil’s ecological hub, con-tains some 20% of the world’s fresh waterand the world’s most extensive rainforestsystem. Occupying some 42% of theBrazilian landmass, the Amazon regioncontains 2500 different kinds of fish,50,000 higher plant species, millions ofinsect species, and over 1000 tributaries(Taylor, 1996). This ecological wealth hasmade Brazil a key destination for the eco-tourist. Weaver (1998), for example, writes

Policy and Planning 471

that Brazil, along with Costa Rica, is a topecotour venue, listed by two widely dis-tributed eco-guide publications. The valueof ecotourism to Brazil is underscoredthrough the development of a national eco-tourism policy (Grupo de TrabalhoInterministerial MICT/MMA, 1994). Thisdocument, like Manitoba, addresses manyof the key social, ecological, and economicissues related to ecotourism development.The document defines ecotourism as: ‘Asegment of tourism that uses, in a sustain-able way, natural and cultural patrimony,encouraging its conservation, which seeksthe formation of environmental awarenessby way of environmental interpretation,promoting the well-being of the popula-tions involved’.

The main objectives of the policy docu-ment are to: (i) make ecotourism activitiescompatible with the conservation of nat-ural areas; (ii) strengthen inter-institutionalcooperation; (iii) make possible the effec-tive participation of all relevant segmentsof the sector; (iv) promote and stimulatethe capacity of human resources for eco-tourism; (v) promote, stimulate and pro-vide incentives for the creation andimprovement of infrastructure for eco-tourism; and (vi) promote the use of eco-tourism as a vehicle for environmentaleducation. These main objectives are to beachieved through a number of prioritizedactions and strategies (see Table 29.1),involving non-government organizations(NGOs), government, industry, and otherinterested stakeholder groups. The strate-gies for objective four, Quality control ofecotourism products, include the follow-ing.

• Inspect ecotourism services and opera-tions.

• Establish and develop processes andmethodologies to evaluate the impactsof ecotourism on the environment.

• Propose ways to involve ecotourists inthe monitoring and carrying out ofinventories and research in visited nat-ural areas.

• Identify reference models for ecotourismservices and operations.

• Encourage the creation of a self-regula-tory system in the private sector, withthe participation of consumers.

• Foster and develop research directed atecotourism quality control.

The concept of self-regulation in the pri-vate sector is one that will be questioned inBrazil, and other countries (Gunninghamand Grabowsky, 1998). While ethical con-duct may exist in a market culture environ-ment, it is often not intrinsic, but ratherextrinsic in terms of avoiding punishment(domestic laws) or seeking rewards (goodethics relates to a good reputation) (Malloyand Fennell, 1998).

Guyana

Located on the north coast of SouthAmerica, Guyana is a small nation withtremendous biodiversity in environmentsthat range from tropical rainforest (thenorthern reaches of the Amazon basin) todry, barren lands. Historically Guyana hashad trouble attracting tourists, which is aconsequence of the lingering image of theJonestown Massacre of 1978. Other con-tributing factors include few humanresources, a legacy of anti-tourism senti-ment within the government, malaria,inadequate financing, and poor interna-tional and national transport networks(www.excite.com/travel/countries/guyana/?page=overview). However, given the nat-ural environment and greater political sta-bility, Guyana is now making a concertedeffort to develop its ecotourism industry.The national plan for ecotourism develop-ment in Guyana (Republic of Guyana,1997) has defined ecotourism as follows: ‘aform of travel for pleasure that has a lowimpact on the natural and cultural environ-ment, gives the visitor a better understand-ing of the unique qualities of the placebeing visited, contributes to the well-beingof local Guyanese, and promotes conserva-tion of Guyana’s resources’.

Guyana’s ecotourism policy is based on24 ecotourism policy subjects (see Box29.2). Each subject is further broken downinto a policy statement, details related to

472 D.A. Fennell et al.

the particular subject (supporting commu-nity enterprises), responsible parties (e.g.Tourism Association of Guyana), consult-ing parties (e.g. Local DevelopmentCouncils), time frame for implementation,cost implications and benefits. Each ofthese is outlined below, using accreditationas an example:

Ecotourism Policy Subject:Accreditation

Details:Accreditation shall fall within theestablished legal definition of ecotourism.Applicants shall demonstrate that theysubstantially comply.Monitoring shall be done on an annualbasis or more frequently if non-complianceissues are at issue.

Responsible Parties:Ministry of Trade, Tourism and IndustryTourism Advisory Board

Consulting Parties:Tourism Association of GuyanaPrivate Sector Commission of Guyana

Time Frame for Implementation:1998 establish compliance model1999 communicate model to operators toapply for accreditation2000 begin accreditation and monitoringprocess

Cost Implications:Training of one additional staff member asfield monitor for Department of Tourism.Initial training and establishment ofaccreditation procedures = US$9500.Annual salary = US$20,000

Benefits:International travel agents will be assuredof a reasonably consistent range ofecotourism products and services inGuyana. This will reassure internationalvisitors concerned with quality and safety.

Guyana is clearly at an early stage in thedevelopment of ecotourism. A search of theSpecialty Travel Index found no advertise-ments for ecotourism in Guyana. Whilethere appear to be some significant con-straints facing the industry (as stated

Policy and Planning 473

Table 29.1. Brazil’s guidelines for a National Ecotourism Policy (Diretrizes para uma Politica NacionalEcoturismo, 1994).

Action Strategy

Regulating ecotourism Provide the ecotourism segment with its own legal structure, which is inharmony with federal, state and municipal spheres, and follows adequateparameters and criteria

Strengthening inter-institutional Promote the articulation and the exchange of information and experienceinteraction between government agencies and private sector entitiesFormation and training of Encourage the formation and training of personnel to perform the diversehuman resources functions relevant to ecotourismQuality control of ecotourism Promote the development of methodologies, models and systems toproducts accompany, evaluate and perfect ecotourism, linking the public and

private sectorsInformation management Carry out a search for information at a national and international level,

aiming at the formation of a database and obtaining indicators forecotourism development

Incentives for ecotourism Promote and stimulate the creation of adequate incentives for the improve-development ment of technology and service, the amplification of existing infrastructure

and the implementation of ecotourism enterprisesImplementation and suitability Promote the development of technology and the introduction of infra-of infrastructure structure in priority ecotourism destinationsTourist awareness and Promote the activities that are inherent in ecotourism to the tourist, andinformation orient tourists to behave appropriately in visited areasCommunity participation Seek to employ the communities located in potential and existing

ecotourism destinations, encouraging them to identify ecotourism as aviable economic alternative.

above), Guyana is advantaged by the factthat it has a detailed definition and policythat will aid in the ecotourism develop-ment process. Guyana can follow a logicalprogression of: (i) definition; (ii) policy;(iii) practice; and (iv) implications, whereasother countries have had to deal with theimplications of an ecotourism industry thathas already been established long beforethe articulation of appropriate definitionsand policies.

Europe

Unlike the Americas, no comprehensivestudy has yet been undertaken with respectto European ecotourism policy. However,from surveys of the relevant tourismauthorities, and examination of the perti-nent academic and government literature,regional trends can be discerned. In thefirst instance, it soon becomes clear thatexplicit ecotourism policies are exceptionalrather than normative in the European con-text. Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc inthe early 1990s, eastern European countriessuch as Romania and Albania have givenprominence to ecotourism in their tourismpolicies, although Hall and Kinnaird (1994)suggests that such adoptions are morerhetoric than substance.

In most European countries, ecotourismpolicy, such as it is, tends to be implicit andindirect. In many cases, this de facto recog-nition entails references to the importance

of ‘nature-based’ and ‘rural’ tourism withinthe overall national tourism strategy.Hence, even if the term ‘ecotourism’ itself isnot used, these oblique references may ful-fil the first fundamental criterion of the sec-tor, which is the focus on the naturalenvironment as an attraction base (seeChapter 1). The third criterion, sustainabil-ity, is almost universally apparent to theextent that virtually every Europeantourism policy purports an adherence to theprinciples of environmental and socio-cul-tural responsibility. A survey of EuropeanNTOs, conducted in the early 1990s, sup-ports this contention. Results revealed the‘promotion of environmental tourism’ to bean important policy consideration in manycountries, but especially Belgium, Italy andPortugal. Overall, this item rated a meanscore of 3.1 out of 5 among all respondingNTOs, behind ‘attraction of high spendingtourists’ (4.7), ‘improving the quality of thetourism product’ (4.2), ‘reducing seasonal-ity’ (4.0), and ‘spreading the benefits oftourism beyond areas of concentration’ (3.6)(Akehurst et al., 1993). All of these policyobjectives are compatible with ecotourism,and suggest tacit recognition of the lattereven in situations where no explicit men-tion is made. The case of Switzerland isillustrative. The NTO representative hasindicated (personal communication, 1995)that the term ‘ecotourism’ was not used innational policy because of the confusionsurrounding the term. However, sustain-ability was identified as a prime directive of

474 D.A. Fennell et al.

Box 29.2. Ecotourism policy subjects for Guyana (Guyana Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry, 1997).

1. Definition of ecotourism 13. Monitoring environmental impacts2. Assuring local involvement and benefits 14. Training/education standards3. Contribution to conservation 15. Guidelines for marketing ecotourism4. Respecting rights of indigenous peoples 16. Financial support and incentives5. Integration with parks and protected areas 17. Public awareness6. Integration with other land uses 18. Destination promotion7. Waste management 19. Accreditation8. Energy and water conservation 20. Supporting institutional framework9. Facility design standards 21. Measuring success

10. Preservation of architectural heritage 22. Creating regional networks11. Life safety and security standards 23. Environmental education12. Hotel green management 24. Transportation links

all Swiss tourism development, and theimportance of the natural environment asthe core component of the national tourismproduct was emphasized. Other ‘green’policies that provide similar recognitionhave been put forward by Poland, Sloveniaand Slovakia (Hall, 1998).

Declaration of adherence, be it explicitor tacit, does not equate with implementa-tion, and it is useful to consider the extentto which different types of jurisdiction aremost likely to translate policy into action.In general, tourism policy at the nationallevel is strongest among the more prescrip-tive, centralized (or unitary) states, includ-ing France, Portugal and Greece, andamong microstates such as San Marino andLiechtenstein, which are also unitary butfunction in effect at the level of a single-tier municipality. Tourism policy, in con-trast, is weakest in decentralized federalstates such as Germany and Belgium, andin regional states such as the UK (Akehurstet al., 1993). A larger dynamic related tothe latter group is the gradual concessionof power at the state level in favour of sub-and super-state structures. The devolutionto ‘regional’ or ‘national’ authorities isalready evident in the UK, where Scotland,England and Wales are largely left to theirown volition (Airey and Butler, 1999), andin the autonomous regions of Spain, where nature-based tourism policies arepresent and actively being implemented(Valenzuela, 1998).

Multilateral policy structures, and espe-cially those associated with the EuropeanUnion, are also becoming increasingly rele-vant to ecotourism (see Chapter 10). Forexample, the 1985 European Commission(EC) policy framework for tourism, and the1991 EC Action Plan for tourism, bothemphasize environmental protection (i.e.sustainability), the promotion of ruraltourism, support for small business and thediversification of regional economies(Williams and Shaw, 1998). Intriguingly,some multilateral programmes, such asLEADER (liaison entre actions dedéveloppement de l’économie rurale), aredirected specifically at the regional ratherthan country level (Jenkins et al., 1998),

thereby indicating the emergence of a sub-state/super-state framework that willincreasingly supersede country-level tourismpolicy and planning. Other ecotourism-related, super-state policy initiatives aredirected toward the politically emanci-pated countries of Eastern Europe. ThePhare programme, for example, promotessustainable rural development and theestablishment of natural/cultural heritagetrails in Macedonia, the Czech Republicand Slovakia.

Africa

Ecotourism-related policy in Africa is mostevident within the ‘Safari corridor’ thatextends from Kenya to South Africa (seeChapter 16). We say ‘ecotourism-related’because this sector tends to be embeddedwithin a broader tourism policy frameworkthat emphasizes an amalgam of wildliferesources, protected areas, and communityparticipation and empowerment (Weaver,1998; Honey, 1999). Explicit ecotourismpolicy is rare, although the South Africangovernment did declare 1996 to be the‘Year of Eco-Tourism’ as part of its strategicproduct positioning. While the more com-mon allusions to wildlife and communityparticipation seem compatible with eco-tourism, a careful analysis of policy in thisregion reveals several serious contradic-tions. Several countries have explicitlyembraced big game hunting as an accept-able mode of wildlife-based tourism, thebest known example being Zimbabwe’sCAMPFIRE programme (Derman, 1995).Calling into question the apparent commit-ment to community-level engagement isthe tendency for tourism planning and pol-icy to be highly centralized at the statelevel, although South Africa may be excep-tional given its regional/federal system ofgovernment.

Conclusions

As stated in the introduction, space restric-tions preclude an inclusive examination of

Policy and Planning 475

global ecotourism policy and planning.Hence, the intent of this chapter has beento identify relevant patterns on a regionalbasis, and to provide a feel for these pat-terns through the presentation of specificmaterial from a variety of relevant casestudies. Australia stands out for the relativesophistication of its ecotourism policy andplanning, while Asian engagement is moretentative and more likely to involve NGOs.In North America, ecotourism policy tendsto have a liberal connotation, with jurisdic-tions such as Manitoba and Florida includ-ing consumptive activities such as fishingunder this rubric. In contrast, ecotourism inLatin America tends to be defined morenarrowly, and is more independent admin-istratively and in practice. Further, Canadaand the USA show less leadership in eco-tourism from the national level, and morefrom regional governments, whereas LACcountries seem to rely more on nationaldirectives for the administration of eco-tourism. Accreditation, regulation and/ormonitoring of operators are themes that areconsistent with all case studies in theAmericas. In Europe, ecotourism policy isseldom explicit, but usually embeddedwithin broader tourism policies throughreferences to nature-based tourism, ruraltourism and sustainability. State-level

structures are also giving way to sub-stateand super-state frameworks as the driversof tourism policy, suggesting a develop-ment that may occur in other regions whenthey reach a similar level of geopoliticalintegration. Finally, African ecotourismpolicies, similarly, are oblique, being situ-ated within a broader framework ofwildlife, protected areas and communityparticipation.

Whether policies are direct or indirect,actual implementation in all regions isimpeded by the reality that ecotourism isrelatively new, and hence relatively weakin terms of influence in comparison tomore established segments of the tourismindustry and, just as importantly, otherindustries such as agriculture and forestry.Where ecotourism is disadvantaged in thisway, it may indeed be logical to embed thesector within a broader policy framework,as is apparently the case in Europe andAfrica, or within a broader definitionalframework, as in North America.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Steve Edwards of ConservationInternational for providing information forthe Americas section of this chapter.

476 D.A. Fennell et al.

References

Ackoff, R. (1979) The future of operational research is past. Operational Research Journal 30(1),93–104.

Airey, D. and Butler, R. (1999) Tourism at the regional level. In: Keller, P. and Bieger, T. (eds) Future-Oriented Tourism Policy: a Contribution to the Strategic Development of Places. AIEST, St-Gall,Switzerland, pp. 71–90.

Akehurst, G., Bland, N. and Nevin, M. (1993) Tourism policies in the European Community memberstates. International Journal of Hospitality Management 12(1), 33–66.

Australia, Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1994) National Ecotourism Strategy. AustralianGovernment Publishing Service, Canberra.

Boothroyd, P. (1995) Policy assessment. In: Vanclay, F. and Bronstein, D.A. (eds) Environmental andSocial Impact Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 83–128.

Buckley, R.C. and Araujo, G. (1997) Green advertising by tourism operators on Australia’s GoldCoast. Ambio 26, 190–191.

Derman, B. (1995) Environmental NGOs, dispossession, and the state: the ideology and praxis ofAfrican nature and development. Human Ecology 23, 199–215.

Ecotourism/Heritage Tourism Advisory Committee (1997) Recommendations on the statewide planto protect and promote the natural, coastal, historical, cultural, and commercial assets ofFlorida.

Edwards, S.N., McLaughlin, W.J. and Ham, S.H. (1998a) Comparative Study of Ecotourism Policy inthe Americas – 1998. Vol. II Latin America and the Caribbean. Organization of American States.

Edwards, S.N., McLaughlin, W.J. and Ham, S.H. (1998b) Comparative Study of Ecotourism Policy inthe Americas – 1998. Vol. III USA and Canada. Organization of American States.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, London.Fennell, D.A. (2000) What’s in a name: conceptualising natural resource-based tourism. Tourism

Recreation Research 25(1), 97–100.Goeldner, C., Ritchie, J. and McIntosh, R. (2000) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 8th

edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.Grupo de Trabalho Interministerial MICT/MMA (1994) Diretrizes para uma Política Nacional de

Ecotourismo/Coordenaçao de Silvio Magalhaes Barros II e Denise Hamú M de La Penha.Embratur, Brasília.

Gunningham, N. and Grabowsky, P. (1998) Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy.Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Guyana Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry (1997) National Plan for Ecotourism Development.Recommended Support Policies, Republic of Guyana.

Hall, D.R. (1998) Central and Eastern Europe: tourism, development and transformation. In:Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (eds) Tourism and Economic Development: European Experiences.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 345–373.

Hall, D.R. and Kinnaird, V. (1994) Ecotourism in Eastern Europe. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds)Ecotourism: a Sustainable Option? John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 111–136.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,Washington, DC.

Jenkins, J.M., Hall, C.M. and Troughton, M. (1998) The restructuring of rural economies: ruraltourism and recreation as a government response. In: Butler, R., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (eds)Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 43–67.

Keszi, J. (1997) Discussion document: ecotourism policy in Manitoba. Prepared for Department ofIndustry, Trade and Tourism. Tourism Development Branch, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Luong, P.T., Koeman, A., Thi Lam, N., Cuong, N.D.H. and Cam, H.D. (1999) Proceedings of a NationalWorkshop on a National Ecotourism Strategy. IUCN and Vietnam National Administration forTourism, Hanoi.

Malloy, D.C. and Fennell, D.A. (1998) Ecotourism and ethics: moral development and organizationalcultures. Journal of Travel Research 36, 47–56.

Queensland, Department of Tourism Small Business and Industry (1997) Queensland EcotourismPlan. QD TSBI, Brisbane.

Republic of Guyana (1997) National Plan for Ecotourism Development, chapter 11.0: RecommendedSupport Policies. Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry.

TAT (nd) The Approach to Ecotourism in Thailand, brochure. Tourism Authority of Thailand,Bangkok.

Taylor, E. (1996) Brazil. Thomas Allen & Son, Markham, Ontario.Valenzuela, M. (1998) Spain: from the phenomenon of mass tourism to the search for a more diversi-

fied model. In: Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (eds) Tourism and Economic Development:European Experiences. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 43–74.

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Wilkinson, P. (1997) Tourism Policy and Planning: Case Studies from the Commonwealth Caribbean.

Cognizant Communications, New York.Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (1998) Tourism policies in a changing economic environment. In:

Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (eds) Tourism and Economic Development: European Experiences.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 375–391.

Policy and Planning 477

Chapter 30

Ecotourism-related Organizations

E.A. HalpennyNature Tourism Solutions, Almonte, Ontario, Canada

Introduction

Following from the previous chapters inthis section, a third mechanism that is usedto minimize the negative impacts and max-imize the positive impacts of ecotourism isthe ecotourism-related organization. Eco-tourism organizations are administrative orfunctional structures that are concernedwith ecotourism. For this chapter they aresorted into three categories: (i) membershipnon-government organizations (NGOs); (ii)non-membership NGOs; and (iii) publicsector or governmental agencies. Eco-tourism organizations, found throughoutthe world, play important roles rangingfrom grass-roots advocacy to internationalpolicy making.

This chapter will examine ecotourismorganizations, first through an investigationof their distribution, number and level atwhich they operate. Relevant characteris-tics will also be outlined, including theirstructure, stakeholders, mission, fundingsources and history. Perhaps most impor-tantly, the role that ecotourism organiza-tions play in making ecotourism a moresustainable tool for conservation and com-munity development, will also be explored.

Much of the information herein isdrawn from past correspondence andresearch materials collected at The Eco-

tourism Society (TES), the main interna-tional membership-based ecotourism NGO,at which the author was the ProjectsDirector for 4 years. Much of this chapter isinformed by an informal survey of eco-tourism organizations recently undertakenby TES. Also useful was a study performedin 1996 by the same organization, whichexamined the feasibility of establishing aninternational network of ecotourism associ-ations coordinated by TES (Gruin, 1996).While the study determined that such anetwork was financially not feasible, thedata collected from each association consti-tutes a valuable research resource.

The subject of ecotourism organizations,however, remains somewhat ambiguous,leading to a tentative summary here.Readers should be aware of this, and exam-ine the information provided with theunderstanding that much more research onthis subject must take place. One of thegreatest barriers to gathering informationon this subject is the lack of time most eco-tourism NGOs, and some ecotourism-related public sector agencies have todocument and answer questions abouttheir organizations. This is especially truein developing counties. Another challengeis the overlap that can occur with otherchapters in this book, especially when dis-cussing the role of government organizations

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 479

in ecotourism. Additional information onthis topic can be found in the other chap-ters in this section.

Location, Scope and Numbers

The essential mandate of an ecotourismorganization is to minimize the negativeimpacts and maximize the positive impactsof ecotourism. The number of organiza-tions striving to accomplish this on a dailybasis throughout the world is growingrapidly along with the phenomenon of eco-tourism itself. Most countries that host eco-tourism activity have their own unique setof organizations dedicated to this task.However, the composition of this structureis determined in large part by the resourcesthat are available. For this reason, devel-oped countries generally host a greaternumber of these organizations, althoughmany of their actual field programmes arerun in the developing countries, which arethe primary destinations for most eco-tourism activity.

It is impossible to estimate the numberof ecotourism organizations worldwidebecause of the wide-ranging nature of theseorganizations. However, Table 30.1 pro-vides a list of ecotourism associations(membership NGOs who deal regularlywith ecotourism issues) that have corre-sponded with TES in the past 5 years. Notall associations actively corresponded withTES in 1999, therefore their validity asactive ecotourism membership organiza-tions is not verified. The list illustrates thevaried scale at which ecotourism associa-tions can operate, a pattern that also holdstrue for public sector-related ecotourismorganizations.

Ecotourism organizations can be foundat the grass roots or local level, addressingconcerns of local stakeholders. They canalso appear at state, regional, national andinternational levels. Each has a set of con-stituents that they serve. Below, the levelsat which the various types of ecotourismorganizations operate are described. Table30.2 provides examples.

International organizations

In the international arena, many differentorganizations address ecotourism-relatedissues. In the past the World TourismOrganization (WTO) chose to ignore eco-tourism, citing the fact that it is difficult tomeasure statistically due to its ambivalentdefinition. As well, the WTO has cited itslimited resources as a rationale for focusingon mainstream tourism concerns. Thisneglect, however, is changing as prepara-tions gain momentum for the year 2002,the Year of Ecotourism. WTO recentlyhosted a meeting on the subject of eco-tourism in Costa Rica, and signed a letter ofunderstanding with TES in preparation for2002.

The United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP) is another internationalgovernment organization that deals withecotourism, largely through its interna-tional development assistance programme.UNDP channels aid to countries in need ofdevelopment assistance. Often this aid isused to develop ecotourism enterprises aspart of a larger regional developmentscheme. For example, UNDP channelledfinancial assistance from the GlobalEnvironment Facility to the South PacificRegional Environment Programme (SPREP),whose objectives include making commu-nity-based conservation areas viablethrough the promotion of income-generat-ing activities such as ecotourism. SPREPembarked on a series of product develop-ment, training and capacity-buildinginitiatives to promote appropriate and sus-tainable tourism activities in variousPacific islands. An example of an initiativesupported by SPREP is found in MarkiraProvince, Solomon Islands. The project hashelped several communities run their owntours, working in partnership with over-seas tour companies who send tourists.The community operates the tours and setsthe prices. They provide the guides, cooksand cultural performers, decide how manytourists should visit and what rules theyshould follow (SPREP, unpublished).

WTO and UNDP are just two examplesof how international government eco-

480 E.A. Halpenny

Ecotourism-related Organizations 481

Table 30.1. Ecotourism associations.

Ecotourism association Country Level/arena

Albanian Ecotourism Association Albania NationalAlaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association (AWRTA) USA StateArmenian Ecotourism Association Armenia NationalAsociacion Ecuatoriana De Ecoturismo (ASEC) Ecuador NationalBelize Ecotourism Association Belize NationalBolivian Ecotourism Association Bolivia NationalEco Brazil – Associacao Brasileira de Ecoturismo Brazil NationalEcotourism Association of Australia (EAA) Australia NationalThe Ecotourism Association of Papua New Guinea PNG NationalThe Ecotourism Society (TES) USA InternationalThe Ecotourism Society of Kenya (ESOK) Kenya NationalEcotourism Society of Saskatchewan (ESS) Canada StateEcuador Ecotourism Association Ecuador NationalEstonia Ecotourism Association Estonia NationalFiji Ecotourism Association (FEA) Fiji NationalFundacion Ecoturismo Argentina Argentina NationalGeorgia Greens Movement Georgia NationalHawaii Ecotourism Association (HEA) Hawaii StateHonduras Ecotourism Association Honduras NationalJapan Ecotourism Society (JES) Japan NationalLa Societe Duventor Canada RegionalMexican Association of Adventure Tourism and Ecotourism (AMTAVE) Mexico NationalMorovo Lagoon Ecotourism Association Solomon Islands LocalPartners in Responsible Tourism (PIRT) USA NationalSouth Carolina Nature-Based Tourism Association USA StateSwedish Ecotourism Association Sweden NationalToledo Ecotourism Association Belize LocalVirginia EcoTourism Association (VETA) USA RegionalZanzibar Ecotourism Association Tanzania Local

Table 30.2. Different arenas and types.

Level/arena Type Examples

International Government UNDP; WTOMembership NGO TES; Tourism ConcernNon-member NGO CI; TNC; IUCN

National Government KWS and Kenya Ministry of Tourism; Fiji Ministry ofTourism and Transport and University of the SouthPacific; Germany’s BMZ and GTZ

Membership NGO ESOK; FEA; EAANon-member NGO INDECON

Regional, state and local Government Queensland Tourism (Environment Department);Tourism Saskatchewan

Membership NGO ESSNon-member NGO Redberry Pelican Project

tourism-related organizations can play arole in making ecotourism a tool for sus-tainable development. At the international

level NGOs also play a role. TourismConcern, a UK-based NGO dedicated toensuring tourism is a just and sustainable

form of business, has worked for manyyears to make tourism more sustainable.Although Tourism Concern has neverworked solely on ecotourism issues, it rec-ognizes the importance of the phenome-non, especially for people living indeveloping countries. The internationaladvocacy group distributes a collection offact sheets on ecotourism, stressing educa-tion among consumers, the media and gov-ernments.

The US-based TES is dedicated solely toensuring that ecotourism is a viable tool forbiodiversity conservation and communitydevelopment. It plays many roles, includ-ing education of professionals and con-sumers, research, policy formation, andfacilitating the establishment of global pro-fessional networks. TES, given its limitedannual budget of less than US$500,000,lacks sufficient resources to truly addressthe needs of all its constituents, and hastherefore chosen to focus annually on dif-ferent world regions and specific issues.For example, Southeast Asia was a regionof focus in 1999, and international devel-opment policy as it relates to ecotourismwas one of its foci.

Non-member NGOs also play a signifi-cant role in the international arena. Muchlike the example of UNDP given earlier,international NGOs can act as channels forfinancial assistance to developing coun-tries. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), andConservation International (CI), are twoUS-based conservation NGOs that havetheir own ecotourism departments, andplay this role. The actions of these depart-ments are moulded by the conservationagendas set forth by their parent organiza-tions. They are assigned to work in regionsof the world where the organization’s bio-diversity conservation mandate dictates.The efforts of TNC and CI focus largely oninfrastructure and skills building, therebygenerating the capacity to run successfulecotourism enterprises within local com-munities. A third international NGO, the World Conservation Union, generallyfocuses more on developing visitor andresource management strategies and toolsfor ecotourism activities inside protected

areas, distributing them to park manage-ment professionals.

Interestingly, TNC is a membershiporganization, but it has been placed in thenon-membership category since its mem-bership activities have little to do with theorganization’s international ecotourismefforts. The one exception to this is theorganization’s travel programmes for itsmembers. There are hundreds of NGOs anduniversities in developed countries thatoffer travel programmes to their membersas part of their membership benefits pack-age. When the travel programmes featureecotourism destinations, the package isgenerally intended for members in searchof stimulating, learning vacations in biodi-verse or culturally rich regions. TNC suc-cessfully supports many of its ecotourismenterprises development projects in devel-oping countries by sending their member-ship travel programmes to them.

National organizations

Further examples of ecotourism organiza-tions can be found at the national level.Government plays an important role in thenational arena. Government-related eco-tourism organizations active at this levelgenerally come from four areas: parks man-agement agencies, universities, tourismministries, and environment or naturalresource ministries. In Kenya, much of thegovernment-related ecotourism activity atthe national level is performed by theKenya Wildlife Service (KWS), a quasi-gov-ernmental organization whose mandate isthe management of wildlife in the country.The KWS’s role as Kenya’s protected areasmanager makes it a leading national forcein guiding ecotourism development in thecountry. The KWS must work with indus-try associations such as the KenyanAssociation of Tour Operators and theMinistry of Tourism to make ecotourism asuccess.

From Fiji comes another example oforganizations working at the national levelon ecotourism issues. There, the Ministryof Tourism and Transport recently com-

482 E.A. Halpenny

pleted and released Ecotourism and Village-Based Tourism: a Policy and Strategy forFiji (Sawailau and Malani, c. 1998). Thepolicy was a collaborative effort, drawingideas from stakeholders throughout thecountry. The University of the SouthPacific was also an active government-related contributor, with the participationof Dr David Harrison as the policy’s editor.

A final example of a national-level gov-ernment-related ecotourism organizationcomes from Germany and the efforts of theGerman Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development (BMZ). Verydifferent from the examples from Fiji andKenya, the BMZ has been investigating thevalue of ecotourism through its WorkingGroup on Eco-Tourism, publishing thebook Ecotourism as an Instrument of NatureConservation? Possibilities of Increasingthe Attractiveness of Conservation Measuresin 1995. More recently the BMZ has beeninvesting in ecotourism projects in devel-oping countries through the government-owned Deutche Gesellschaft fur TechnischeZusammenarbeit (German Technical Co-operation, GTZ). Like the developmentassistance programmes described earlier,GTZ’s objective is to ‘strengthen the perfor-mance capability of people and organiza-tions in developing counties, as well astheir capacity for self-help. To this end,technical, economic and organizationalskills are transferred and measured improv-ing the conditions for application’ (GTZ,1997). Outlined in Table 30.3 are some ofthe projects that have been funded throughGTZ in recent years.

Also at the national level, member NGOecotourism organizations play an impor-tant role in making ecotourism a tool forsustainable development. Returning toKenya, a national ecotourism association,the Ecotourism Society of Kenya (ESOK),played an organizational role in thegroundbreaking conference ‘Ecotourism ata Crossroads’. Developed by KWS and TES,the 1997 conference represented one of thefirst times in East Africa where the failureof tourism management in parks and the

decline of the mainstream tourism industryin Kenya was openly discussed. After a fewgrowing pains, ESOK has again emerged,with donor funding support to take anactive lead on Kenya’s national stage, orga-nizing the establishment of a nationalaccreditation programme for ecotourism.

The Fiji Ecotourism Association (FEA)is another example of a national member-ship ecotourism NGO. Established in 1995,the organization experienced a period ofdormancy when over-committed boardmembers could not devote enough time tothe fledgling organization. The FEA hasrecently experienced a renewal, with therelease of the Ecotourism and Village-Based Policy. The FEA is hosting a confer-ence in June 2000 to stimulate the progressof ecotourism development in the country.

Perhaps the most successful nationalecotourism membership organization hasbeen the Ecotourism Association ofAustralia (EAA). The association boasts awide membership including industry, gov-ernment, academic and NGO representa-tion. The organization hosts an annualconference at which the quality and finan-cial health of the nation’s ecotourismindustry is assessed. The association cur-rently manages the national ecotourismaccreditation programme (NEAP), and hasalso recently launched a new nature guideaccreditation programme.

ESOK, FEA and EAA all play an activerole at the national level, giving their mem-bership a voice in national decision mak-ing. There are other ecotourism NGOs whodo not have memberships, but also take anactive role on the national stage. An exam-ple of this is the Indonesian EcotourismNetwork (INDECON), a network and infor-mation source on ecotourism for Indonesia.Through fostering dialogue among eco-tourism stakeholders, building the capacityin-country for ecotourism planning andmanagement, and encouraging model eco-tourism developments INDECON is attempt-ing to educate Indonesian communities,government officials and entrepreneurs aboutecotourism.

Ecotourism-related Organizations 483

Sub-national organizations

Below the national level are foundregional, state and local arenas for action.Ecotourism organizations play a role ateach of these levels. These arenas havebeen combined to simplify Table 30.2, asmost of the characteristics and challengesthat ecotourism faces at these levels aresimilar.

Queensland Tourism and TourismSaskatchewan are two examples of state-level public sector ecotourism organiza-tions. Both have displayed agendas with astrong focus on ecotourism in the last 5

years. In Australia, Queensland Tourism’senvironment division publishes a quarterlynewsletter titled EcoTrends informingindustry, NGOs, universities and the publicsector about ecotourism-related events,accreditation recipients, department researchand policy. Queensland’s tourism depart-ment regularly promotes the developmentof quality tourism products through itssupport of research on small businessdevelopment, ecotourism markets, visitorand park management, and through thenation-wide NEAP.

In Canada, the province of Saskatchewan’stourism department, Tourism Saskatchewan,

484 E.A. Halpenny

Table 30.3. Select tourism in projects executed by GTZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry ofEconomic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) (Haep, 1999).

GermanRelation to Project contribution

Project title Country tourism duration (DM, million)

Promotion of SustainableDevelopment through Tourism Central America 1,3,6 1997–2002 5.00

Promotion of Small Enterprises Benin 4 1997–2000 2.75Prorenda – Promotion of Small

Enterprises in Pernambuco Brazil 4 1997–2001 3.00Promotion of the Economy and

Employment Bulgaria 4,6 1998– 3.80Environmental Management in

the IX. Region Chile 3,5 1997–2000 3.00Conservation of the Tai National

Park Ivory Coast 3,5 1997–2000 2.75Support of the National

Environment Agency Gambia 3,5,6 1993–1999 2.50Know-How-Transfer for Waste

Water Management Jamaica 3 1996–1999 3.50Conservation of Petra Jordan 3,5 1996–2000 3.00Promotion of vocational training Cape Verde 2 1996–2000 3.00Integrated Conservation in

East Congo Dem. Rep. of Congo 3,5 1996–2001 16.40Parks and Wildlife Malawi 3,5 1996–2002 3.40Advisory to the Ministry of

Development Macedonia 3,5,6 1997– 2.87 Combating Desertification Namibia 5,6 1993–1999 9.5Promotion of Tourism Palestine 1,3,6 1996–2000 4.60Promotion of small and medium-

sized enterprises Peru 4 1997–2000 4.80People and Parks South Africa 3,5 1996–1999 4.20 Communal Wildlife Management Tanzania 3,5 1998–2000 2.5

1 Tourism as main activity; 2 Tourism as part of vocational training; 3 Mitigating negative impacts of tourism;4 Tourism in enterprise promotion; 5 Tourism to achieve conservation objectives; 6 Tourism PolicyDevelopment.

also supports the development of the localecotourism industry. This effort waslaunched with a province-wide conferenceon ecotourism early in 1998 at which 21objectives were announced (EcotourismTask Force Recommends, 1998) (Box 30.1).With the support of volunteers, NGOs,community groups and other governmentagencies, 16 of the objectives have beenachieved. The department’s effectivenessdid however suffer a setback when a keypolicy maker left his position. However,Tourism Saskatchewan’s commitment nowappears to be re-established, as they worktowards a second major conference sched-uled for later in 2000 (J. Hnatiuk, Bennington,Vermont, 2000, personal communication).

Tourism Saskatchewan is working withanother key player in the province, theEcotourism Society of Saskatchewan (ESS).ESS is an example of a state or local-levelmembership NGO. Aside from helping toorganize an ecotourism conference, ESS isactively working to set up a provincialaccreditation programme for ecotourismproducts. The chief goal of this volunteerorganization is to ensure that a standard ofquality for ecotourism products is establishedin the province. Finally, a Saskatchewanorganization that works on ecotourism-related issues at the municipal level is thenon-member NGO Redberry PelicanProject. The Redberry Pelican ProjectFoundation’s mission is ‘conservationthrough research, education and tourism’.Initiated as a model project for usingtourism to encourage local efforts to con-serve a colony of white pelicans within anational migratory bird sanctuary atRedberry Lake, the foundation has grownas an example of ecotourism excellence forthe whole of Canada. Operating without astable funding base, the foundation relieson visitor revenue, and partnership agree-ments and contractual arrangements thatinclude monitoring the sanctuary and lead-ing the development of standards andaccreditation for ecotourism. The existenceof the Redberry Pelican Project has led tothe protection of a unique ecosystem, sub-stantial economic benefit to local commu-nities, and a leadership role for the

province of Saskatchewan in the develop-ment of ecotourism in Canada (RedberryPelican Project, 1999).

In summary, ecotourism organizationsconsist of non-member NGOs, memberNGOs and public sector organizations thatoperate at local, regional and state levels,as well as in national and internationalarenas. While varying in composition andin other characteristics, they do sharemany similarities, as described below.

Ecotourism OrganizationCharacteristics

As the number of ecotourism organizationsincreases, certain shared characteristics canbe identified among them. These character-istics have been documented in the recentsurvey of ecotourism organizations by TES,and is based on the author’s own knowl-edge of individual organizations.

Formation

There are three common reasons or water-shed moments which act as catalysts forthe formation of ecotourism organizations.One of the most prevalent is the occurrenceof major conferences on ecotourism orrelated issues. The preparation for the con-ference and the actual event itself helpstakeholders identify each other, communi-cate, and identify common goals for estab-lishing an ecotourism organization.Certainly this may be truer for ecotourismassociations such as TES, which was estab-lished at the 1990 International Symposium:Ecotourism and Resource Conservation,held in Miami, Florida. However, confer-ences may also play a role in the decisionof universities to redirect curriculum orform centres of study on ecotourism, suchas the Centre for Ecotourism at theUniversity of Pretoria. Conferences mayalso inspire policy makers to emphasizeecotourism in government agency mandates.The latter instance occurred in Kenya fol-lowing the ‘Ecotourism at a Crossroads’conference.

Ecotourism-related Organizations 485

486 E.A. Halpenny

Box 30.1. Saskatchewan Ecotourism Task Force Recommendations: announced at the firstSaskatchewan Ecotourism Conference, January 1998.

1. An accreditation programme be implemented for Saskatchewan’s ecotourism products and ser-vices.

2. Elder’s Guidelines should be established by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations andimplemented by local bands and applied to aboriginal product development and marketing.

3. Interpretive services be required for all accredited ecotour packages, and that an inventory of suchservices be produced.

4. Establish a programme to promote the visitor’s responsibilities as an ecotourist.5. Develop a new ‘outfitter’ licensing category, to be established and implemented to recognize the

less consumptive nature of ecotourism-related businesses.6. Upgrade northern fishing camps to ecolodge standards, in recognition of the overwhelming per-

ception of northern Saskatchewan as the main ecotourism attribute of the Province. Facilitatinginvestments by the aboriginal community and developing a management mentoring programmewill be key to this process.

7. Support the development of culturally-unique services and attractions, such as vacation farms,overnight stays in teepees, dog-sledding and fowl suppers.

8. Ensure that tourism interests be directly represented in all land-use planning forums, and that regu-latory authorities be required to utilize an interdisciplinary approach to all future land-use plan-ning.

9. Ensure that co-operative relationships with other land users be confirmed by Statements of MutualRecognition and Respect, formalizing a consultative process regarding future land-use plans.

10. Establish a process where visitors contribute a portion of their expenditures to a fund which has, asits objective, the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

11. Encourage local employment and suppliers through integration into the accreditation programme.12. Establish ecolodge facilities that model sustainable systems and technologies by a non-profit orga-

nization (such as the Saskatchewan Research Council) in each of the Province’s main ecozones. 13. Amend Crown-land lease policies and prepare guidelines to allow for the establishment of eco-

tourism-related businesses. Also, it needs to be determined whether a new tax assessment policymore conducive to multiple land-use and habitat preservation could be developed for land cur-rently zoned as agricultural.

14. Ensure that the Tourism Industry Association of Canada’s Guiding Principles on Ecotourism beadopted by all stakeholders.

15. Establish a three-part programme to develop the ecotourism industry in Saskatchewan, includingsupport for:• infrastructure projects which demonstrate innovative and environmentally-friendly technology,• assessment of the changes to environments that result from ecotourism activities, including

base-line studies, monitoring and environmental audits,• integration of ecotourism input into regional planning and development.

16. Support the efforts of ecotourism industry representatives to work with financial institutions toestablish a lending programme which would match a guaranteed/insured deposit base with tar-geted lending to ecotourism businesses.

17. Ensure that Saskatchewan’s ecotourism industry strongly supports the introduction of sustainabletourism courses at the province’s universities and technical institutions.

18. Formulate a strategy to accelerate market development of Saskatchewan’s sustainable tourismproducts and services.

19. Encourage Saskatchewan ecotourism stakeholders to initiate discussions with neighbouring juris-dictions for the purpose of developing integrated planning by eco-zone.

20. Encourage the development of sustainable tourism policies through continuation of the task forceprocess, making adjustments as required, with the objective of securing broad industry acceptanceof these recommendations and determining the process associated with their implementation.

21. Establish an accountability process (who is accountable, what for and to whom) which couldinvolve the formation of a body to oversee policies and programmes designed to further developsustainability in the industry.

(After: The Ecotourism Task Force Recommends, 1998)

Some ecotourism organizations arise inresponse to catastrophic events. An exam-ple of this comes from Alaska. The AlaskaWilderness Recreation and Travel Asso-ciation (AWRTA) was established from acoalition of small tourism businesses andcommunity members who depend on thecontinued existence of pristine wildernessfor their livelihoods. Wilderness areasalong the Alaska coast were damaged bythe Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.Following clean-up efforts, AWRTA wasformed in 1992.

In some instances, other types of organi-zation evolve into ecotourism organiza-tions, changing their mission to addressecotourism-related goals. An example ofthis is the recent development of formal-ized guide training programmes in Canadianuniversities and colleges. Addressing aneed in the ecotourism and adventuretravel industries, public sector agenciessuch as schools are modifying their cur-riculum to produce a labour force tailoredfor the rapidly expanding nature-basedtourism sector.

Reason for formation: mission

Each of the above examples of ecotourismorganization formation display underlyingreasons for establishing such an institution.In general there are three themes that tendto characterize the reason for formation,and are reflected in the present day mis-sions of each organization. These are:

1. Stewardship of resources (both culturaland natural).2. Addressing community, conservationand business interests (including promo-tion, enterprise development, networking).3. Collecting and disseminating informa-tion about ecotourism.

Table 30.4 outlines the missions of selectedecotourism associations. Each of the mis-sions fits at least one of the above reasonsfor formation. Sources of funding are dis-cussed later in this chapter.

Form and structure

The form and structure of ecotourism orga-nizations varies between non-memberNGOs, member NGOs and governmentagencies (see Table 30.5 for examples).Large, non-member NGOs and governmentagencies, such as Conservation Inter-national’s ecotourism department andQueensland Tourism’s environment divi-sion, are subject to the organizational struc-tures of their parent organizations. Theygenerally have a limited number of staff,interns and contract employees, all on themain organization’s payroll. They are influ-enced heavily by the policies of the parentorganization, and are generally reliant tosome degree for funding from the parentorganization. Smaller, non-member NGOs,such as INDECON, are characterized by asmall staff, with a few additional volun-teers. Funding for these organizations iseven less stable than for the larger, non-member NGOs and government agencies.All non-member NGOs must report to aboard of directors on issues such as annualbudgets and organizational strategies andplanning.

Membership-based NGO ecotourismorganizations are slightly different. Theytoo must report to a board, which is almostalways composed of volunteers, on finan-cial management and strategic planningissues. However, they must also report tomembership, usually in the form of anewsletter or regular meetings. For exam-ple, the EAA has a general meeting on ayearly basis at its annual conference, andpublishes a periodic newsletter, EcotourismNews (EAA, 1996b). The EAA has a com-mittee of up to nine members, elected bythe membership, which includes an execu-tive comprising a President, Vice President,Secretary and Treasurer. Committee mem-bers are assigned specific projects for theyear, e.g. revising the NEAP programme.The EAA also has one full-time office man-ager (EAA, 1999a). The largest ecotourismmembership NGO, TES, has a staff of six,who report to a board of directors, nomi-nated by members and elected by directors,and a board of advisors, nominated by

Ecotourism-related Organizations 487

488E.A

. Halpenny

Table 30.4. Ecotourism association formation, mission and funding sources.

CurrentDate Ecotourism funding

Association formed Mission definition How was it formed? sources

Alaska 1992 To support stewardship Following an oil spill in Membership,Wilderness of the wild in Alaska Prince William Sound in foundationRecreation and the development of 1989, those involved in grantsand Tourism healthy, diverse travel small tourism businessesAssociation businesses and and recreationists who(AWRTA) communities by linking worked and played on

business, community and the Sound helped withconservation interests the clean up and formed

a coalition to supportthose whose businessesdepend on pristinewilderness

AMTAVE 1994 To promote and protect IUCN definition Members had common Membership(Mexican the ecotourism and worry of promoting and tourists’Association of adventure tourism sites adventure and eco- fairs, andAdventure in Mexico, contributing tourism, and protecting adventureTourism and to sustainable nature sportsEcotourism) development of championships

each region involvingactively the localcommunities

Ecotourism 1998/99 To support and promote Enlightening nature The organization evolved MembershipSociety of the development of a travel experience that from the WatchableSaskatchewan Saskatchewan ecotourism contributes to Wildlife Assn., which

industry and the protection conservation of the was perceived to beand perpetuation of host ecosystem and to the too narrow in its focusnatural ecosystems and culture and economiccultures resources of the host

communities

Ecotourism-related O

rganizations489

Ecotourism 1991 To unite the conservation Responsible travel to Nature tourism business, Membership,Society, The community with travel natural areas that academics and book sales,(TES) professionals to make conserves the conservation NGOs foundation

ecotourism a tool for environment and perceived a need for an grants, trainingsustainable development sustains the well- international network/assn. and educationand conservation being of local people to address growing contractsworldwide ecotourism field

Fiji Ecotourism 1995 Ecotourism is a form of Objective was originallyAssociation nature-based tourism to consolidate all those

which involves in the private sector whoresponsible travel to were interested inrelatively undeveloped ecotourism in terms ofareas to foster an ecological, cultural,appreciation of nature historical, nature-basedand local cultures, and adventure-basedwhile conserving the tourismphysical and socialenvironment,respectingthe aspirations andtraditions or those whoare visited, and improving the welfareof local communities

Georgia 1997 Develop ecotourism Ecology and healthy MembershipGreens Movement tourism

Green Tourism 1997 To provide information, Ecotourism is Started as an independent Membership,Promotion training and marketing responsible travel to voluntary initiative, to sale of goods(India) support to ecotourism natural areas that provide marketing support and services

organizations and conserves the to ecotourism destinationsprofessionals committed environment and (in India) and to facilitateto working for sustainable sustains the well- networking, exchange ofenvironment and safe- being of local people information and trainingguarding the interests of programmes for effectivelocal people management of ecotourism

operations. There was alack of centralizedinformation available onecotourism products, etc. Continued

490E.A

. Halpenny

Table 30.4. Continued

CurrentDate Ecotourism funding

Association formed Mission definition How was it formed? sources

Hawaii 1995 Nature- and culture- Following a state- Membership,Ecotourism based tourism that is sponsored Hawaii someAssociation ecologically sustainable Conference on Ecotourism government

and supports the well- in 1994. Small businesses grantsbeing of local that provided ecotourismcommunities experience needed to form

an organization

INDECON 1995 To develop and Ecotourism is The network initiated Foundations(Center for promote ecotourism responsible travel to by the Institute for andIndonesian based on scientific the protected natural Indonesia Tourism Studies, corporateEcotourism research, training and areas, as well as to Bina Swdaya Tours and grants, saleResearch, promotion unprotected natural Conservation International of goods andTraining and areas, which conserves Indonesia Program services, andPromotion) the environment training and

(natural and cultural) educationand improves the programmeswelfare of local people)

Japan 1998 To provide an open A study group formed in MembershipEcotourism forum for people who 1990 composed of travel and sale ofSociety work in ecotourism so industry and researchers goods and

they can exchange and joined with journalists to servicesshare information study ecotourismamongst themselves, tointroduce advanced casestudies and to provideopportunities for humanresource training for thepurpose of developingecotourism appropriateto respective areas

Ecotourism-related Organizations 491

members and elected by advisors anddirectors. The boards are designed to repre-sent the organization’s diverse member-ship, based on regional and professionalcategories. TES also relies on volunteerinterns for administrative and researchassistance in the office, official ‘researchassociates’ who are called upon for theiracademic expertise, and occasional volun-tary support from select members whenprojects dictate the need.

Most membership NGOs have openaccess to membership. There are, however,some exceptions, such as the self-pro-claimed membership organization, theEcotourism Society of Sri Lanka, whoseboard and membership is the same. Theorganization acts more like a ‘think-tank’,and plays a role similar to INDECON inIndonesia (C. Gurung, Columbo, Sri Lanka,1999, personal communication). It is diffi-cult to differentiate the purpose and struc-ture of the two organizations, thus makingthe classification of membership NGO lessuseful in this instance.

Other membership NGOs such as theNamibia Community-based Tourism Asso-ciation (NACOBTA) focus on grass-roots

empowerment. The organization wasformed to close the gap between commu-nity-based tourism and private sectortourism in Namibia, achieving greater well-being for rural communities through eco-nomic development and empowerment.NACOBTA has a management committeeof seven elected community members whooversee the work of a programme managerand support a staff of seven permanentpositions (Schalken, 1999).

Funding, partnerships and stakeholders

Funding can be derived from a variety of avenues for ecotourism organizations.Public sector ecotourism organizations, suchas protected area and resource managementagencies or tourism ministries, generallyreceive their funds from taxpayers via thegovernment. However, in developing coun-tries they may also receive assistance fromdonor agencies funded by groups such asthe European Union. The latter was thechief funding agency for the ‘Ecotourism ata Crossroads’ conference in Kenya in 1997.Another example is the Inter-American

Table 30.5. Form and structure of select ecotourism organizations.

Type Organization Membership Decision making Salaried staff

Non-member Conservation Not applicable Dictated in part by 10+NGO International (NA) parent organization

EcotourismDepartment

Government Queensland NA Dictated in part by 5+Agency Tourism parent organization

EnvironmentDepartment

Non-member Indonesia NA Staff 3+NGO Ecotourism Network

Membership Ecotourism Open Committee with 1NGO Association of 435+ members executive, staff

AustraliaMembership The Ecotourism Open Boards, staff 6+

NGO Society 1500+members

Membership Ecotourism Society Restricted Board/membership 0NGO of Sri Lanka

Membership Namibia Open Management NGO Community-Based 42+ members committee, staff

Tourism Association

Development Bank, which is scheduled toloan Brazil US$250 million to develop the Brazilian Amazon as an ecotourismdestination.

Membership NGOs have access to aunique source of funding, i.e. membershiprevenue. Some ecotourism NGOs such asTES base their fee structures on benefit-related membership levels, while otherNGOs base their fees on ability to pay.Generally, the higher the fee, the greaterthe benefits that are expected. Non-memberand member NGOs share several fundingsources. Both can receive funds from gov-ernments. For example, the CanadianTourism Commission, Canada’s tourismdevelopment and promotion agency,helped to fund the country’s ‘EcotourismProduct Club’ (P. Kingsmill, Bennington,Vermont, 1999, personal communication).The product club concept is designed tohelp small- and medium-sized businessesto pool their efforts to build networks theycould not otherwise afford on their own.They usually include cooperative venturesand partnerships that build new packages,fund research projects on customer needs,and assist in product development andmarketing strategies (CTC, 1999).

Funding for NGOs can also come fromprivate foundations. For example, in 1998the MacArther Foundation granted theIndonesia Ecotourism Network US$75,000to ‘strengthen links among Indonesian non-profit groups, the government, and thetourism industry and to develop ecotourismguidelines for Indonesia’ (New Grants,1999, p. 19). A third source of funding forecotourism-oriented NGOs is donor agen-cies. Development assistance can be used tofund the activities of NGOs in developingcountries for a time. In 1998 NACOBTAreceived funding from the Swedish govern-ment’s International Development Agency.It also received funding from an interna-tional conservation NGO, the World WideFund for Nature (Schalken, 1999).

Another source of funding for eco-tourism-NGOs consists of donations fromcorporations. An example of this comesfrom southern Belize. The Toledo Institutefor Development and Environment (TIDE)

received assistance in its efforts to usetourism as a tool for community develop-ment and biodiversity conservation in thePunta Gorda region. International NGOTNC stepped in to assist with expertise andmoney, and introduced TIDE to corporatepartner Orvis, a leading sport fishingequipment retailer. Tapping into thetremendous potential for fly fishing in theregion, Orvis donated equipment and train-ing to local fishermen, providing them withan alternative and lucrative livelihood ascatch and release fishing guides. Orvis’ andTNC’s combined travel programmes supplya guaranteed stream of customers largelyfrom the USA to the Punta Gorda region.

The example of Orvis, TIDE and TNCprovides a good case study on the impor-tance of partnerships for ecotourism orga-nizations. Partnerships can involve allstakeholders involved in, or affected byecotourism, including tourism entrepre-neurs, NGOs, community members, themedia and government agencies. Anotherexample comes from TES’s launch of a con-sumer education campaign in early 2000.TES approached its larger wholesale opera-tor and lodge members to support a newconsumer education campaign through arenewal of their Supporting level member-ship (US$1000). When combined with agrant from a private foundation, thesefunds were then used to complete a pilotstudy documenting the contributions theecotourism industry was making towardsconservation and local communities. Thedata collected from this effort were thenused to inform a larger campaign to helpconsumers to understand that the tourismbusinesses they chose to patronize would‘make a difference’ to conservation efforts.The contributions by TES industry mem-bers funded an upgrade of the consumersection of the TES web site (www.ecotourism.org/choice). Further sponsor-ship by TES industry members, as well asContinental Airlines in the form of adverto-rial purchases in a special issue of aleading US-based nature magazine, and aninformation pamphlet designed to launchthe campaign, helped to make the project asuccess. The travel industry and travel

492 E.A. Halpenny

Ecotourism-related Organizations 493

media proved to be invaluable partners inthe effort to educate consumers aboutchoosing travel products that meet theprinciples of ecotourism.

The type of partnerships that the organi-zation will engage in is directly related tothe organization’s mission and its con-stituents. It is the ecotourism organization’sconstituency that is the last subject of dis-cussion in this section. The constituents orstakeholders related to an ecotourism orga-nization again vary with the type of organi-zation. Public sector ecotourism organizationshave the widest constituency to serve.Communities, other public sector organiza-tions, industry, NGOs, educational institu-tions, the media, neighbouring countries orregions can all be impacted by the actionsof governmental ecotourism organizations.Many of these are discussed in other chap-ters within this book.

Membership NGOs’ direct constituencyis their membership. From the TES surveyof ecotourism associations, membershipseems to fall into the following categories:

1. Industry association2. Consulting association3. Multi-sectoral association.

The Thai Ecotourism & Adventure TravelAssociation may be an example of an eco-tourism membership NGO that is dominatedby industry members. Little evidence couldbe found to indicate that the associationdoes more than promote ecotourism andadventure travel business. A consultingassociation classification characterizes thepreviously mentioned Ecotourism Society ofSri Lanka. A multi-sectoral association,which hosts a rich assortment of profession-als in its ranks, is the category to whichmost ecotourism associations belong. Forexample FEA, TES and EAA all claim indus-try, community, governmental and NGO rep-resentation among their memberships.

Funding sources and constituencies arethe entities that an ecotourism organizationmust appeal to in its daily efforts to mini-mize negative impacts associated with eco-tourism, and maximize positive impacts.Its decision making structure, administra-tive form and available resources, includ-

ing human, financial and intellectual capi-tal influence the effectiveness of an eco-tourism organization’s actions.

The Role of Ecotourism Organizations

There are many roles that ecotourism orga-nizations play in their efforts to make eco-tourism a viable tool for sustainabledevelopment. These roles include:

1. Research2. Regulation3. Development of standards (guidelines,codes of practice and certification)4. Industry/enterprise development, includ-ing promotion5. Lobbying and advocacy6. Education of consumers and professions(including the industry and other profes-sionals)7. Policy development and implementation8. Fundraising for communities and biodi-versity conservation9. Development of management tools andstrategies.

Ecotourism organizations have played amajor role in researching the viability ofecotourism as a sustainable developmenttool. Universities provide funding andfacilities for this research, and also func-tion as a forum for related debate.Government agencies also play a major rolein this effort. A good recent example of thisis the Canadian Tourism Commission’sefforts to document best practice withinthe Canadian ecotourism industry in thepublication Catalogue of Exemplary Practicesin Adventure Travel and Ecotourism(Wight, 1999), which will serve as a learn-ing tool for other ecotourism entrepre-neurs. Member and non-member NGOsplay a lesser role in research, largely due totheir limited budgets. Nevertheless, valu-able research is accomplished by theseorganizations, often tailored to meet thevery practical needs of the constituents,such as the recent documentation of theecolodge industry’s financial and economicstatus (Sanders and Halpenny, 2000).

Government ecotourism organizations

play the main role in regulation of develop-ment. For example, public sector agencies,such as Australia’s Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority, have a great impacton ecotourism activities through regulatoryoversight and enforcement of visitation toprotected areas. NGOs can also play a role,for example through the development ofguiding certification programmes, ensuringsafety and quality through regulations forecotourism guiding.

A precursor to certification is the estab-lishment of basic standards or guidelines.All ecotourism organizations have played arole in developing codes of conduct forecotourists. Industry membership NGOsalso often set their own codes of practice,guidelines tailored for their own activitiesor setting. Table 30.6 outlines the activitiesof select ecotourism associations regardingthe establishment of codes of conduct (fortourists), codes of practice (for industry)and ecotourism certification programmes.Government agencies have also played arole in establishing certification programmesin their own countries. Tourism Saskat-

chewan is currently working with ESS toaccomplish this. Australia and Costa Rica’snational governments have successfullycompleted the development of nationalecotourism certification or accreditationprogrammes.

A fourth important role played by eco-tourism organizations is the development ofan ecotourism industry. Ecotourism busi-nesses are often small and isolated, and lackthe financial capital to reach the market-place effectively, or to network with poten-tial partners. The example given earlier inthis chapter of the Canadian EcotourismProduct Club is one solution provided by apublic sector ecotourism organization.Another common problem is that eco-tourism entrepreneurs often lack the skillsnecessary to achieve a financially successfulbusiness (see Chapter 36). Non-memberNGOs such as Conservation Internationaland governmental agencies such as UNDPand GTZ try to address this issue throughtechnical assistance programmes. Non-member NGOs pursue similar goals by host-ing annual conferences at which the latest

494 E.A. Halpenny

Table 30.6. Ecotourism associations’ development of guidelines and certification programmes.

Code of Code of Guide CertificationOrganization conduct practice certification programme status

AWRTA (Alaska Wilderness Yes Yes Yes NoRecreation and TourismAssociation)

AMTAVE (Mexican Association None Yes Planning/pilotof Adventure Tourism and phaseEcotourism)

EAA (Ecotourism Association Yes Yes Complete/inof Australia) operation

TES (The Ecotourism Society) None Yes None NoneESOK (The Ecotourism Society Planning/pilot

of Kenya) phaseESS (Ecotourism Society of Yes Yes Planning/pilot

Saskatchewan) phaseFEA (Fiji Ecotourism Association) Planning

Georgia Greens Movement Yes No NoHEA (Hawaii Ecotourism No Yes Yes No

Association)JES (Japan Ecotourism Society) No No Planning

Swedish Ecotourism Association PlanningVETA (Virginia EcoTourism Yes Planning

Association)

best practice examples and trends can beshared, or through the publication of booksand newsletters. Membership NGOs alsoplay an active advocacy role. Small eco-tourism operators, as was described in theformation of AWRTA, are given a greatervoice through their membership association.The successful campaign led by TES in1993 to increase park fees in Costa Rica is aresults-oriented example of what member-ship NGOs can do to maximize the positiveimpacts of ecotourism (TES, 2000).

Ecotourism organizations also play arole in education; for example education ofconsumers by NGOs such as TES andTourism Concern. Education of profession-als is a role that all types of ecotourismorganizations have addressed. As alreadydiscussed, university and technical assis-tance programmes additionally increasethe pool of qualified labour available to theecotourism industry (see Chapter 40). Alsoof great importance is the education of pro-fessionals working in other sectors of theeconomy, including resource managers,media and policy makers. The education ofinternational policy makers through thedissemination of educational publicationson sustainable nature tourism by the UK’sDepartment of International Developmentand Germany’s BMZ at the United NationsCommittee on Sustainable Development(UNCSD) meeting in April 1999, is anexcellent example of government agenciestaking a leadership role in educating theircohort about the potential of ecotourism.The UNCSD April 1999 meeting was animportant United Nations event at whichmost national governments debated thenature and viability of sustainable tourism.Both publications (DFID, c. 1999; Steck etal., 1999) are written by government agen-cies for other policy makers, facilitating aneasy understanding of the subject matter.

This influence on policy is yet anotherimportant role played by ecotourism organi-zations. Again, all three types of ecotourismorganization are involved in this. An exam-ple comes from TES’s efforts in 1999 tofocus on the subject of ecotourism develop-ment policy. TES’s decision to focus on thesubject was based on its awareness that an

increased amount of financing was beingmade available from the international devel-opment community for ecotourism projectsin developing countries. In order to encour-age the wise investment of these funds, TESinvited the donor community (e.g. TheWorld Bank, InterAmerican DevelopmentBank) to meet with NGOs, government rep-resentatives from developing countries andecotourism entrepreneurs. The meeting wasdesigned to help each group understand theneeds and challenges of each other. It alsohighlighted success stories in ecotourisminvestment. The overall intention was tobegin to influence the way policy makers atdifferent donor institutions make decisionsabout investing in ecotourism.

Fundraising for community or environ-mental causes is another role that ecotourismorganizations play. At the international levelnon-member NGOs such as ConservationInternational devote significant time fund-raising for their own programme, which inturn provides funding for projects in bio-diverse developing countries. Other, morelocally based NGOs, may raise money for amooring buoy programme or park manage-ment.

A final role for ecotourism organizationsis the development and refinement of man-agement tools and strategies for ecotourismactivities. Certainly government agenciesdevote resources to developing methods forminimizing the impacts of visitors on com-munities and natural areas visited. NGOsalso play a role in this, as seen in ESS’sefforts to work with Tourism Saskatchewanand other provincial agencies to implementthe objectives outlined earlier in this chapter.An example of an international non-memberNGO’s efforts to manage visitors to parks andprotected areas can be seen in the publicationTourism at World Heritage Cultural Sites: theSite Manager’s Handbook (ICOMOS, 1993)published by the International Council onMonuments and Sites.

Conclusion

Ecotourism organizations play an impor-tant role in maximizing the positive

Ecotourism-related Organizations 495

impacts and minimizing the negativeimpacts associated with ecotourism. Theeffectiveness of ecotourism organizations isinfluenced by several factors, includingaccess to adequate resources, the context inwhich they operate, their internal struc-ture, and their official missions.

Regardless of these factors, ecotourismorganizations are bound to increase in num-ber in the coming years as ecotourismexpands worldwide. Additional effort should

therefore be made to document the strengthsand weaknesses of established ecotourismorganizations, using these lessons toimprove the operations of current organiza-tions, and lessen the difficulties experi-enced by new entries. The roles played byecotourism organizations, ranging from reg-ulation to fundraising, will continue to becritical in addressing the challenges associ-ated with making ecotourism a true tool forsustainable development.

496 E.A. Halpenny

References

Anon (1998) Ecotourism task force recommends. Proceedings of the First Saskatchewan EcotourismConference, 12–13 January 1998.

Anon (1999) New Grants. The Chronicle of Philanthropy 25 March, 19.CTC (1999) $1.5 Million SME Program Seeks Bids. Communique November 3(2), 1, 3.DFID (c. 1999) Changing the Nature of Tourism: Developing an Agenda for Action. Department for

International Development, London.EAA (1999a) Ecotourism Association of Australia Draft Business Plan, 2000–2001. Ecotourism

Association of Australia, Brisbane.EAA (1999b) Ecotourism News, Newsletter of the Ecotourism Association of Australia. Spring.Gruin, M. (1996) Recommendation and Strategy Plan for the Establishment and Implementation of

an International Partners Program for The Ecotourism Society, Review Draft. Greenpoint Ltd,Hershey, Pennsylvania.

GTZ (1997) Tourism and Conservation of Biological Resources: Ecotourism in Germany’s TechnicalCooperation with Developing and Transforming Countries. Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ), Germany.

Haep, R. (1999) Tourism Projects of German Development Cooperation on behalf of the FederalMinistry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). An unpublished paper preparedfor the Ecotourism Development Policy Meeting, Washington, DC, 24 September 1999.

ICOMOS (1993) Tourism at World Heritage Cultural Sites: the Site Manager’s Handbook. The ICO-MOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism.

Redberry Pelican Project (1999) The Redberry Pelican Project (Canada) Foundation. RedberryPelican Project, Hafford, Saskatchewan.

Sanders, E. and Halpenny, E.A. (2000) The Business of Ecolodges: a Survey of Ecolodge Economicand Finance. The International Ecotourism Society, Burlington, Vermont.

Sawailau, S. and Malani, M. (c. 1998) In: Harrison, D. (ed.) Ecotourism and Village-Based Tourism: aPolicy and Strategy for Fiji. Ministry of Tourism and Transportation, Suva, Fiji.

Schalken, W. (1999) Where are the wild ones? The involvement of indigenous communities intourism in Namibia. Cultural Survival Quarterly: World Report on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples and Ethnic Minorities 23(2), 40–42.

Steck, B., Strasdas, W. and Gustedt, E. (1999) Tourism in Technical Co-operation: a Guide to theConception, Planning and Implementation of Project-Accompanying Measures in RegionalRural Development and Nature Conservation. Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ), Germany.

TES (2000) TES Initiatives. The Ecotourism Explorer. The Ecotourism Society web sitehttp:www.ecotourism.org/inits.html

Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Wight (1999) Catalogue of Exemplary Practices in Adventure Travel and Ecotourism. Canadian

Tourism Commission, Ottawa, 86pp.

Chapter 31

Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context

J. CohenMarketing Department, Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, USA

Introduction

The basic concept underlying ecotourismis that tourism generates revenue that isused to conserve the ecology of an area thatattracts the tourists in the first place. Theconcept of ecotourism has been expandedin some cases to include not only ecologi-cal preservation but also cultural preserva-tion. Cultural issues will be considered inthis paper, but the focus will be on the morerestrictive definition favoured by Brandonand Margolius (1996), i.e. that the underly-ing goal of ecotourism is to preserve theecological environment (henceforth referredto simply as ‘the environment’). However,more than just the ecological environmentmust be of concern if ecotourism is to suc-ceed. As Brandon and Margolius (1996)point out, two of the requirements for suc-cessful ecotourism are that there must be an economic incentive for ecologicalpreservation and that ecotourism shouldprovide economic benefits to the local pop-ulation. Therefore, when discussing eco-tourism in an inter-sectoral context, bothecological and economic issues will beconsidered.

This chapter will discuss the three pri-mary aspects related to ecotourism in theinter-sectoral context, namely: (i) the inter-sectoral conflict in ecotourism (i.e. compat-

ible versus incompatible industry); (ii)intra- and inter-sectoral coalitions; and (iii)strategies for the intra- and inter-sectoralalliance to achieve sustainable ecotourism.

The Inter-sectoral Conflict inEcotourism: Compatible versus

Incompatible Industries

No industry operates in isolation. However,ecotourism is particularly sensitive to thepresence of other industries. The long-termviability of ecotourism depends on a pris-tine environment. Therefore, there is aninherent incentive for the ecotourismindustry to preserve the environment. Thisincentive is lacking in many other indus-tries, notably manufacturing/resource extrac-tion (henceforth noted as MRE) industries.Some resource extraction industries areinherently unsustainable, such as the min-ing and petroleum industries. Once theresource is depleted in a certain location, a new location must be found. Otherresource extraction industries are potentiallysustainable, e.g. timber and fishing. How-ever, the success of the industry does notnecessarily depend on sustainability in anyone area. If one location is depleted,another location can often be found. Whileone can argue that eventually the world’s

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 497

resources will be depleted, this is not avery convincing argument to an individualcompany that is concerned with its short-term profit picture. For resource extractionindustries, profits only depend on avail-ability of that resource to sell. Unless thecompany has decided to position itself asan ecologically responsible company, thereis no inherent incentive to protect the envi-ronment (although there may be externalfactors such as legal requirements, dis-cussed further below).

Even when the product itself is har-vested in a sustainable manner, the rest ofthe environment might be damaged. Forexample, a timber farm may be sustainablebut the process of felling trees destroys theflora and fauna in the area. For example,record timber harvesting is damagingsalmon streams in some areas (Van Dykand Gardner, 1990). The process used in asustainable industry may also create visualand noise pollution that is hostile not onlyto local wildlife but also to tourists.

For manufacturing industries, the inher-ent incentive to protect the environmentmay be even lower than for resourceextraction industries. First, manufacturingindustries can source their raw materialsfrom anywhere in the world. If an area’sresources have been depleted, suppliersfrom other areas are usually available.Second, the method of manufacturing,even if it is ecologically harmful, does notaffect the quality of the product (unless themanufacturer is positioning the product asa green product) (Cohen and Richardson,1995). In fact, the manufacturer might beable to make the product more competitiveby lowering costs, and therefore the price,by engaging in ecologically damaging activ-ities such as dumping chemicals.

MRE industries that damage the envi-ronment are obviously incompatible withecotourism. Ecotourism differs from MREindustries in that: (i) the customer must bebrought to the ecotourism site (= in situconsumption); and (ii) a relatively pristineenvironment is the primary productattribute that is being marketed. Therefore,there is an inherent incentive for thetourism industry to preserve the pristine

environment of the ecotourism site.However, from the MRE perspective, thepresence of tourists does not interfere withtheir operations, as long as those touristsand the tourism industry allow them tooperate. Therefore, conflict is inevitablebetween ecotourism and incompatibleindustries.

What industries are incompatible withecotourism? Many industries qualify, butthose that have been at the forefront of bat-tles over the environment include mining,the timber industry and ranching. Miningis inherently an unsustainable industry, aswell as often unsightly. The timber indus-try vies for woodlands that are likely to beattractive to a variety of flora and wildlife,and thus also to tourists. Ranchers alter ordestroy local habitat to provide grazing.They oppose the reintroduction of animalssuch as wolves which were previouslyexterminated because of attacks on live-stock (Herrick, 1995). Petroleum extractiondisrupts wildlife and the potential oilspills are deadly. While the Alaska pipe-line does not seem to have caused the eco-logical destruction many feared it would,environmentalists say that only half of theplanned development has taken place andthat destruction has been minimizedbecause of the pressure they have put onoil companies (Lamb, 1987).

While the types of incompatible indus-tries discussed above are easily identified asadversaries of ecotourism, a less obviousindustry that is incompatible with eco-tourism may be ecotourism itself.‘[E]cotourism can’t possibly become agrowth engine for the tourism industry andstay true to its environmental roots’(Terhune, 1997). The problem is that whenthere is a tourist attraction that is very desir-able, each hotelier (i.e. someone who pro-vides lodging) has an incentive to offer morespace in order to increase sales (TheEconomist, 1991). But the biggest threat tothe environment is the development of lodg-ing for tourists (Terhune, 1997). Lodgingdestroys habitat, as does the infrastructureneeded to support it. In the Caribbean, efflu-ent from hotels is destroying barrier coralreefs (The Economist, 1991).

498 J. Cohen

However, lodging is not the only prob-lem. Even if tourists lived in tents, theenvironment would be affected. In Nepal,firewood is being used up to provide heatfor tourists and to cook their food; defor-estation is the result (The Economist,1991). On the Gulf coast of Florida, diversand snorkellers are given the chance tointeract with manatees, which they oftenchase and harass (Terhune, 1997). Islandsare particularly fragile environments.‘“Tourism is the most destructive thing onany island,” according to J. Alan Gumbs,chairman of the Anguilla Tourist Board,’(Shattuck, 1997). The Galapagos Islands,which have had a large increase in tourists,have experienced trail erosion and litter.Other problems involve animals such asturtles, which mistake plastic bags for jelly-fish and die as a result. Tourists feed theanimals to the extent that the animalsbecome dependent on these handouts andwhen unavailable, cannot feed themselves(Roe et al., 1997). Additional negativeimpacts of wildlife tourism are reviewedby Roe et al. (1997). These include stresson animals, wildlife mortality, soil andvegetation damage, disturbance of wildlife,air pollution caused by vehicles, habitatdisturbance due to infrastructure develop-ment, removal of natural attractions (suchas molluscs) by souvenir collectors, intro-duction of diseases, and litter.

When the environment at an ecotourismsite becomes degraded, tourists can simplyfind a new destination. A study of repeatvisitors to the Florida Keys, USA, whichhas experienced steady development,showed that satisfaction with water qual-ity, amount of wildlife they could view,and the state of the parks and protectedareas decreased over a 5-year period(Terhune, 1997). In this way, uncontrolledecotourism is similar to strip mining; anarea is developed until the resources aredepleted, and then abandoned. The differ-ence is that in mining, the mining com-pany has other areas to mine. In the case ofecotourism, the tourist has other areas tovisit but the tourism industry in the aban-doned site is not easily relocated. Certainlysmall, local tourism marketers cannot

easily relocate. Even chains incur a largecost to shut down in one area and rebuildelsewhere.

Based on this analysis of incompatibleindustries, it is clear that the ecotourismindustry must have two goals in order tosurvive. First, the ecotourism industrymust prohibit incompatible industries fromsharing a potential or actual ecotourismsite. This may include preventing incom-patible industries from entering ecotourismsites (e.g. protected areas) or restricting theactivities of, or expelling completely,incompatible industries currently operat-ing at a potential ecotourism site. Second,the ecotourism industry must take actionsto ensure that it is not destroyed by its owngrowth. This raises the question as to whocan actually fight the battle against incom-patible industries. In the next section, theimportance of coalition building is dis-cussed.

The Intra- and Inter-sectoralCoalition in Ecotourism

Because of the small-scale, fragmentednature of the ecotourism industry, individ-ual ecotourism marketers will by them-selves not be economically or politicallypowerful enough to battle against incom-patible industries, which may be extremelylarge and well organized. Therefore,alliances must be formed in order todevelop a successful megamarketing strat-egy. Megamarketing has been defined byKotler (1986) as ‘the strategically coordin-ated application of economic, psychologi-cal, political and public relations skills togain the cooperation of a number of partiesin order to enter and/or operate in a mar-ket’ (p. 118). In this section, the megamar-keting strategy for forming alliances will bediscussed.

As with any marketing activity, theremust be value in exchange. Each memberof the ecotourism coalition must havesomething of value to offer the coalitionand must receive something of value inreturn. Cohen and Richardson (1995) iden-tify: (i) potential coalition members; (ii)

Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context 499

resources that they are able to contribute tothe coalition; and (iii) the goal of eachpotential member (i.e. the benefit whicheach member can expect to receive fromachieving the goal of sustainable eco-tourism). They also suggest strategies topromote the coalition to each potentialmember (Table 31.1). Two interrelated tar-get coalition member groups that merit par-ticularly close inspection are the localpopulation and compatible industries.Closer analysis of these groups will showthat they are interrelated.

As discussed at the beginning of thischapter, ecotourism must provide eco-nomic benefits to the local population.This is especially true in developing andless-developed countries, where the popu-lation is relatively immobile. Often this hasnot been the case (Roe et al., 1997). Also,Cater (1992) found, in countries such asBelize, that as much as 90% of tourismdevelopment was foreign owned and pro-vided little benefit to local residents. If eco-tourism does not provide an adequateeconomic base creating new employment

500 J. Cohen

Table 31.1. Coalition building in ecotourism stakeholder groups (adapted from Cohen and Richardson,1995).

Target coalitionmember Resources Goals Strategies

Members with economic goalsAs yet uninvolved Political clout; Sustain industry Stay mutually informed;

members of the perhaps money convince of self-interest;ecotourism industry power in numbers

Manufacturers of Money; Keep customer base Identify appropriateecotourism-related organizing customers companies; tie intoequipment/supplies customer base

Compatible industries Economic and Economic sustainability Stay mutually informed;political clout convince of self-interest,

power in numbersGovernmental and Official power; legal Economic sustainability Make case that

international bodies acumen; information; ecotourism isconcerned with possibly money economically viabledevelopment

Public policy officials Political power Get re-elected; career Lobby, testify, convincegoals within agency to take action

Members with economic and ecological goalsLocal population Political clout High quality of life Inform of potential

(including clean threats to theenvironment and healthy environment; convinceeconomy; perhaps and help developprotecting ancestral economically; getlands) involved politically

Members with ecological goalsTourists Money; potential Have site to visit Keep informed; if they

public support have clout, suggestwriting to politicians

Governmental and Official power; legal Ecological sustainability Make case that area issupragovt’l bodies acumen; information; specialconcerned with ecology possibly money

Ecological groups Expertise; information; Ecological sustainability Choose appropriatelobbying relationships; group, depending ongrass-roots ties in area site

opportunities, the poor and landless peo-ple will be forced to continue to engage incattle ranching, slash-and-burn agriculture,and the killing of animals for food (Hively,1990). Instead of these practices, eco-tourism could provide jobs such as manag-ing or working in small restaurants, drivingtourists from their lodgings to and/orthrough the ecotourism site, or engaging insustainable agriculture. For example, inGuatemala, palm fronds are sustainablyharvested for the floral industry in a 2 mil-lion acres reserve, which is protected inpart by money donated by The NatureConservancy (Hively, 1990).

Another example of successful eco-tourism in Guatemala is Eco-Escuela,which was opened in 1993 by Conserva-tion International. Tourists come to studySpanish and local ecology (Tanner, 1998).The local population, instead of cuttingdown the rainforest for farms and firewood,are now engaged in supporting the school.Local people are employed as teachers.Families provide room and board. Onewoman, who owns one of the three tele-phones in town, charges US$1 to makecredit card calls and at night turns hercourtyard into a cantina. Other people sellfood, do laundry, act as tour guides, andrent motorized canoes. One woman buysbedding in bulk to sell to host families.Eco-Escuela was turned over to the localcommunity in 1996 and is now run by acooperative of teachers, host families andadministrators.

These examples are in sharp contrast tosome other ecotourism sites. For example,in the Arctic, while local tour operators arepresent, there are also non-local companiesthat employ transient workers and repatri-ate their profits (Price, 1994). There is ahigher probability that the profits of eco-tourism will benefit the local populationwhen growth is limited by public policy.The potential for large profit not onlyattracts large, non-local companies whothen repatriate profits, but also ultimatelydestroys ecotourism. St Martin/St Maarten,in The Netherlands Antilles, was an idyllicisland until the introduction of casino andhotel development. Now, the island experi-

ences chronic pollution and social prob-lems. This contrasts with the island ofAnguilla, which still has unspoiledbeaches and clean waters. To date, theyhave not overbuilt, and only cruise shipswith a maximum capacity of 200 peopleare allowed to dock there (Shattuck, 1997).

Compatible industries must also employthe local population. For example, in addi-tion to establishing Eco-Escuela inGuatemala, Conservation Internationalassisted local people to start other busi-nesses in the region, including those thatmanufacture pot-pourri, spices and cos-metic oils using non-endangered jungleplants. This gives the local population fur-ther incentive to preserve the rainforest(Tanner, 1998). In Algarve, Portugal, thetourist season is July and August. The restof the year, the local population engages infarming and fishing (Lambert, 1999).

Sometimes, however, industries thatseem completely compatible are in factcompatible with respect to resource use butnot with respect to time use. Some fragileecological areas, such as deserts, mountainsand arctic areas, have climatic extremes atcertain times of year, so tourism is limitedto those time periods when the climate ismore temperate. However, these times arealso the prime agricultural, herding orhunting seasons. In these areas, traditional,compatible industries may be neglected andlocal people may start to depend on outsidesources of income, whereas they were onceself-sufficient. For example, in Nepal, malefarmers can make more money from being aporter for a few weeks than working theirfields for a whole year, so they leave theirwives in charge of their farms. In someareas this has led to a decline in agricul-tural output, resulting in the need to importrice and other basic foods. Similarly, in arc-tic and desert societies, the prime huntingand gathering seasons are also the touristseasons. People do not have time to collecttheir own food, and therefore depend onimports. If the tourists stop coming, thelocal people may eventually forget their tra-ditional ways to gather food along withother aspects of their cultural heritage(Price, 1994).

Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context 501

While it is true that tourists can befickle, and uncontrolled growth of eco-tourism can be self-destructive, one shouldnot overly romanticize traditional agricul-ture-based economies. Self-sufficiency doesoccur during good years, but the usualresult is famine when output is lean. Formost areas, the important issue then is eco-nomic diversity. Ecotourism can be onlyone component of a diverse economy.Sometimes the added presence of touristscan promote diversity. For example, inLadakh in Kashmir, the presence of touristshas led to a wider range of vegetables beinggrown and thus more diversification in diet(Price, 1994).

Economic diversification is also impor-tant in industrialized areas. Van Dyk andGardner (1990) point out that the timberindustry, which is usually incompatiblewith ecotourism, is constantly warning thattourism is an unstable industry. In reality,it is the timber industry that has beenexperiencing steady job loss. Van Dyk andGardner (1990) suggest that compatibleindustries for ecologically sensitivetourism include the electronics, aerospace,software and health-care industries.

Ecotourism needs to offer more than thepromise of jobs for local people. Brandonand Margolius (1996) note that there is animplicit assumption among ecotourismadvocates that ecotourism offers a competi-tive advantage over other potential income-earning opportunities. This, however, isnot necessarily the case. Ecotourism cannotsimply substitute one form of undesirableemployment for another. In a dialoguehosted by the UN Commission onSustainable Development (M2 Presswire,1999), a trade union representative pointedout that workers in the tourism industryare often employed in substandard condi-tions. Furthermore, quality-of-life issuesmust be addressed. In developing coun-tries, the designation of areas as protectedhas prevented local people from using theland for traditional uses such as gatheringwood and using local plants for food andmedicine (Leader-Williams et al., 1990). Dopeople in these societies really want toreplace their traditional lifestyles by sup-

porting themselves with jobs as servants toforeigners? Even if they have jobs that donot result in direct contact with tourists,tourists can behave in ways which areunacceptable to local populations; forexample, by using non-traditional huntingweapons (Talarico, 1989).

Ultimately, power must be given to thelocal population regarding the fate of theirarea. Without their cooperation, no coali-tion of outsiders will succeed in establish-ing ecotourism into an area. Brandon(1993) suggests several strategies to gener-ate local support for ecotourism. Theseinclude:

• empowering local people in planningand decision making;

• making clear that the benefits fromtourism come from protecting the envi-ronment;

• distributing benefits to many local people,not just a few;

• working with local community leaders;and

• recognizing that each site needs its ownspecific strategy.

Public policy officials

Coalition members with economic goalsneed to be convinced, if they are notalready, that ‘small is beautiful’. The onlyway for ecotourism to succeed in the longrun is to enforce limits to growth. Becauseself-regulation is difficult in this area, pub-lic policy ultimately needs to be employed(see Chapter 32). Although public policy isnot a panacea, one can argue that publicpolicy officials are ultimately the mostimportant group in this segment of thecoalition. Specific strategies to draw publicpolicy makers into the coalition aredescribed further below.

Among those potential coalition groupswhose goal is ecological, tourists are per-haps the most difficult to both recruit andmaintain. Some tourists may have a long-term relationship with and love for a cer-tain ecological area. For example, somepeople have a special relationship with the

502 J. Cohen

New Jersey, USA, seashore because theyhave been visiting it since they were chil-dren. However, this is not the case formany ecotourists, who have a world full ofpotential locations to visit. If one areabecomes unpleasant, they can find another.The best way to make this type of eco-tourist feel loyal to an area is to ensure thattheir experiences meet their expectation,i.e. before the ecotourist area begins todegrade. When ecotourists do feel loyalenough to a specific area to fight for it, theycan be useful allies. They are a well-edu-cated group, generally with at least 4 yearsof further education (Terhune, 1997;source: Ecotourism Society). As such, theycan be articulate spokespersons.

Environmental groups

Ecological groups should be chosen for thecoalition based on their area of primaryinterest. For example, ecotourism areas byseashores would be the bailiwick of groupssuch as the American Littoral Society.Different ecological groups can work witheach other to form an even stronger coali-tion (Hertzog, 1985). Governmental andsupra-governmental groups concerned withecology are extremely important as publicpolicy makers. As with public policy mak-ers concerned with economic goals, theyare an important part of the coalition butalso must be an important target for mega-marketing strategies to bring into the coali-tion.

Strategies for the Intra- and Inter-sectoral Alliance to Achieve

Sustainable Ecotourism

A variety of strategies have been used to tryto prohibit or dislodge incompatible indus-tries from an area to ensure the viability ofan ecotourism site. One of the most com-mon types of strategy is to influence publicpolicy. Traditional strategies for influenc-ing public policy are discussed in this sec-tion. Additionally, groups concerned aboutthe ecology of an area have been creating

other, innovative strategies, as examinedbelow.

Influencing Public Policy

Lobbying

One venerable method for attempting toinfluence public policy is lobbying. Forexample, in the USA a coalition of severalecological and Native American groups istrying to make Hell’s Canyon in Hell’sCanyon National Recreation Area muchless accessible to tourists (Bernton, 1998).While the US Forest Service originallyrejected the plan presented to them by thisgroup, lobbyists in Washington pressuredthem to review and develop a new plan.Lobbying was also one of many traditionalmethods used to try to prevent MacMillanBloedel, a giant timber company, from cut-ting the ancient rainforest in ClayoquotSound, in western Canada (Bossin, 1999).

Petitions

On a more grass-roots level, petitioningpublic policy makers can be effective. Forexample, a coalition of environmentalgroups was able to stop development in theWillmore Wilderness area in Canada bycollecting 65,000 names on a petition andpresenting it to the government (Hertzog,1985). Petitions may be even more effectivethan lobbying, because they let lawmakersknow that the public in general (whichincludes voters) is concerned about devel-opment, rather than just a few specialinterest groups.

The process of collecting names for apetition can be efficient and effective withmodern marketing methods. The importantthing to remember is that people are morelikely to engage in a target behaviour if it iseasy and quick to do. Door-to-door or othertypes of personal canvassing are oneoption, although it means the potentialpetitioner may be interrupted at an incon-venient time. Other methods may be moreviable. Petitioners can be mailed postcards

Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context 503

that they simply need to sign, stamp andpost to their local public policy maker.Even more efficient and cost-effective is theuse of the Internet. Petitioners can be givena form, through email, to send to their localpublic policy maker. There is no need for astamp or even a mailbox.

Lawsuits

When laws exist to protect the whole orone aspect of an ecological area, the coali-tion can use these laws to prevent incom-patible industries from operating in thearea. For example, in the USA theEndangered Species Act can be used ifoperations such as logging will destroyhabitat or disturb the nesting sites of cer-tain species. The most famous case is per-haps that of the spotted owl in north-westUSA. Unfortunately, sometimes the word-ing of a law is not clear. For example, a1975 US congressional act was supposed toprotect Hell’s Canyon National RecreationArea. The act says that management of thearea should be compatible with protectingwilderness, fish, wildlife and its uniqueecosystem. However, the act also recog-nizes ‘ranching, grazing, farming, timberharvesting and the occupation of homesand lands’ (Bernton, 1998), so the intentionof the lawmakers is not clear and it couldbe difficult to invoke this act in a lawsuit.

Robert Reich, former US Secretary ofLabor, feels that lawsuits are becomingmore important than enacting laws to try toregulate industry (Reich, 1999). However,he points out that lawsuits are not as effi-cient as laws. Judges do not have the exper-tise in the issues that they deal with; incontrast, regulatory agencies specialize inan area. Nonetheless, the age of big govern-ment is over. Furthermore, Reich says, theclose ties between politicians and largecompanies lower the probability thatpoliticians will pass regulations that com-panies do not want. Therefore, fewer lawswill be enacted and the courtroom will bethe arena in which to curb activities ofbusinesses that are harmful to a variety ofstakeholder groups.

Public relations campaigns

Public relations campaigns can be used, orthe threat of them can be used, to try toprevent incompatible industries from dam-aging ecological areas. The above-men-tioned coalition of ecological groups andNative Americans used many strategies totry to save the ancient rainforests ofClayoquot Sound from logging. One strat-egy was to threaten Pacific Bell with a pub-lic relations campaign that would informits customers that its telephone books weremade from 1000-year-old trees (Bossin,1999).

Civil disobedience

The coalition fighting to save ClayoquotSound also engaged in civil disobedience.Ten thousand protesters tried blockadingthe road into Clayoquot. The result was900 arrests (Bossin, 1999). While such actsof civil disobedience are not likely to elim-inate incompatible industries from the tar-get area, they can certainly alert potentialcoalition members to the issues at stake.However, civil disobedience may alsoalienate some potential coalition memberswho feel that the behaviour is too extreme.

In all of the above strategies, members ofthe ecotourism coalition take an adversar-ial stance toward incompatible industries.The goal is to subdue or conquer. However,there are other strategies that are morelikely to result in a win–win situation forall parties. These strategies may not all beembraced by all members of the ecotourismcoalition, however.

Quid pro quo

Sometimes an agreement can be made withan incompatible industry to allow it tooperate or expand in one area in exchangefor keeping another area pristine. Forexample, the Irvine Company, which ownsFashion Island Mall, in Newport, Cali-fornia, wanted to expand its mall but was

504 J. Cohen

being opposed by a group called StopPolluting Our Newport (SPON). SPONwithdrew its opposition in return for theIrvine Company agreeing to turn some ofthe rest of its 400 acres of Newport landinto a park. The environmental groupsinvolved want to keep the area as undevel-oped as possible, with just trails and aneducation centre (Landman, 1988).

The quid pro quo approach is notalways acceptable to some members of eco-tourism coalitions. For example, ecologicalgroups are protesting a plan by the NaturalResources Ministry in Ontario, Canada, touse publicly owned parks and protectedareas for forestry, mining, tourism, fishingand hunting. The provincial governmenthas declared that mining companies willbe allowed to operate in such areas if asubstantial potential for mining activitycan be demonstrated. The government willthen change the boundaries of the park andcreate a new protected area with the min-ing company which has the same size andequivalent ecological value (McAndrew,1999).

Similarly, in Moosehead Lake (Maine,USA), a plan has been developed by papercompanies, a local advisory group and theState Planning Office to deal with the rapiddevelopment that has taken place in thepast decade. The plan would maintain 160km of the eastern shore in a pristine condi-tion, while allowing development on thewestern shore. Paper companies, whichown half of the land on the 370 km shore-line, would be able to sell developmentrights for land they own on the eastern sideto those on the western shore. The plan isbeing opposed by local companies such asreal estate developers, who say the law istoo restrictive (Chamberlain, 1990).

Forming alliances with incompatibleindustries

Bossin (1999) describes an unlikelyalliance in Canada between the giant tim-ber company MacMillan Bloedel, ecologi-cal groups such as Greenpeace and SierraClub, and Clayoquot Native Americans

regarding logging rights in the ancient rain-forest of Clayoquot Sound. After a 20-yearbattle which included traditional adversar-ial approaches, MacMillan Bloedel is join-ing with Native Americans to form acompany, ‘Lissaak’, which means ‘respect’in the local Native American language.MacMillan Bloedel is asking the Canadiangovernment to transfer its cutting rights tothis company. The company will decidewhich timber can be cut in a way thatwould make the forest ecologically sustain-able. The timber will have a new eco-certification, the ‘green stamp’, which willbe actively marketed by Greenpeace.

Even ranchers can be part of the solu-tion rather than the problem. Jack Turnell,a rancher in Wyoming, has changed hisoperating practices to avoid the traditionaldamage associated with ranching due toovergrazing, erosion of stream banks anddepletion of water supplies. Instead, prac-tices include rotating pastures, minimizingthe use of fertilizers and pesticides, andcrossing cattle with breeds that do not con-gregate around water. As a result, riversand streams are lined with plants whichprovide habitat for a wide variety ofwildlife, including antelope, deer, moose,elk, bear and mountain lions (Kenworthy,1992). By making the incompatible indus-try part of the alliance, all parties benefit.Those concerned with the ecological envi-ronment will have a protected area that issuitable for ecotourism. The incompatibleindustry will be able to operate in the dis-puted area, although in a controlled man-ner. This still offers more value to theincompatible industry than spending mil-lions of dollars to fight opposition groups,as MacMillan Bloedel had done over thelast 20 years (Bossin, 1999). Ecologicallysupportive practices can themselves bemore profitable than traditional practices.Rancher Turnell’s profit has increasedbecause better quality grasses make his cat-tle grow larger (Kenworthy, 1992).

Not all incompatible industries arepotential partners for ecotourism. Forexample, except for the traditional low-technology method of panning for gold, itwould be hard to conceive of a mining

Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context 505

process which does not create visual andnoise pollution and which does not dam-age the ecological environment.

Private ownership of ecotourism site

An ecological site can be secured for eco-tourism use through private sector owner-ship. This is most likely to occur indeveloping countries where governmentsdo not have the funds to manage a site(Hively, 1990; Roe et al., 1997). For exam-ple, two tourist safari companies havedeveloped projects with local communitiesin northern Tanzania. The marketers offerlow volume, low impact ecotourism. Theonly infrastructure developed consists ofaccess tracks and campsites. Local commu-nities receive annual payments and otherfees. Villagers are allowed to use the areasfor seasonal grazing. Incompatible indus-tries are prohibited on the contractedlands, including agriculture, permanentsettlements, charcoal production, huntingand live bird capture (Dorobo Tours andSafaris and Oliver’s Camp, 1996). If totalownership is not a viable option, membersof the ecotourism coalition can financiallyhelp governments to manage a site. Forexample, The Nature Conservancy donatesmoney to Latin American and Caribbeancountries to help protect parks (Hively,1990).

Private ownership of ecotourism sites iscertainly a viable option (see Chapter 19).However, agreements must be carefullydrawn. Contracts should stipulate the levelof development allowed. Contracts shouldalso ensure that the site retains its biodi-versity. For example, predator animalsshould not be killed in order to providemore prey animals for tourists to photo-graph or hunt, as the US government oncedid in Yellowstone (Chase, 1987). Once thenatural ecological order is disrupted, a rip-

ple effect occurs and the ecological systemis further upset.

Summary and Conclusions

For ecotourism to succeed, it must operatein an area free from industries that disturbthe ecological environment that attractstourists. These incompatible industriesinclude many manufacturing and resourceextraction industries. However, incompati-ble industries also include more developedforms of tourism. In order to ensure thatsuch incompatible industries are restrictedfrom the ecotourism site, coalitions mustbe formed with other interested partieswho have ecological and/or economicinterests in an ecologically pristine area.Coalitions are necessary to achieve thepolitical and economic power necessary todeal with incompatible industries, many ofwhom include large, powerful corpora-tions. Coalitions should be created byusing a marketing strategy which offerssomething of value (economic or ecologi-cal) to each coalition member. In return,the coalition receives resources (includingfinancial, expert, grass-roots ties, lobbyingpower, etc.).

The ecotourism coalition has manystrategies to choose from when trying toprohibit incompatible industries fromoperating in an ecotourism site. In the past,most strategies were adversarial. Today,some coalitions are recognizing that incom-patible industries may sometimes be madeto be compatible with ecotourism, and areforming alliances with their former adver-saries. Given the broad spectrum of ideolo-gies in the ecotourism coalition, however,‘selling’ the idea of working with a formeradversary may be as hard as converting theadversary to an ally. Herein may lie thegreatest challenge to ecotourists.

506 J. Cohen

References

Bernton, H. (1998) Competing visions collide over Hells Canyon. Sunrise 20 December 20, D1.Bossin, B. (1999) Lissaak. The Globe and Mail 22 May, D2.Brandon, K. (1993) Basic steps toward encouraging local participation in nature tourism projects. In:

Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. TheEcotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 134–151.

Brandon, K. and Margolius, R. (1996) Structuring ecotourism success: framework for analysis. Paperpresented at The Ecotourism equation: Measuring the Impacts, International Society of TropicalForesters Yale University, 12–14 April 1996, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. http://www.Ecotourism.org/tessrsfr.html

Cater, E. (1992) Profits from paradise. Geographical Magazine 64(3), 15–21.Chamberlain, T. (1990) A battle for the heart and soul of Maine. The Boston Globe 26 October, 44.Chase, A. (1987) Playing God in Yellowstone. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Orlando, Florida.Cohen, J. and Richardson, J. (1995) Nature tourism vs. incompatible industries: megamarketing the

ecological environment to ensure the economic future of nature tourism. Journal of Travel andTourism Marketing 4(2), 107–116.

Dorobo Tours and Safaris and Oliver’s Camp (1996) Potential models for community-based conserva-tion among pastoral communities adjacent to protected areas in Northern Tanzania. In: Leader-Williams, N., Kayera, J.A. and Overton, G.L. (eds) Community-Based Conservation in Tanzania.World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland, pp. 101–107.

The Economist (1991) How to strangle your children. 23 May, 15–17.Herrick, T. (1995) Lobo plan has ranchers up in arms: wildlife agents want to reintroduce wolves.

Houston Chronicle 20 August, 1.Hertzog, S. (1985) Fight brews on land use in Alberta. The Globe and Mail 5 January, 8.Hively, S. (1990) The tropics – imperiled plots. The Plain Dealer Cleveland, 5 October.Kenworthy, T. (1992) The lesson of the black-footed ferret: grazing and conservation compatible,

preaches Wyoming Cattleman. The Washington Post 2 August, a10.Kotler, P. (1986) Megamarketing. Harvard Business Review 64 (March/April), 117–124.Lamb, D. (1987) Concerns linger even as Alaska Pipeline becomes routine. Los Angeles Times

(11/24), 16.Lambert, S. (1999) Found: the secret Algarve. Associated Newspapers Ltd 22 May, 58.Landman, R. (1988) Regional park may come true: Upper Newport Bay land being considered again.

The Orange Country Register 28 January, 1.Leader-Williams, N., Harrison, J. and Green, M.J.B. (1990) Designing protected areas to conserve nat-

ural resources. Science Progress 74, 189–204.M2 Presswire (1999) UN: promotion of sustainable practices in tourism industry focus of Sustainable

Development Commission. M2 Communications 20 April.McAndrew, B. (1999) Green group sees red over mining in parks – says province duped them in

land-use accord. The Toronto Star 23 May, 1.Price, M. (1994) A fragile balance. Geographical Magazine 66(9), 32–33.Reich, R.B. (1999) Regulation is out, litigation is in. Newsweek 11 February, 15A.Roe, D., Leader-Wiliams, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997) Take Only Photographs, Leave only

Footprints: the Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. IIED Wildlife and DevelopmentSeries No. 10. http://www.Ecotourism.org/tessrsfr.html

Shattuck, H. (1997) Caribbean in transition: what price tourism? Islands are taking diverseapproaches. Houston Chronicle 18 May, 1.

Talarico, D. (1989) Wildlife Viewing Tourism on the Yukon North Slope: Considerations Relevant toAklavik, Northwest Territories. Report to the Fish and Wildlife Branch, Department ofRenewable Resources, Government of Yukon, Canada.

Tanner, J. (1998) Where ecotourism may save a jungle. Business Week 16 January, 38J.Terhune, C. (1997) Rise of ecotourism sparks fears of more runaway development. Wall Street

Journal: Florida Journal 12 March, Florida.Van Dyk, R. and Gardner, M. (1990) A skeptical view of timber industry’s concern for jobs. The

Seattle Times 12 September, A11.

Ecotourism in the Inter-sectoral Context 507

Chapter 32

The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policyand Planning

S. ParkerDepartment of Political Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Introduction

Unlike most of the other entries in this vol-ume, this chapter is not designed to dis-cuss some specific aspect of ecotourism orprotected-area management. Instead, itsfunction is to focus on the public policyand planning context within which thesetwo operate. In so doing, numerous govern-mental programmes, functions and condi-tions which are external to ecotourism butthat have some significant effect upon it,are examined. How ecotourism’s impact onthis sector differs from the impact on massor traditional tourism is also assessed.

Ecotourism is an activity carried onwithin a set of social and physical condi-tions that are heavily influenced by govern-mental decision making. Those that will bediscussed below include politics, security,infrastructure, dependency, fiscal policy,and financial incentives and measuresdesigned to deal with problems of depen-dency. The latter element is includedbecause most of this article’s analysis dealswith ecotourism in the world’s less-developed countries (LDCs). While manydifferent LDC policy areas will beanalysed, the one that is perhaps the mostsignificant will be avoided: the connectionbetween ecotourism and rural develop-ment. That subject is excluded here since it

is presented elsewhere in this encyclo-pedia (see Chapter 27).

Politics and Administration

The way in which a government organizesfor managing its ecotourism and protected-area activities has a substantial impact onhow these functions can be carried out.Typically they are vested in a Departmentof Agriculture or Forestry, as in Ecuador,Indonesia and Tanzania. When submergedin this way, within a larger whole, theireffectiveness is inevitably compromised. InCosta Rica, for example, responsibility fornational parks is given to the Ministry ofNatural Resources, Energy and Mines. Theplacement of a conservation unit so unam-biguously within an organization whosemain goal is mineral exploitation lessensthat unit’s organizational strength.

Ecotourism and protected area manage-ment are also affected by the policies andoperations of numerous other governmentagencies whose primary missions deal withdifferent functions (Richter, 1980) andwhose main loyalties are thus found else-where. Departments of public works, trans-portation, environment, immigration andcustoms, cultural affairs, investment, edu-cation and planning all set policies that

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 509

impact ecotourism. This fragmentation, inturn, makes leadership and policy coordi-nation extremely difficult.

In addition to these multipurpose min-istries are those that are in direct competi-tion with ecotourism: agriculture, fisheries,forestry, mining and energy. In most of thedeveloping world these agencies serve asgovernmental advocates for countries’ pri-mary industries, and because of this factthey normally enjoy more political powerin national capitals (Hall, 1994). Agenciesin charge of tourism and protected areamanagement tend, in contrast, to be politi-cally weak and less effective in advancingtheir agendas (Wells and Brandon, 1993).This is partially because their constituen-cies are weak (Greffe, 1994; McNeely, 1995)and less likely to be supported by the localpopulation.

Similarly, the industry fragmentationthat is so widespread in traditional tourism(Elliott, 1983) is amplified in the case ofecotourism because of its close ties withlocal units of government and councils ofindigenous peoples. The need for coordina-tion in such decentralized situations hasgiven rise to a call for the creation of advi-sory and coordinating committees in majorecotourism countries (Boo, 1990). Such anapproach has been tried in Australiawhere, for example, a Consultative Com-mittee brings together major stakeholdersfrom both the public and private sectors toadvise the government on policy relating tothe Great Barrier Reef. It has been able todo this in an effective manner because itsmembers include representatives from con-servation organizations, fishery and agri-cultural associations, councils of Aboriginalelders, marine park tourism operators andseveral levels of government.

Ordinarily, however, it is extremely dif-ficult for such bodies to demonstrate initia-tive and operate efficiently. As de Kadt(1992) has pointed out, officials working inpublic agencies that exist to serve commer-cial clientele groups such as fisheries canexpect few rewards for cooperating withoutsiders interested in tourism policy. Thewould-be collaborators have different train-ing, different loyalties, different interpreta-

tions of the public interest and differentdiagnoses of the resource problem, in addi-tion to having different masters to serve. Afurther example of how such dynamics cancreate critical problems concerns the rela-tionship between tourism and immigrationagencies. The latter have border protectionand visitor regulation as their primaryraisons d’être and have therefore fre-quently been unwilling to facilitate touristmovement. We might hypothesize that theintensity of this problem is ordinarilyrelated to such factors as a country’s levelof political stability, its history of xeno-phobia and its need for foreign exchangeearnings.

Frequently, the identities of these ‘differ-ent masters’ are determined by a country’sown political dynamics and can have anenormous impact on the industry. InThailand, for example, the practice of allo-cating ministries to different political par-ties has meant a very inconsistentapplication of tourism policy (Elliott, 1987).When the Tourism Authority is managed byone political party, and the NaturalResources ministry by another, each canpursue its own goals, ignoring calls forcooperation, with no fear of recrimination.Such a situation is exacerbated when thestronger departments like Fisheries andAgriculture are given to one of the domi-nant political parties in a coalition whilethe weaker Tourism or Environment portfo-lios are entrusted to a minor party.

In many LDCs, the military is anothergovernmental institution becoming increas-ingly involved with ecotourism andresource management (D’Souza, 1995).Sometimes the reason for this cooperationrests on the simple fact that the militarycan provide a source of readily availablemanpower. In Jordan, for example, specialunits of army conscripts are used to assistin conservation programmes while Venezuelarelies on its armed forces to assist with var-ious programmes designed to combatdeforestation. Other policy explanationshave to do with the availability of skillsand the access to needed technology. Acase in point is Ecuador, which uses mili-tary aircraft to transport tourists 640 km

510 S. Parker

from the coast to the Galapagos Islands. Italso relies on naval patrol craft to stem thetide of unlicensed boats bringing sightseersto the area. Mexico utilizes Naval person-nel in a similar way to regulate divetourism at its Revillagigedos Islands 320km from shore in the Pacific. Applicationssuch as this are primarily related to a coun-try’s efforts to control smuggling or estab-lish a claim of sovereignty over distantpossessions, but they have a secondaryimpact on ecotourism since they become ameans to regulate it.

Because wildlife conservation is such anintegral part of resource management,another military application involves theuse of anti-poaching patrols (Pleumarom,1994). Tanzania relies heavily on the armyfor this purpose and in Nepal the militaryprovides a guard force for The RoyalChitwan National Park. Perhaps the mostintense use of the armed forces for this pur-pose occurs in Kenya where poachers fromneighbouring Somalia cross the border tohunt elephants. Because movement acrossthe frontier is so easy, Kenyan park rangersare frequently assisted by regular army per-sonnel who plan strategic actions againstthese bands much as they would against asmall invading force whose purpose waspolitical rather than criminal and commer-cial.

Security

Security is one of the most fundamentalroles for the military. This is a policy andplanning area of central importancebecause a government unable to protect itsvisitors will quickly lose them. With tradi-tional tourism, security ordinarily entailsresponsibilities like protecting people frompickpockets or burglars. In many LDCs,however, the nature of the task is muchbroader because it can involve issues ofpolitical instability, violence and insurrec-tion. A nation in the throes of civil strife isa dangerous place, and tourism isextremely vulnerable to such disruptions.For example, ethnic violence in Sri Lankain the 1980s halved that country’s number

of tourist arrivals, while Guatemala’s civilwar cut tourism from half a million visitorsin 1979 to less than 200,000 in 1984(Lindberg, 1991). Furthermore, it must beremembered that ecotourism venues areusually far afield and likely to be located indifficult terrain. For these reasons, they areharder to defend and secure than urbanareas or resorts. By the very nature of theiractivity, it is ecotourists, rather than anyother type, who are most likely to comeinto contact with armed dissidents.

Many destination countries have onlyrecently achieved independence and theytend to be geographically defined by inter-national boundaries that were drawn gen-erations ago by occupying colonial powers.For this reason they often include numer-ous ethnic and religious groups that havebeen traditional enemies but have neverhad to coexist before under a single regimeadministered by just one ethnic group.Such situations make these countries espe-cially vulnerable to the problems of seces-sion and civil war, due to these samerivalries. Traditional tribal enemies, theHutus and Tutsis killed tens of thousandsof people as they fought for dominance inRwanda during the early 1990s. In theprocess, places like the Parc National desVolcans were decimated. Habitat and infra-structure were destroyed; the flow oftourists dried up and the number of touroperators in that particular park declinedfrom fifteen to one between 1990 and 1993(Shackley, 1995).

A similar decline occurred in the wakeof Fiji’s 2000 military coup, an eventsparked by a power struggle betweennative Fijians and those of Indian descent.Not only did visitation fall by 90% in themonths immediately after the coup, but theavailability of investment funds evaporatedas well. Two coup attempts in Dominica in1981 had the same predictable conse-quences (Weaver, 1991), and even after thecivil war in Mozambique had come to anend in 1992, the government’s decision toauthorize a large ecotourism projectinstead of a pulp mill was based on linger-ing postwar considerations (Massinga,1996).

The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policy and Planning 511

The 1999 kidnapping and murder ofeight Westerners on a gorilla-watchingexpedition in Uganda is merely one of thebest-known illustrations of the problem ofpolitical violence. In that case an ethniccivil war in neighbouring Rwanda spilledover into Uganda and targeted British andAmerican tourists because their govern-ments, along with Uganda, had given aid tothe new Rwandan regime. One of therebels’ goals was to punish Uganda by dis-rupting its tourism industry. Their logicheld that if tourists feared for their lives,then they would not visit the country. This,in turn, would cause commercial hardshipand a consequent loss of tax revenues forthe hated government. All of these thingsdid, in fact, happen because ecotourismcould be targeted so easily.

Similarly, the terrorist bombings of USembassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998had a devastating effect on the wildlifetourism industry in those two countries.The incidents stemmed partially from theinability of local officials to guarantee thesafety, not of tourists, but of the embassiesthemselves. In this case tourists specifi-cally were not targeted, but the effect onthe industry was the same. Thus, again wecan see clearly how issues and policies thatare only collateral to ecotourism can have amajor impact upon this sector.

In what was only a slight variation onthis theme, Ecuadorian fishermen stormedthe Charles Darwin Research Station in theGalapagos Islands in 1995. Wielding clubsand machetes, they blockaded the adminis-trative headquarters to protest a govern-ment fishing moratorium. It was thevulnerability of nature tourism that ulti-mately caused the government and theworld to pay attention to their demands.Similarly, when Palestinian extremistsattacked a major tourism site in Luxor,Egypt in 1996, their goal was to use theevent to publicize their grievances againstthe Egyptian regime. Such grievances werealready well known, but the notoriety ofthe event put them back near the top of theinternational agenda.

The ability to protect visitors from phys-ical violence is a sine qua non for destina-

tion governments, but the maintenance ofpolitical stability (the absence of unpre-dictable changes in government) is almostas important. Widely regarded as one of themost stable LDCs in the Western hemi-sphere, Costa Rica has been able to offerinvestors a sense of certainty and securitythat has been a major factor in its rise topre-eminence as an ecotourism destination(Weaver, 1994). In contrast, neighbouringGuatemala and Nicaragua have beendeemed much less stable and thus develop-mental funds have not been as readilyavailable. It is not a coincidence that bothare still recovering from recent civil wars.

Infrastructure

Government infrastructure policy concernsthe planning, financing and construction ofprojects ranging from airports and utilitiesto roadways and housing. Such publicworks are of vital importance to all types oftourism, but perhaps less so to ecotourismthan to other types. This is the casebecause mass tourism utilizes much greateramounts of natural energy sources, andrecycling and low-impact activities requireless capital construction, to mention just afew of the reasons. Of course it is true thatecotourism must rely on certain types ofstandard infrastructure to provide serviceslike visitor transportation and access, yetordinarily the scale required is far moremodest.

Together, the projects that deliver suchservices comprise a significant part of thephysical context within which the industrymust operate. However, government plan-ners tend to be considerably less sympa-thetic to ecotourism than to the traditionalvariety because of considerations relatingto the economies of scale (Inskeep, 1987).Concentrating visitors in large resort areaslike Bali produces a much more efficientuse of capital resources. According toJenkins (1982), considerations of scale pre-dispose decision makers in the direction ofmass tourism. Frequently ‘bigger is better’to investors and policy makers because itmay mean the ability to distribute fixed

512 S. Parker

costs over a larger number of units andvisitors.

Whether the infrastructure decision con-cerns a large or a small-scale project,impacts will follow. To begin with, con-sider the case of Shark Bay in WesternAustralia (Dowling, 1991). There, a 1985decision to pave the access road made itmuch easier for visitors to reach the areaand thereby helped to generate a 15-foldincrease in tourism over the next 6 years.Infrastructure can thus be a major factor intransforming ecotourism into masstourism, as is happening on Mexico’sYucatan Peninsula, where a super highwayfrom Cancún to Playa del Carmen hasmade virtually all of the region’s marineand cultural sites available to thousands ofvisitors daily. Policy relating to such con-struction can thus be a major factor in pro-pelling a destination from one stage to thenext in Butler’s (1980) model of a touristarea cycle.

Such a progression is not inevitable,however, as is indicated by a contrastingexample. Costa Rica’s Monteverde CloudForest Preserve illustrates how policy andplanning can be used to ensure that thescale of infrastructure and the scale oftourism are compatible. There the commu-nity specifically decided to keep theimprovements simple and not pave the 40km dirt access road from the main high-way, The Interamericana (Honey, 1994).They reasoned that a paved road wouldgenerate more tourists but less per-personspending. If the Preserve could be reachedin 30 min instead of the usual 2.5 h thenmany erstwhile overnight visitors wouldbecome merely day-users instead. Becausethey would not have to stay in local lodges,eat in area restaurants, etc., they wouldgenerate less income for residents whowould, in turn, have a reduced monetaryinterest in conservation. This monetizingof environmental benefits is, of course, partof the basic logic of ecotourism, and thesecontrasting cases illustrate how infrastruc-ture decision making can either support itor operate as an impediment.

While such commitments are frequently

made as part of an overall tourism plan,they may also be reached as the means toother ends, but then generate ‘spillovereffects’ for the industry. Consider, forexample, the opening of the CairnsInternational Airport in 1984. It was part ofa broader Australian plan for the develop-ment and economic diversification ofnorthern Queensland. Today that infra-structure project is the major link thatbrings nearly 2 million visitors annually tothe Great Barrier Reef. With visitation dou-bling since 1990, park officials there havehad to generate new strategies for thelicensing of operators and for the manage-ment of the World Heritage Area itself.Most of these impacts can ultimately betraced back to the airport decision.

A similar scale of change was initiatedin the Galapagos Islands after theEcuadorean government decided to con-struct two airports there (Kenchington,1989). With some 80,000 visitors nowarriving each year, the problems of over-crowding at sites visited by Charles Darwinare all too well known. Many of thembegan with infrastructure decisions thatrelied on economies of scale and thusneeded more and more tourists to makethem affordable.

While there certainly are a number ofnegative consequences that can flow fromsuch commitments, the indisputable fact isthat these public works projects are anessential part of the policy and planningcontext within which ecotourism operates.To glimpse the consequences of theirabsence or inadequacy one need look nofurther than the case of Boracay in thePhilippines (Smith, 1992). Initially tourismthere was small scale and cottage based,but it produced enormous environmentaldamage due to deficiencies in the waterand sanitation facilities. Today a similarthreat hangs over the island of Bonaire inThe Netherlands Antilles (Roberts andHawkins, 1994), because there is no waste-water treatment plant to process the efflu-ent generated by the 65,000 divers andother guests who visit there annually.

The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policy and Planning 513

Dependency

Ecotourism also figures in a nation’s poli-cies to combat the problems of dependencyand leakage. As Mathews and Richter(1991) have pointed out, dependency is apolitical condition in which the economicwell-being of one nation is controlled by anagenda established elsewhere. With regardto tourism, in general, this means that thepace of change and development is set byfinancial choices made not in Samoa, butin Los Angeles or Tokyo, because that iswhere the investment funds, the expertiseand the tourists are to be found. Since somany tourism assets around the world arenot owned locally, most profits are notreinvested locally and this is one of themajor dimensions of leakage, the loss ofearnings back to the metropolitan centre(Pleumaron, 1994). According to bothLindberg (1991) and Boo (1990), less thanhalf of all tourism monies spent in thedeveloping world remain there. They areinstead repatriated to the countries fromwhich the investments and the touristsoriginated.

There are numerous policies that a des-tination government can adopt in order tomitigate this problem and the stimulationof ecotourism is, itself, one of them. This isbecause the small-scale nature of many ofthese enterprises, together with theiremphasis on local funding sources and theprovision of employment for locals(Hawkins et al., 1995), means that they canretain a far greater share of the profitwithin the country than can mass tourismoperations.

Another cause of leakage is the need ofhoteliers and others to purchase touristgoods (food, recreational equipment, fur-nishings, clothing, etc.) from abroad. A pol-icy to combat this problem, known asimport substitution, focuses both on find-ing similar goods locally and on creatingthe conditions under which native entre-preneurs will increase their production.Lindberg and Huber (1993) have examinedseveral ways in which governments canaccomplish such goals. They includeimproving linkages with local sources of

transportation via subsidies; encouragingthe development of local food sourcesthrough training and research; broadeningthe use of local labour and materials in theconstruction of lodges and stimulatinglocal handicrafts through such mechanismsas the creation of cooperatives. Because ofthe differences in scale and in the levels ofcomfort demanded by clients, these tech-niques have so far proven to be more effec-tive in the ecotourism context than in thatof traditional or mass tourism.

Perhaps the most significant type ofdependency involves airline service(Britton, 1982). This particular form of vul-nerability affects ecotourism and tradi-tional tourism almost equally and it cannotbe mitigated by such targeted policies asthose mentioned above. The reliance ofmany South Pacific islands like Yap andPalau on Continental Airlines’ Air Micro-nesia or the dependence of Caribbean des-tinations such as the Turks and CaicosIslands on American Airlines provideappropriate examples. The future of suchplaces is almost totally in the hands ofexternal decision makers. If they are unableto recruit additional air carriers, local pol-icy makers have few other options avail-able than the extremely expensive one ofoperating and subsidizing their own air-lines as do destinations like Papua NewGuinea, the Cayman Islands and TheNetherlands Antilles. Of course, given thetechnological requirements that go withsuch an investment, the decision to followthis policy then leaves the nation subject tofurther problems of leakage since both theplanes and their spare parts normally haveto be purchased abroad.

Another dimension of dependency con-cerns the foreign ownership of land, andmost destination countries have takensome form of action to redress this prob-lem. One difficulty, however, is that therehave proven to be too many conditions orloopholes in public policy by which suchlaws can be circumvented. Thailand(Elliott, 1983) and the Philippines (Smith,1992) illustrate a common approach. Bothof these countries regulate foreign owner-ship, but outside investors can neutralize

514 S. Parker

their laws by simply establishing partner-ships with native entrepreneurs. Similarly,Cater (1994) has shown that while Belizelimits the amount of land that can be heldby any one foreign individual, in practicethe policy’s cumulative effect has been tosimply allow a multitude of small-scaleforeign holdings, such as those focusedaround ecolodges.

An additional area of public policydesigned to mitigate dependency, dealswith the subject of expatriate labour andthe goal of providing preferred employ-ment opportunities for the native popula-tion (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). Hereagain, ecotourism can be useful to policymakers because its scale and attenuatedneed for technology generate less relianceon outsiders than does mass tourism.However, this is not always an accurateassessment because needed techniciansand other specialists may not be availablelocally. Unfortunately, host countries fre-quently pay too little attention to providingthe training programmes that will allowtheir own nationals to qualify for such jobs.Because of the near inevitability of suchproblems, most governments allow forexemptions when local skills are unavail-able. When expatriates do have to be hired,the relevant public-policy issues are con-cerned with the levels at which they aretaxed; whether their earnings can be remit-ted out of the country, and if so, at whatpercentage. As in Costa Rica, labour policycan also provide disincentives to therecruitment of foreign nationals, throughthe pricing structure applied to work per-mits.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy, the set of government deci-sions relating to taxation and public expen-diture, is a major force affecting tourismand ecotourism. Perhaps the main reasonfor this is the fact that decision makers,like those in Honduras, see it as a way ofearning needed foreign exchange (Stonichet al., 1995). Many governments use eco-tourism as a revenue source by levying

taxes on goods and services and by divert-ing user fees away from the national parksat which they are collected. Ordinarilythese fees are simply deposited in the gen-eral treasury, as is done with payments col-lected from the 80,000 annual visitors toEcuador’s Galapagos Islands (Honey, 1994).Of course, if fiscal policy allowed the fundsto be used for improvements in the parkswhere they were collected, then habitatmanagement would be greatly improved(Lindberg, 1991). However, when the fundsare simply siphoned off for other purposes,then fiscal policy degrades conservationpolicy, as it did until recently in nationalparks in the USA (Parker, 1998).

Other taxation options available to hostgovernments include hotel taxes, airportdeparture taxes, customs duties that arelevied on imports used for tourism pur-poses and income taxes on companies andindividuals working in the industry, aswell as the proceeds from taxes assessed ontourism properties (Inskeep, 1991). Severalof these tools affect ecotourism less thanthey do mass tourism. For example, sinceecolodge owners usually rely more heavilyon local farmers for the purchase of food-stuffs, they are less subject to the effect offood import duties. The same is true withregard to the overall impact of propertytaxes since the scale of ecotourism con-struction is ordinarily much more modest.Another fiscally relevant difference betweenthese two segments of the industry is thatecotourism operators pay a far greater pro-portion of their fees and taxes to local vil-lages than do their counterparts in masstourism. The fragmented and hinterland-based nature of the industry means thatordinarily it will be less at the mercy of thecentral government’s tax collectors.

Undoubtedly, the most important con-nection between fiscal policy and tourism/ecotourism concerns the seemingly univer-sal predilection of governments to usethese two as means for increasing theirforeign exchange earnings (de Kadt, 1976).Such a policy can create substantial socialand ecological problems (Stonich et al.,1995), and a sizeable literature exists onthis subject. For example, Ceballos-Lascuráin

The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policy and Planning 515

(1991) has written on how the CanaryIslands’ fiscal policy, designed to maximizethe economic return from parks, has led toa rash of ‘questionable development’. Largehotels and golf courses bring in moretourists and thereby generate more tax rev-enue and foreign exchange, but in theprocess they degrade the nearby protectedareas. In a related study, Stephenson (1993)examined the habitat disturbance and gen-eral environmental degradation that hasoccurred on Madagascar since that island’sgovernment decided to authorize primateviewing as a means of generating foreigncurrency.

One other dimension of fiscal policydealing with a nation’s international bal-ance of payments is the relatively new andinnovative financing mechanism known asthe ‘debt-for-nature swap’ (Mieczkowski,1990; Visser and Mendoza, 1994). Once ahost government has sanctioned its usage,this practice reduces the amount of debtowed to foreign lenders in exchange forthat government’s creation of protectedareas. Here, instead of fiscal policy imped-ing conservation and ecotourism, it actu-ally works to their benefit. Rather thanbeing sacrificed to concerns of interna-tional finance, environmental protection isenhanced through a government’s pursuitof its monetary goals. For example,Bolivian officials worked with the groupConservation International and secured thecancellation of a US$650,000 debt inexchange for making a 1.4 million ha addi-tion to The Beni Biological Reserve(Cartwright, 1989). This arrangement bothimproved the government’s internationalfiscal position and provided legal protec-tion for the addition to the reserve. Not allsuch sites are opened for ecotourism, butfor those venues that are, it is fiscal policyrather than environmental policy that oper-ates as the key factor.

Financial Incentives

Closely related to such fiscal policy consid-erations are those dealing with governmen-tal stimulation and subsidization of the

industry. These activities are usuallyimplemented via tax law and they havetended to apply far more to mass- than toecotourism. This is so because govern-ments view such aid as a kind of fiscalinvestment; one that will yield a higherreturn if applied to larger projects.Hannigan (1994) has argued that there is avery great danger in such scenarios, sincethe financial returns expected may not becongruent with sustainability goals. UsingIreland as an example, he shows how thegovernmental setting of economic targetscan lead to the sacrifice of environmentalobjectives.

Ecolodges and similar facilities do con-tinue to be desirable investments in situa-tions where funds are limited (Shermanand Dixon, 1991), but because governmentcan earn higher returns and create morejobs with larger projects, this sector suffersby comparison. In Costa Rica, for example,The Tourism Development Incentive Lawoffers tax breaks for construction, but inorder to qualify for participation a projectmust have a minimum of 20 rooms (Hill,1990). Such a requirement frequentlyexcludes ecolodges and related facilities, aswell as the participation of locals, whohave far more limited access to investmentfunds.

Nonetheless, there are exceptions suchas the occasional use of ‘micro-loans’ and‘incubator’ assistance. Both of these mecha-nisms were relied upon, for example, inthe early 1990s in Belize to help smallbusinesses during the establishment of theCommunity Baboon Reserve (Horwich etal., 1993). In this case, incentives were pro-vided by both public and non-governmentorganization entities. Governments canalso bundle small projects together to reachthe lending thresholds required by interna-tional banks (Hawkins et al., 1995).

On Anguilla, the government uses taxincentives to encourage limited-scaledevelopment and the construction of cot-tage-style accommodations in guest housesand small hotels (Wilkinson, 1989). Smallinvestors on the island of Dominica benefitfrom The Hotel Aids Ordinance and canimport hotel equipment and building mate-

516 S. Parker

rials duty free. Once the facility is in opera-tion, all investors are exempt from incometax on their earnings for 12 years (Boo,1990). A similar tax moratorium on theIsland Territory of Bonaire has helped tostimulate the growth of marine ecotourismin The Netherlands Antilles (Pieters andGevers, 1995). Other targeted incentives inuse in the Caribbean include investmenttax credits, cash grants, leasing of propertyand the provision of subsidized utilities(Lindberg, 1991). Kenya offers tax rebatesand the duty-free import of equipment(Olindo, 1991). Similarly, the Braziliangovernment has used tax incentives to gen-erate ecolodge investment in the AmazonBasin (Ruschmann, 1992).

While all such devices find applicationin alternative tourism settings, their broad-est employment is in the service of masstourism because it yields a more substan-tial return to the granting agency, the gov-ernment. Australia, for example, providesincentives such as low interest loans,accelerated depreciation and a programmefor lending money to private investors(Hall, 1995). However, these are appliedwith much greater frequency to mass- thanto ecotourism operations.

An additional reason why this is so hasto do with the concept of mobility of capi-tal. Tourism destinations around the worldare in competition with each other to gen-erate more investment. A tax advantageoffered by one island microstate will haveto be matched, or bettered, by another orlarge investors will take their funds else-where. Generally speaking, because of thesize of their projects, ecotourism entrepre-neurs do not enjoy the same kind of lever-age. When the entrepreneurs are localvillagers and the ecotourism is communitybased, the difficulty is frequently magnified(Drumm, 1998). For example, Costa Rica’sTortuguero National Park has become verypopular with nature travellers in search ofopportunities to observe nesting sea turtles.This trend has generated numerous invest-ment opportunities. However, the pace ofdevelopment has proven to be too rapid toallow local villagers the time needed toaccumulate sufficient capital of their own

to invest in the construction of locallyowned tourism facilities (Place, 1991).Since no government programme exists tohelp them in such an endeavour, they havebenefited only minimally from the area’spopularity.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been tosummarize and assess the numerous waysin which government action affects pro-tected area management and the eco-tourism industry. While we have seen thatthere is an enormous impact, there alsoappears to be a range in the specificity ofthis impact. In some instances, such as themaintenance of security in unstable politi-cal situations, policy operates on a macro-level, since its manifest purpose relates toconditions in a nation’s entire political sys-tem. In others, such as financial incentiveprogrammes, the goals are much moretightly drawn, and might therefore bereferred to as micro-level policies.

Using these two examples, we will closeby suggesting that the relationship betweenecotourism and public policy may be veryusefully conceptualized as a series ofimpact points arrayed along a continuumof perspectives. Such a continuum is pre-sented in Fig. 32.1. The macro perspectiverelates to concerns such as domestic secu-rity or the promises made by national polit-ical parties. However, these are matters thatwill attract the attention of participantsfrom most major economic sectors andsocial groups. In such a context the voiceof ecotourism is usually an attenuated one,diluted by the fact that it is just one amongmany. On the other hand, when the issue ismicro in nature and relates to a particularinfrastructure decision like wastewatertreatment or ferry service for a smallisland, then the industry is in a better posi-tion to generate input and create truepartnerships.

Policy processes in much of the worldare conditioned by the fact that participat-ing groups ordinarily have only a smallstake in major system-wide decisions and

The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policy and Planning 517

by the related fact that their potential tochange the outcome of them is minimal.For this reason their involvement tends tobe episodic and dilatory. Conversely, thereare other issues that affect only a fewgroups, but because their resolution is sovital to stakeholder well-being they tend toparticipate with high levels of intensity.Public policy relating to ecotourism illus-trates this dynamic quite well, and there-fore members of the industry havegenerally experienced their greatest effortsand successes on the micro end of the con-tinuum with issues like financial incen-tives, transportation decisions and veryspecific environmental management prac-

tices. Future, longitudinal studies woulddo well to examine the long-term accuracyand applicability of this observation, inorder to ascertain whether it is somethingthat is generally true or is merely related tothe dynamics of this industry at one partic-ular stage in its development.

All of the policy areas discussed in thischapter have been external to the industryitself, but some have had impacts of amuch more immediate nature than others.Thus, in Fig. 32.1, the six policy types arerepresented along a continuum arrangingthem from left to right, based on the extentto which their impact is indirect (macro) ordirect (micro).

518 S. Parker

(Macro)

Politicsand

administration

Security Dependency Fiscal

Infrastructure Financialincentives

(Micro)

Fig. 32.1. The range of public impact on ecotourism.

References

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Britton, S.G. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research

9(3), 331–358.Butler, R.W. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of

resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1), 5–12.Cartwright, J. (1989) Conserving nature, decreasing debt. Third World Quarterly 114–127.Cater, E. (1994) Ecotourism in the third world: problems and prospects for sustainability. In: Cater, E.

and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism: a Sustainable Option? John Wiley & Sons, New York,pp. 69–86.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1991) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Parks 2(3), 31–35.de Kadt, E. (1976) Tourism: Passport To Development? Oxford University Press, New York.de Kadt, E. (1992) Making the alternative sustainable: lessons from development for tourism. In:

Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in theDevelopment of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 47–75.

Dowling, R. (1991) Tourism and the natural environment. Tourism Recreation Research 16(2), 44–48.Drumm, A. (1998) New approaches to community-based ecotourism management. In: Lindberg, K.,

Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. TheEcotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 197–213.

D’Souza, E. (1995) Redefining national security: the military and protected areas. In: McNeeley, J.(ed.) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 156–165.

Elliott, J. (1983) Politics, power and tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 10(3),377–393.

Elliott, J. (1987) Government management of tourism: a Thai case study. Tourism Management,223–232.

Greffe, X. (1994) Is rural tourism a lever for economic and social development? Journal ofSustainable Tourism 2(1), 22–40.

Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Hall, C.M. (1995) Introduction to Tourism in Australia. Longman, Sydney.Hannigan, K. (1994) National policy, European structural funds and sustainable tourism: the case of

Ireland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(4), 179–192.Hawkins, D., Wood, M.E. and Bittman, S. (1995) The Ecolodge Sourcebook. The Ecotourism Society,

North Bennington, Vermont.Hill, C. (1990) The paradox of tourism in Costa Rica. Cultural Survival Quarterly 14(1), 14–19.Honey, M. (1994) Paying the price of ecotourism: two pioneer biological reserves face the challenge

brought by a recent boom in tourism. Americas 46(6), 40–47.Horwich, R., Murray, D., Saqui, E., Lyon, J. and Godrey, D. (1993) Ecotourism and community devel-

opment: a view from Belize. In: Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide forPlanners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 152–168.

Inskeep, E. (1987) Environmental planning for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 14(1), 118–135.Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: an Integrated Sustainable Development Approach. Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Jenkins, C.L. (1982) The effects of scale in tourism projects in developing countries. Annals of

Tourism Research 9(2), 229–249.Kenchington, R. (1989) Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: the dilemma of conservation.

Environmental Conservation 16(3), 227–236.Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits.

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Lindberg, K. and Huber, R. (1993) Economic issues in ecotourism management. In: Lindberg, K. and

Hawkins, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society,North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 82–115.

Massinga, A. (1996) Between the devil and the deep blue sea: development dilemmas in Mozam-bique. The Ecologist 16(2), 73–75.

Mathews, H. and Richter, L. (1991) Political science and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18(1),120–135.

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Longman, NewYork.

McNeely, J. (1995) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.Mieczkowski, Z. (1990) World Trends in Tourism and Recreation. Peter Lang, New York.Olindo, P. (1991) The old man of nature tourism: Kenya. In: Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature Tourism:

Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 23–38.Parker, S. (1998) Concessions policy in America’s national parks. National Social Science Journal

10(1), 114–121.Pieters, R. and Gevers, D. (1995) A framework for tourism development on fragile island destina-

tions: the case of Bonaire. In: Conlin, M.V. and Baum, T. (eds) Island Tourism: ManagementPrinciples and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 123–132.

Place, S. (1991) Nature tourism and rural development in Tortuguero. Annals of Tourism Research18(1), 186–201.

Pleumarom, A. (1994) The political economy of tourism. The Ecologist 24(4), 142–148.Richter, L. (1980) The political uses of tourism: a Philippine case study. The Journal of Developing

Areas 237–257.Roberts, C. and Hawkins, J. (1994) Report on the Status of Bonaire’s Coral Reefs. University of the

Virgin Islands, St Thomas.Ruschmann, D. (1992) Ecological tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management 13(1), 125–128.Shackley, M. (1995) The future of gorilla tourism in Rwanda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(2),

61–72.Sherman, P.B. and Dixon, J.A. (1991) The economics of nature tourism: determining if it pays. In:

Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC,pp. 89–131.

Smith, V. (1992) Boracay, Philippines: a case study in ‘alternative’ tourism. In: Smith, V.L. and

The Place of Ecotourism in Public Policy and Planning 519

Eadington, W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development ofTourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 135–157.

Stephenson, P. (1993) The impacts of tourism on nature reserves in Madagascar. EnvironmentalConservation 20(3), 262–265.

Stonich, S., Sorenson, J. and Hundt, A. (1995) Ethnicity, class and gender in tourism development:the case of the Bay Islands, Honduras. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(1), 1–28.

Visser, D. and Mendoza, G. (1994) Debt for nature swaps in Latin America. Journal of Forestry 92(6),13–16.

Weaver, D. (1991) Alternative to mass tourism in Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research 18(3),414–432.

Weaver, D. (1994) Ecotourism in the Caribbean Basin. In: Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism:a Sustainable Option? John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 159–176.

Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1993) The principles and practice of buffer zones and local participationin biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2–3), 157–162.

Wilkinson, P.R. (1989) Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of Tourism Research16(1), 153–177.

520 S. Parker

Section 7

The Business of Ecotourism

B. McKercherDepartment of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University,

Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Ecotourism and business? The two wordsseem to be an oxymoron. Many peopleview ecotourism as an ideologically orphilosophically pure construct that shouldnot be sullied by sordid business consider-ations. Tourism business is often regardedas being interested only in profit and ofshowing no respect for host communitiesor environments. How can ecotourism andbusiness be linked? What many people donot realize is that net positive benefits fromecotourism can only accrue if it is a self-supporting activity, which means that itmust be commercially viable. Cultural,social and economic benefits will onlyoccur when ecotourism generates sufficientprofit. Non-viable activities represent a netdrain on scarce resources and expose hostcommunities to exploitation. Likewise,ecotourism is most likely to achieve itsecologically sustainable mandate when it isalso financially sustainable. It is only apowerful force for the conservation of nat-ural areas when it provides an attractiveeconomic alternative to more resource-consumptive activities. Similarly, profitablebusinesses can afford the costs associatedwith being environmentally responsible,when non-profitable businesses will strug-gle, allocating their limited resources tocore activities needed to keep the businessafloat.

Indeed, as you read this Encyclopedia,consider that virtually everything dis-cussed is predicated on the usuallyunstated assumption of a financially viableecotourism sector. Yet, while being at theheart of ecotourism, business considera-tions have been the subject of relatively lit-tle discussion in either the academic ormainstream literature. These five chaptersintroduce the reader to some of the busi-ness issues affecting ecotourism. The chap-ters discuss generic business as well asmarketing topics, as well as discussingissues relating to specific subsectors of thisactivity.

Three chapters (Chapters 33, 34 and 35)examine ecotourism operations on theground. In Chapter 33, John Gardner offersa personal account of his experiences indeveloping an ecotourism accommodationfacility in Bermuda. He argues effectivelythat ‘accommodation and facilities set thetone for the guest’s experience’. Gardnerdescribes the range of accommodationtypes available, from the vernacular to con-verted historic buildings, contemporarystyles, and portable accommodation. Healso reviews a number of practical develop-ment issues including site use, facilitylocation so as not to hinder the quality ofthe experience and the use of alternativepower, water and waste management. This

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 521

chapter concludes with a fascinating per-sonal account of how he developedDaniel’s Head in Bermuda. Gardner dis-cusses how he had to design the facility tofit the ambience and character of the site,how he has laid out the units and also howhe physically developed the superstructure.

In contrast, Bryan Higgins talks aboutnon-facility dependent ecotourism in hischapter on ecotourism operators (Chapter34). The ecotourism operator, the organiza-tion that takes people on tours of eco-tourism sites, represents the mainstreamactivity of most ecotourism businesses.However, while there are many differentstyles and types of ecotourism operationsavailable, Higgins points out that relativelylittle information is available on this sector.Apart from describing the diversity ofproducts, he also focuses on two key areasof ecotourism: ecotourism networks andtypes of ecotour operator organization.Ecotourism involves introducing people tonatural or near natural areas. To do so,though, a complex set of relationshipsmust exist to link the prospective touristwith the operator. Inbound, outbound andlocal tour operators all have a role to playin successful ecotourism. Likewise, thereare many different types of operators, rang-ing from conservation associations that runecotourism as a fundraising activity, tocommunity groups, universities and com-mercial tour operators. Each has a slightlydifferent focus and slightly different opera-tional ethos.

Betty Weiler and Sam Ham (Chapter 35)look at the operation of ecotourism on theground in their chapter on tour guides andinterpretation. This chapter examines theroles of tour guides, the principles of inter-pretation and then looks at the combinedrole of the two in the ecotourism experi-ence. The tourist often regards the guide’smain role as that of an interpreter who canmake a site come alive. From an opera-tional perspective, though, the guide’s roleis far more complex, also ensuring that anytour runs smoothly and considering thesafety and comfort of clients. Interpretationis the focus of this chapter, however. Thetwo authors provide a comprehensive

introduction to interpretation and suggestthat it is different from teaching. Goodinterpretation must be enjoyable, relevant,well organized, must provide an opportu-nity to learn and should also be themed,rather than topic based. The authors con-clude their chapter by looking at the role ofthe guide and interpretation in providing aquality experience.

A number of generic business and mar-keting issues are discussed by McKercherin Chapter 36. He reports that many busi-nesses are only marginally viable, whichhas led some people to question the truesize of the commercial ecotourism market.The chapter illustrates that ecotourismoperators face the same types of businesschallenges as all other small businesses: alack of business planning, a lack of market-ing expertise, a shortage of start up andworking capital and unrealistic expecta-tions on entry. He also shows that the eco-tourism sector has been bedevilled byphantom demand, that is, participationrates reported by state and national tourismorganizations do not translate into demandfor commercial products. Indeed, one ofthe hard lessons learned by ecotourismoperators is that visiting a national parkdoes not automatically make someone anecotourist. The chapter then proceeds tolook at ecotourism from a marketing per-spective and argues that operators mustconsider their product from the perspectiveof how it satisfies the needs of potentialusers and that to succeed, all thoseinvolved in ecotourism must adopt a strate-gic marketing focus.

Issaverdis (Chapter 37) pulls this entiresection together with his chapter looking atthe interrelated issues of benchmarking,accreditation, best practice and audits. As asign of a maturing sector, many operatorsare now realizing that they must set stan-dards that will enhance the performance ofthe industry as a whole. Any sector is onlyas strong as its weakest member. Creatingtarget standards should benefit all opera-tors. Issaverdis illustrates how each of thefour elements identified above is critical tothe upskilling of this sector. Benchmarksset performance targets; importantly, though,

522 B. McKercher

they are dynamic and provide a foundationfor a continuous learning process.Accreditation recognizes those organiza-tions that have achieved a certain standardof excellence. Further, the establishment ofaccreditation processes and the assumedmarketing benefits that accrue from themwill motivate the industry to improve itsstandards. Best practice, defined as theoptimal approach to management, is useful

in showing operators how to improve theirperformance. Auditing is a confirmationprocess that corroborates the aboveprocesses. Cumulatively, these five chap-ters provide the ecotourism stakeholderwith a comprehensive and well-articulatedexposure to the hard business aspects ofthe sector that are so vital to its success, yetoften overlooked or deliberately ignored.

The Business of Ecotourism 523

Introduction

Imagine that a certain holiday was one ofthe top ten best experiences of your life.Many factors would have contributed tothis: the location, season, weather, service,cost, value, accommodations, activities andyour state of mind; even who you travelledwith or met. Perhaps, also, it was yourexpectations and the extent to which theywere met or even exceeded. If any one fac-tor fell short, your experience may still bememorable but it would not be the bestthat it could have been.

The recent surge in popularity of eco-tourism has much to do with the search fora richer holiday experience by the guest. Italso has much to do with the efforts of hos-pitality business people to differentiatetheir product in a world market that isawash with choices. By definition, eco-tourism is connected directly to the naturaland cultural environment of the destina-tion. It enables the traveller to better appre-ciate a new environment, to experience asense of adventure, to relax and perhaps tolearn. This is life enrichment and some-times it is escapism. It is also good busi-ness when done well.

Every culture expresses itself andreveals its past through the creative actionsof its people, which may be recreational as

well as utilitarian. The activity of creatingshelter is one of the most ancient of thehuman race’s activities. It is therefore with-out any surprise that the built form of anyculture reflects its deepest roots as well asits current direction. A tourism productthat can sensitively recognize this, workwithin it or complement it, will guaranteea unique product that is attractive to thetravelling customer. The resulting facilitieswill enhance the visitor experience andhave the potential to define its success.

The accommodations and facilities of anecotourist operation set the tone for theguest experience. They are the structurethat enables the business to prosper andguests to enjoy themselves. They are anintegral part of the backdrop and stage setfor the total combined experience. It isessential that the facilities are well consid-ered in all respects and that they inform,and are informed by, the operations of theproperty, and are harmonious with the cul-ture and natural landscape of their envi-ronment. The purpose of this chapter is tooutline general concepts in the area ofecotourism accommodations, such as thepractical issues associated with theirdevelopment, and to illustrate these con-cepts with a case study from Daniel’s Head,in Bermuda.

Chapter 33

Accommodations

J. GardnerCooper and Gardner Architects, Hamilton, Bermuda

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 525

General Concepts on EcotourismAccommodations

Building type opportunities

Ecotourism facilities are in a uniquelyadvantageous position since they are inher-ently more diverse than traditional hospi-tality products. A wide range of options isavailable when folding cultural activitieswith contemporary, vernacular or historicalbuilding forms (or variations of them) andapplying them to the activities that are pro-moted in each facility (see Table 33.1). Thedesign and construction of buildings, how-ever, is not and should not be a casualdecision. The need to decide how a newstructure may be built for practical pur-poses, or how an existing structure can berenovated, is also an opportunity to com-municate a message. This message can thenbe determined through the design and fin-ish of this structure to support the goalsand objectives of the operations and finan-cial plan.

A property that chooses to affix the labelof being an ecotourism facility invariablyconjures up the image of an alternative,rustic, low density or low impact facility.This is understandable given the begin-nings of ecotourism operations as tents,platforms, vernacular huts and similar

lower density, less visible and relativelyisolated facilities. This is also exciting inthat the guest is able to have access, incomfort, to a lifestyle that would normallybe unattainable without discomfort, risk ora time commitment they cannot afford.However, the ecotourism property is notnecessarily restricted to this type. The ‘eco’in ecotourism can be the ‘back to nature’,‘get away from it all’ or ‘adventure’ style ofexperience. It can also have a greater affili-ation with the local culture and can be tiedto the educational aspects of environmen-tally responsible living. There is no reasonwhy an ecotourism property cannot existjust as easily as a contemporary structurein a suburban or urban environment pro-vided it is carefully located in a site orbuilding of special affiliation to that cul-ture through its vernacular architecture oriconographic status. It would, in addition,need to be accompanied by an operationsprogramme of appropriate educational, cul-tural or environmentally focused activities.

An exciting and memorable facility alsohas the option of being sited in renovatedor newly built facilities. The former may bemore challenging to adapt but could alsobe more economical. In any event, existingbuildings come with a history and a narra-tive of their past. It enriches a visitor’sexperience to be aware of and appreciate

526 J. Gardner

Table 33.1. Potential ecotourism building types by category.

Vernacular Historical Contemporary Portable and low-building types building types structures impact structures

Indigenous structures Developed vernacular Prefabricated structures Rigid tents, collapsibleGrass huts, mud structures, Colonial architecture, Masonry, glass fibre, tents, elevated huts,caves, elevated halls, house residentially derived reinforced concrete, inflatable structures,boats, reed platforms and styles, commercially rigid tents, inflatable vehicles, junglebuildings, yurts, tree developed styles structures hammocksplatforms, ice houses,teepees, cliff dwellings, Military architecture, Traditional tourismstick houses colonial architecture, Cottage colonies, inns,

ecclesiastical guest houses, homesarchitecture,monuments, industrialbuilding, palaces andgreat homes

the events, the people and the modifica-tions that have engaged their destination. Itcan be argued that the ecotourist is invari-ably an interested tourist. The facilitieshave to be presented intelligently, and theyneed to be available to provide the layers ofinterest that can enhance the vacationexperience. If these can be made availableat the guests’ choosing then so much thebetter, for they will be able to relax and bestimulated when they wish.

In all instances it is critical to avoidbeing casual in the process of choosingspatial allocations, materials and furnish-ings. These all have the ability to informthe guest on the culture and activities asso-ciated with the property. They can set astandard for comfort, or not, that can thenbe coordinated with the rate structures andexpectations of the guest.

A traditional hotel invariably consists ofone building with racked rooms above aground floor assemblage of public spaces.A variation on this theme is a central facili-ties structure with individual accommoda-tion units in the adjacent grounds. Motelsand cottage colonies are polar opposites inthe quality of this type of accommodation.The ecotourism product comes into its ownmost readily with this model of develop-ment. There is an inherent sense of an indi-vidual identity, and a small scale thatappeals to the message of a quality vaca-tion experience.

The field is, however, wide open interms of considering the possible accom-modation types. This is particularly applic-able when the accommodation is thepassport to access new experiences.Mountain huts for adventure tourists arewithout any central facilities and are way-points in a journey. A vehicle, like a boator bus, may become the base for high-endluxury or communal living. Each con-tributes in its own way to providing a com-pletely unique experience. A low impacttent may permit building approvals wherea permanent structure would not normallybe allowed. A mobile tent may permit afacility to have limited life span and beviable for a limited time measured inweeks or just a few years. This could allow

an operation to exist where land ownershipor long-term commitments are not avail-able.

A lightly furnished room can set thetone for a sustainable lifestyle. This may bein keeping with a message on the limitednature of resources. Furnishings do notneed to be cheap because they can evokethe quality of an austere oriental, simpleliving or high modern aesthetic but cast inthe culture of the place in which the prop-erty is sited. Colour, as opposed to clutter,can also enrich both the interior and exte-rior. Architectural and design solutionsmay also be eschewed in favour of land-scape options in which the materials andhorticulture can define the atmosphere. Inthe appropriate climate this has the addedbenefit of a constantly changing appear-ance. Small furnishings and fixtures, forexample, can be something as simple as amirror edged in sea glass. In this instance itcan evoke childhood memories, can bemade by local artisans, or on the property.It can demonstrate the recycling of materi-als (especially those that are discarded)and provides a unique accessory to aroom’s decor. It can also be made availablefor sale, thus providing additional revenue.The same could apply with wind chimesthat have the added benefit of offering anadditional (auditory) sensory experience.

Development practicalities

The ideal of an ecotourism developmentconcept is to marry a vision of the experi-ence with environmental sustainability andthe constraints of a successful businessventure, in such a way that the enterprisecan function pragmatically. A traditionalhotel must equate the return on investmentof an initial development or renovationwith the cost of that investment. Land orproperty acquisition and developmentcosts become the greatest initial expenseagainst which future revenue must beequated. Theory holds that the greater theinvestment then the better the productcould be and the higher the fee that can becharged. This becomes a more marginal

Accommodations 527

proposition in developed markets wherecompetition is greater and costs are higher.The ecotourism product can circumventthis by offering other advantages to thedeveloper and different standards to theguest. Box 33.1 lists various developmentstrategies that need to be taken intoaccount to maximize the probability ofproduct success.

A useful question is ‘How much does itreally take for someone to be happy?’ Lessis sometimes more and a richness of experi-ence can be offered in preference to opu-lence. Comfort cannot be compromised, butoptimal comfort does not have to be boughtby offering all modern conveniences. A del-icate balance between rates and standardscan be attained in which costs and, thus,rates can be lowered and the amenitiesreduced, while taking maximum advantageof the natural environment, providing awide range of activities and taking themoral high ground of operating a respon-sible and environmentally sustainablefacility.

There are also fundamental infrastruc-ture requirements that face all guest facili-ties no matter what scale they happen tobe. Guests need to eat and drink and theyalso require, almost always, the consump-tion of packaged products. Support servicesinclude cleaning and maintenance and themanagement of all human, commercialand, sometimes, livestock waste. Powerand potable water demands are quite often

difficult demands to meet. The former isoften restricted by location, capacity andstorage constraints. The latter is similarlyaffected by environmental collection, stor-age, purification and, sometimes, distributionconstraints. Communications is, interest-ingly, most easily addressed given recentadvances in technology. However, this isparalleled by increased expectations on thepart of guests.

The greater the volume of people, themore sensitive and sophisticated the man-agement of these issues needs to be.Certain thresholds in the number of guestscan require (under certain building codesor even sensible adherence to moral stan-dards) the importation of sophisticated andexpensive systems. For example, sewagetreatment plants may be required for facili-ties of over, say, 100 beds. The good newsis that there is an array of exciting andalternative methods of addressing infra-structural issues. The bad news is that theyare too often not as cost effective as tradi-tional systems, especially at a large scale.

It can be presumed that the majority ofguests are likely to come from Westernizedcultures. The daily services to which thesepeople are accustomed are currently man-aged within their own technologicallysophisticated cultural/industrial economies.Interestingly, this level of consumption isnot sustainable on a global basis if it wereto be applied to the world population. It isequally likely that this level of consump-

528 J. Gardner

Box 33.1. Development strategies for ecotourism accommodations.

Siting to maximize natural amenities in lieu of newly built amenitiesMaximum interfacing with the natural environmentDownsizing of central facilities offset by operational phasing and efficienciesFacilities and activities that minimize the emphasis on individual accommodationsCommunal living optionsServices and facilities provided by local development partnersSelf-sufficiency of the occupant to minimize operational overheads and central facilitiesUse of low impact and lower cost structuresUse of indigenous building types that capture the local ‘sense of place’Use of prefabricated building typesOperations to de-emphasize site requirementsAn emphasis on landscaping

tion will not be sustainable in many areasthat are candidates for ecotourism at leastin the traditional, unspoiled, naturalisticand undeveloped environment. Propertiesin these locations therefore have the oppor-tunity to convert this constraint into a gen-uine marketing tool by demonstrating totheir visitors how comfortable they can beand, possibly, how much happier they canbe with a well-managed and more sustain-able, alternative lifestyle. In contrast tothis, there is also no inherent reason whyan ecotourism operation cannot operate ina highly developed culture where the useof alternative and more sustainable ser-vices and utilities is not required. In theseinstances the property can act as an educa-tional tool for the visiting guest, and also asa prototype for adjacent communities.

Construction means and methods alsoprovide opportunities for utilizing environ-mentally friendly systems, some of whichare listed in Table 33.2. Quite often, theindigenous building systems have devel-oped out of natural solutions using readilyavailable materials. The benefits of consid-ering building in the same manner as theexisting culture are considerable: readilyavailable first construction and mainte-nance skills, aesthetic consistency with thevernacular and culture, and the supportand cooperation of the local community. Itis also likely that in the very long term thematerials used can be returned to the envi-ronment without generating pollution inthe event that the facility is reinvented,relocated or abandoned.

If local materials are not used then otherfactors can come into play. Prefabricatedcomponents can offer educational opportu-

nities and technological advances for thelocal population. If designed properly theycan be installed so that they may beremoved in the future without damagingthe environment. It is also possible that thefinishes and furnishings can be procuredfrom locally sustainable sources or fromrecycled products. These provide verypowerful marketing opportunities for theoperator. They will be able to demonstrateto their clients, to local authorities and thehospitality industry that its product is anasset to its community in all respects andthat it sets an example for its guests todemonstrate a better way of living.

A Case Study: Daniel’s Head,Bermuda

Daniel’s Head is a new environmentallyfocused tourism facility developed byDestination Villages with an opening date inthe spring of 1999. Its conception originatedin Stanley Selengut’s pioneering facilities onSt John in the Virgin Islands (see below).The development model is a village of indi-vidual tent cottages that are customized tosuit the environment in which they arelocated. They are arranged on a 5 ha penin-sula, an abandoned Canadian Military Base,and operate in consort with the remainingbuilt structures. The project is a paradigm ofthe factors and pressures that influence thedevelopment of an environmental facility.The intriguing difference is that the site is ina sophisticated tourism destination on anaffluent and densely populated suburbanisland. Bermuda is not a traditional eco-tourism scenario.

Accommodations 529

Table 33.2. Alternative infrastructure options for ecotourism accommodations.

Power Water Waste management

Passive and active solar, wind, Non-potable flushing, grey water Composting toilets, biologicalwater, geothermal, tidal, building collection, reverse osmosis supply, treatment, greenhouse filtration,siting to take advantage of roof collection, sewage treatment recycling, glass and aluminiumprevailing climate benefits recycling and reduction in crushing, commercial links to waste

consumption as raw material (glass, aluminium,paper and cardboard)

Inception

In 1995 the Government of Bermuda hadfour military bases returned to the island.These represented almost 10% of the totalland area of the 54 km2 island. The popula-tion in this limited area is approximately70,000 permanent residents. Bermuda alsohosts about 550,000 visitors a year and wasvoted the fourth most favourite tropicalisland destination in the world in a 1999Conde Nast traveller poll. The then govern-ment of Bermuda applied a rigorous landuse analysis and zoning exercise through abase utilization committee and assignedthe development to a quasi-autonomousnon-governmental organization (QUANGO),a purpose-formed company called TheBermuda Land Development Company(BLDC).

One of the four parcels of land is apeninsula of exceptional beauty known as‘Daniel’s Head’. In the early 20th centurythis property had been part of a farm, aswas much of Bermuda. The BritishAdmiralty converted this into an electroniclistening station during the Second WorldWar and flattened half the site, a small hill,into a circular promontory at about 5 mabove sea level. After the War and whenthe British Admiralty reduced its opera-tions significantly, this base was operatedby the Canadian military as a Cold War lis-tening post. Additional buildings and bar-racks were constructed during this tenure.

The site was zoned for tourism use witha small beach segment held out as anational park to address local communityconcerns. The BLDC sought proposals frominterested developers. Approximately sixwere received, all proposing housing, tradi-tional cottage colonies and a proposal for apark. They were all found unsatisfactory,and an alternative tourism-related proposalwas sought. After some research the BLDCdecided to contact Stanley Selengut whohad recently received a number of awardsfor his low impact and environmentallyfocused properties on the island of St Johnin the US Virgin Islands: ‘Maho Bay’,‘Harmony’ and ‘Concordia’. Selengut teamedup with a development partner, who even-

tually assumed control over the project andmade a proposal. This proposal wasaccepted, and the project proceeded.

The St John, Virgin Islands properties asprecedents

Destination Villages is a new company thatis building four hospitality facilities world-wide in scenic areas. Each facility consistsof central facilities and a ‘Village’ of privateaccommodation units. There is a minimumof 75 and a maximum of 150 of these unitsin each development. The Daniel’s Headdevelopment utilizes the existing buildingsfor the central facilities and is constructing120 accommodation units all as new struc-tures. These are 5 m × 5 m tent cottagesand they are an evolutionary design fromthe St John properties adapted to theBermuda climate, building regulations andeconomic circumstances.

‘Maho Bay’ is Stanley Selengut’s origi-nal development and is located (as are allthe St John properties) on a steep hill. Theinitial development consisted of lowimpact wooden platforms on which tentscould be pitched and connecting walkwaysinspired by the US National Park Servicerequirements in delicate natural areas. Intime the tents became simple frame struc-tures with suspended fabric for weatherprotection. They continued to developuntil after 15 years, in the mid-1990s, theywere fairly sophisticated rigid frame tents.These are characterized by having naturalventilation through window screens andperimeter shelves. The floor is constructedfrom wood planks or a recycled plastic andwood board. The plan is 5 m × 5 m squarewith one corner open as a terrace. They canaccommodate two people comfortably andanother two, less comfortably, on a futon-styled couch. The decor is spartan andreflects the wood structure and fabric fin-ish. The advantage is the security of a fixedstructure with the amenity of a tent’s inti-mate relationship to the natural environ-ment. An LPG camping stove and aportable ice cooler allow the guests to havea self-sufficient holiday if they wish. The

530 J. Gardner

central facilities do provide a self-servingopen-air restaurant with stunning views tothe west and the bay below. There is also asmall convenience store, laundry, activitiesdesk, beach concession, maintenance areaand offices. The facility is powered bymains electricity and the guests use com-munal bathhouses which are connected toa central sewage treatment plant.

‘Maho Bay’ has been exceptionally wellmarketed as an environmental resort. Itsprimary strength is its low impact designand secure camping atmosphere. The qual-ity of sunlight and the shadows of leaveson the walls and roofs of the tents are awelcome alternative to the traditional hotelroom. The hillside location also offers theeffect of staying in a tree house. A varietyof environmental initiatives have been ini-tiated and in the context of a traditionalhotel these are fairly significant: watersavers are installed in the bathhouses, lowflush urinals, composting and a limitedorganic garden. Other initiatives have notyet taken hold in a truly significant way.Some of the glass is recycled and meltedinto souvenirs but this is a small operationand some of the aluminum cans are simi-larly melted into accessories. A solar ovenand a solar icemaker were tried, but thelarge scale of the property and the damageby hurricanes prevented these from becom-ing operational staples.

A second development, ‘Harmony’, hasbeen built on the hill above Maho Bay. Adifferent approach has been taken sincethese are traditional solid frame buildings.A variety of recycled building productsand alternative energy systems are used.‘Concordia’, on the other side of the island,started as a second condominium style‘Harmony’, but has evolved into a differentfacility with ten independent ‘Ecotents’beside this structure. These have been builtin two phases. The first phase is a series ofsix 5 m × 5 m tents with a variety of split-levels and loft bunks. The individual tentfacilities are improved over ‘Maho’ in thatthey have expanded kitchen facilities andprivate toilets and showers in differentconfigurations. This evolution is not arbi-trary. The ‘Concordia’ site does not have

the benefit of a central dining infrastruc-ture and the nearest village is not only toofar to walk but a long enough drive in arented car to be inconvenient as the onlyplace to eat.

It had also been found at ‘Harmony’ andat the original ‘Concordia’ that the guestspreferred the experience of being in thefabric-clad structures connected by theraised wooden walkways. Generally theaesthetic is the same as the other facilitiesand the interior remains undecorated as adirect expression of its construction. Thesecond phase of the tents has refined thisby presenting the wood structure as a morerationalized system and exploring a gener-ally tidier level of detailing. There remainsa sense of adventure and tranquillity whichis directly associated with the guests’ expe-rience of occupying a different, but com-fortable, building type. This is enhanced bythe requirements for a form of environmen-tal self-sufficiency.

Daniel’s Head

Daniel’s Head develops the approach takenin St John by providing a facility that com-bines the Central Facilities and scale of‘Maho’ with the increased sophistication ofthe ‘Concordia’ Eco tents. Importantly,Daniel’s Head provides the entire facility asa single development in time. The St Johnfacilities were built incrementally on a vir-tual cash flow basis. Daniel’s Head hasrequired a different level of planning par-ticularly since it was placed under the con-straints of a firm budget which amountedto approximately 50% of the cost of a tradi-tional hotel development.

Site design

The existing buildings are sited on a slopedsite on the south of the property. The tentsare generally arrayed throughout the site.At first glance the density may be felt to berather too even and saturated throughoutthe property. Given more land, it is gener-ally preferable to concentrate development

Accommodations 531

in a focused area. The nature of this site asa part of a suburban island meant that thesite itself and the adjacent land were insuf-ficient to do this. The siting strategy wastherefore intended to place a premium onsite landscaping and reforestation to themaximum that the budget would allow.The interstitial space between the tentswould become a dense green zone. Thiswould take time to grow so the tents aresited to the perimeter of the property wher-ever possible. This reduces density gener-ally by effectively expanding the usablesite area. It also, and importantly, permitsthe amenity of the tents to be derived fromthe best attributes of the site: the ocean andshoreline. Some of the tents are directlyover the water. This is an environmentallyrisky move in that it appears to be at vari-ance with normal requirements not tointrude on natural areas. In this instancethis is mitigated by the overall plan toreforest the site, and by the ability toremove the tents with minimal trace.Furthermore, the economic viability of theproject requires an attractive product in theearly years.

This is an emerging form of ecotourismin which the concept leverages its viabilityby gently intruding into, and perhaps evenimproving, a natural environment so that itmay create an economic base for the localcommunity. This in turn assists a desiredindustry to occur and grow, createsemployment and permits the site to berestored over time without being an addedburden on the tax base. It also permits thedeveloper to have sufficient security tomake further investments.

Tent design

The tents are 5 m × 5 m squares with inter-nal bathrooms alternating on differentsides. They have a verandah on one sideand a covered entry opposite. They aredesigned with white roofs in keeping withthe Bermuda architectural vernacular. Thewhite roofs also keep the tents cool, andlook attractive as a neutral palette againstthe vibrant colours of the landscape and

the water. The walls are a neutral tone toreflect as much heat as possible withoutbeing white, which will show dirt easily.The tents over the water are a light bluecolour. In the existing trees they are clad ingreen. The intent has been to gain a maxi-mum cost benefit from a repetitive buildingform but to still provide variety of experi-ence by varying the finish and the orienta-tion, and through site placement.

The tents are placed on a platform of sixor nine piles depending on their height andthe ground condition. One important factorwas the building code that required thetents’ structure be able to withstand hurri-cane force winds at 110 mph while the fab-ric has to withstand an 80-mph windloading. Important technical factors likethis can have a significant impact on thecost of a project. It is therefore useful toresolve these as early as possible in thedesign/cost process.

The structure of the tents was originallyconceived as a wood frame built from lami-nated 2 × 4s. This then developed to a 10cm × 10 cm wood structure. Faced withbudget issues, a prefabricated tubular pipestructure was considered and this ulti-mately developed to become a prefabri-cated aluminum frame. A result of thestructure change was to add an interiorliner of fabric attached with an industrialgrade Velcro. This provides a superior fin-ish, assists with cleaning, provides an insu-lating layer in the wall and conceals all theservices. The ceiling is formed in anupside-down tray, which is a traditionalBermuda architecture configuration. Thisprovides an extra sense of height. The flatof the tray is formed out of mesh (which isnot a standard detail) and so the roof voidis accessible to act as a cooling plenum inthe summer via vents in the gables. Theseare closed in the winter, thereby enablingthe roof to act as a passive heat source. Inboth instances a central ceiling fan can dis-tribute the air in an upward or downwarddirection, as required.

The tents are connected to the mainselectrical supply. It was originally hoped tohave all the tents off the grid, but furtherresearch indicated that this would have

532 J. Gardner

required a major centralized solar plant.Since there was insufficient space or firstcost budget for this configuration, it wasdecided to limit the number of tents to fivefor demonstration purposes as a practicalcompromise. Almost one-third have aremote integrated solar hot water heater toreduce electrical costs, which are excep-tionally high in Bermuda. These are sitedaway from current shaded areas.

The interior of the tents is designed tobe comfortable in a bright, casual, cottageholiday style. Furnishings are simple, witha queen-size bed as standard, a pull out ortrundle sofa and various tables and chairoptions. A hammock is provided as a stan-dard amenity and the verandah is struc-tured so that the hammock can be hungfrom it. At Daniel’s Head it is also intendedthat this interior acts as the conceptualstarting point for the conversion of 16rooms in an existing barracks. Fifteen ofthe tents over the water have a window inthe floor to view the water and shorelinebelow. This has become an opportunity tocoordinate with the furnishings and sothese windows are aligned to match glass-topped coffee tables above. The result is avisible amenity in a location where it canbe appreciated, where it will not be cov-ered by a carpet and where it is not unsafefor guests to walk over if it becomes slip-pery. This level of integration, betweenenvironment, structure and interior design,results in a seamless product that con-tributes to the guests’ satisfaction.

The Daniel’s Head tent is the result of anextended development process that goesback to an evolving prototype which hasbeen adapted to suit another climate, mar-ket, budget and construction method. Theresult is a tent that is appropriate to its newsite yet still retains the original fundamen-tals of its environmental considerations,size and use. In a different climate and cul-ture it would evolve as a different form.This is occurring in Destination Villages’Hawaii site where, for example, the climatepermits the windows to be left as screensonly.

Central facilities

The Central Facilities at Daniel’s Head areof a different aesthetic in that they are in aconversion of a single existing structure.The final form and programme is the con-densing of various elements that were orig-inally planned to be distributed throughfour buildings. This was reduced by budgetconstraints. This demonstrates that anenvironmentally focused hospitality opera-tion can successfully compromise usualstandards in the interests of utilizing fewerresources and funds. In this instance thecompromises would be in a blending oflounge and bar functions, smaller officesand a simplification of the food serviceamenities.

Environmental overview

At the initial planning stages the regulatoryauthorities were sceptical that Daniel’sHead would be an ecotourism facility. It isnot located in an isolated area of profoundenvironmental value such as a rainforest.This scepticism was reasonable given theclassic perceptions about the appropriatelocation of ecotourist properties. Similarly,the accommodations were different fromthe rustic structure, lodge or hut that mightbe envisaged. This scepticism extended tothe activities which would interest theguests, since there were no wide-opentracts of land to appreciate. The ultimaterealization of the government of Bermuda,and hence the approval, was that Daniel’sHead had the potential to be a leadershipproject in environmental restoration. Itcould also act as an incubator for environ-mental education as well as adding anotherdimension to the traditional tourism prod-uct that was available.

The accommodations and facilities ofDaniel’s Head enable a damaged site to berestored in a business environment. Itsopen spaces are the incredible views overthe water even though its land plan is quitedense. Its accommodations are comfortableenough to provide a reasonable alternativeto the traditional products that are available,

Accommodations 533

yet simple enough to appeal to the luxurycamper. Its design adheres to the culture ofits location and this can be enhancedthrough the direct integration of the localpopulation in the facilities’ activities.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, thealternative energy, composting, sustainabledesign and sustainable operations pro-grammes can provide an example to thelocal community. Table 33.3 provides asynopsis of the environmentally appropri-ate practices that characterize this facility.

Summary

Ecotourism accommodations offer a newdimension and invigoration to a local

tourism product. They have the ability toprovide a different and wider range ofaccommodations and will challenge thetraditional properties to revisit their ownrequirements and standards. They will alsoprovide an educational resource for theircommunity to improve not only their visi-tors’ experience but also their own qualityof life. There is tremendous latitude in thedeveloper’s ability to seek an appropriateidiom for each facility. A good groundingin the local culture and an emphasis onsustainable design, construction and opera-tions will contribute immensely to the hon-esty and success of the enterprise.

534 J. Gardner

Table 33.3. Daniel’s Head: environmental attributes.

Services/Land use Eco-tents infrastructure Flora Fauna

Rejuvenating a Efficient prefabricated Pedestrian site Site rejuvenation Bermuda tropicmilitary base structures Raised walkways through landscaping bird nesting

Reusing Low impact design Mulch pathways Transplanted trees programmeexisting buildings Removable new No air-conditioning Endemic planting Endemic lizard

Minimize construction Solar photovoltaic philosophy rejuvenationsite works Windows on system Composting programme

Environmental three sides Solar hot-water Marine lifeconstruction Natural ventilation heating custodialplan for cooling Composting toilets programme

Adherence to Minimized electricalvernacular coveragearchitecture Minimal site lighting

Maximize site Roof water collectionenvironmental and site cisternsappreciation

Recycled and local materialsspecification

Chapter 34

Tour Operators

B.R. HigginsDepartment of Geography and Planning, State University of New York at Plattsburgh,

Plattsburgh, New York, USA

Tour operators occupy a critical role in thetourism industry, given their role as inter-mediaries that design, organize, package,market and operate vacation and othertours (Morrison, 1996). The purpose of thischapter is to discuss the role and status oftour operators within the ecotourism sec-tor. A preliminary step for understandingecotourism-related operators is to reviewresearch about tour operators in generalwithin the tourism literature. Remarkably,even though tour operators have becomemajor actors within the global travel indus-try, only a few studies have investigatedtheir character and most of these are some-what dated (Touche Ross, 1975; Britton,1978; Ascher, 1985; Sheldon, 1986;Delaney-Smith, 1987; Urry, 1990; Vellasand Becherel, 1995; Ioannides, 1998).Focusing on three of the more recent stud-ies, Urry (1990) indirectly analysed touroperators and the expansion of the packagetour industry, with special attention toEurope and the UK. He argued that special-ization in the tourism industry, whichwould include the establishment of ecotouroperators, had changed tour productionfrom a concentrated, mass-market complexinto a more segmented, post-Fordist eco-nomic system.

With a similar European focus, Vellasand Becherel (1995) include a section on

tour operators in their review of interna-tional tourism from an economic perspec-tive. Their coverage of tour operatorsprovides detailed information and anexcellent analysis of the rise and fall of themajor operators in selected European coun-tries, but almost nothing about tour opera-tors in other world regions. Ioannides’(1998) important study takes a critical lookat tour operators as it sketches the evolu-tion of the package tour industry, identifiesthe contemporary activities of tour opera-tors and reports on a pilot survey of USspecialist tour operators that includes eco-tours. Ioannides observes that tour opera-tors are key manipulators of touristorigin–destination flows who have displayedlittle loyalty to specific destinations.Overall, given the limited consideration oftour operators within the tourism litera-ture, comparisons of ecotourism-relatedoperators with the tourism industry as awhole will be limited.

Ecotour Operators in the Literature

Surprisingly, a literature review on themore specialized topic of ecotourism-related operators reveals more publicationsthan on tour operators in general as well asmore attention to recent developments in

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 535

this field. Currently, two rather distincttypes of publications are available inregard to ecotourism-related operators. Onekind of publication offers a guide on howto start and manage an ecotourism busi-ness. This practical genre addresses a vari-ety of ‘nuts and bolts’ business issuesincluding organization of the company,product development, finance, marketingand other essential business developmenttopics. Currently, four ecotourism-relatedbusiness guides of high quality are avail-able: a guide for developing a business inadventure tourism with a Canadian focus(Cloutier, 1998); two guides for establishingnature-based tourism businesses from anAustralian perspective (Beeton, 1998;McKercher, 1998); and a step-by-step man-ual for developing nature and culture-based tourism operations from a USpublisher (Patterson, 1997). Together thesebooks identify and clarify the key businesscomponents that are essential for an eco-tourism-related business.

Another set of publications has taken amore detached approach to investigatingthe character of ecotour operations. Sincerelatively little is known about ecotouroperators, the research design in these pub-lications usually includes a survey of oper-ators. They will now each be brieflysketched according to the world regionthey investigate. The earliest of these oper-ator surveys, and the only one focused on adestination country, examined five busi-nesses that specialized in nature travel andtheir related development needs inEcuador (Wilson, 1987). Next, five separatestudies have explored the character ofNorth American-based ecotour operators.First, an early survey of 32 operators whospecialized in nature tourism by Ingramand Durst (1989) noted that just three firmsserved over 1000 clients each during 1986.In the 1990s, independent surveys of NorthAmerican-based ecotour operators byRymer (1992), Yee (1992), Higgins (1996)and Lew (1998) expanded this knowledgebase and demonstrated the dynamic char-acter of ecotour operators in this worldregion. Together they indicated that thenumber and size of ecotour operations had

been growing significantly during the1990s and that market share within theUSA was concentrated. In fact, the fivelargest operators served a total of 50,000travellers in 1994 and 35 of the 82 firmsresponding served more than 1000 clients,thus capturing 90% of the market (Higgins,1996). In addition, almost all of the USoperators conducted their ecotours outsidethe USA and, even though most had tripsto more than one country or world region,very few had itineraries in all of the majorworld regions (Higgins, 1996; Lew, 1998).

In the southern hemisphere, Weiler(1993) critically examined the environmen-tal commitment of 27 nature-based touroperators in Australia, while McKercherand Robbins (1998) and McKercher (1998)profiled and analysed Australian nature-based business. McKercher (1998), citing astudy by Cotteril, estimated that Australiahad 600 ecotourism operators, withoutmentioning their inbound or outbound ori-entation, which are typically small busi-nesses of four or fewer staff. He also notedthat national surveys estimate thatAustralian inbound operators serve about70% of all inbound tourists and 90% of thevisitors from Asia.

Finally, Holden (1996) profiled UK out-bound tour operators who were ‘environ-mentally friendly’. He reported on thelimits of their environmental commitmentand noted that the orientation of their des-tinations was Europe with 65%, SoutheastAsia 51%, South America, Central Americaand Africa at 46% and Australasia 31%.Together, these studies provide an impor-tant baseline profile of ecotour operators inAustralia, Ecuador, the UK and NorthAmerica. At the same time, they implicitlydemonstrate the strong national segmenta-tion among ecotour operators andresearchers. However, since each of thestudies defined its tour operator populationin a different manner, utilized a unique setof survey questions and was primarilyexploratory in design, it is not a simplematter to summarize their results. It is alsonoteworthy that, for the most part, these studies gave limited attention to each other’s surveys or the patterns of

536 B.R. Higgins

international organization among ecotouroperators.

Ecotour Product Development andEvaluation

During the past two decades a diversity ofnew tourism products has appeared in theglobal marketplace. In addition, specificproducts have become associated with newtourism themes, some of which are shownin Box 34.1 (Zurick, 1995; Mowforth andMunt, 1998). It should be noted that thislist of new tourism themes is meant toillustrate the trend in specialization andnot to serve as a definitive inventory.Ecotourism has become one of these newtourism themes, even though its definitionand character continue to generate substan-tial debate (Blamey, 1995; Finucane andDowling, 1995; Weaver, 1998b) (seeChapters 1 and 2). Given the wide scope ofthese new tourism themes as well as thevariable criteria used to identify eco-tourism, the relationship between ecotouroperators and new tourism products willbe examined in more detail.

First, it is important to note the diver-sity, potential overlap and tension that maybe found within these new tourism themes.Since each of these tourism segments hasits own set of stakeholders, interest groupsand marketing connections, operators usu-

ally consider the relation of their productsto this broader marketing context. (SeeMiddleton and Hawkins (1998) for adetailed examination of the importance ofmarket segmentation for sustainable tourism.)Thus, operators consider not only specificactivities, such as kayaking, whale-watch-ing or wine tasting, but also integrate theirproduct with broader themes. For ecotouroperators this growth of new tourism prod-ucts and themes has consequently pro-vided both opportunities and challenges.The increasing diversity of specializedinterests, growing number of clients andsegmentation of the market offer substan-tial opportunities for savvy businesses. Infact, most ecotours include a variety ofactivities and integrate more than one ofthese tourism themes, thereby contributingto the sorts of tourism hybrids cited byWeaver in Chapter 5.

At the same time, it has become a chal-lenge to assure that the integration ofdiverse activities does not alienate a partic-ular market segment or muddle the overallcharacter of a trip. Unfortunately, withsmall ecotour operators little time ormoney is available to consider such issuesin preparing a trip (McKercher, 1998).Alternatively, large ecotour operators mayexpend considerable resources over thecourse of a year to assess and plan a newtrip. In such cases their planning mayinvolve a preliminary assessment of marketdemand, visiting potential venues, deter-mining costs, and negotiating contracts fornew ecotour experiences. However, sys-tematic research has not yet identified howoperators conduct this process.

Despite the lack of empirical research,all the ecotour business publications stressthe importance of ecotour product develop-ment and offer suggestions for itineraryplanning, themes and pricing (Patterson,1997; Beeton, 1998; Cloutier, 1998;McKercher, 1998). According to Patterson(1997), pricing analysis should include cal-culating variable costs per person, fixedcosts per person, overhead and marketingcosts per person, commissions, profit, dis-counts and refunds and credits. Cloutier(1998) goes further to recommend plotting

Tour Operators 537

Box 34.1. New tourism themes.

Adventure tourismCultural tourismEcotourismFarm and rural tourismFestival tourismFood tourismEnvironmental tourismHeritage tourismNature tourismScientific tourismSoft tourismSustainable tourismWine tourism

a product-positioning map that comparesthe price and quality of a new product withthe position of competitor’s products in thearea. He also discusses how to calculate thebreak-even point for a tour as well as estab-lish a tour’s price using a bottom-upapproach.

As discussed by Weiler and Ham inChapter 35 of this Encyclopedia, eco-tourism research has only recently begunto appreciate and evaluate interpretation.Clearly this is likewise true about theassessment of ecotours in general. Little isknown about how ecotour operators con-ceptualize their tours or how this compareswith the assessments of ecotourists. Oneinnovative example of ecotour assessmentwas the Green Evaluation project that wasconducted by The Ecotourism Society andthe Ecuadorian Ecotourism Associationduring 1996 and 1997 (Wood, 1998). In thisvery original programme, ecotourists wereasked to critically evaluate their ecotourexperience based upon key criteria of eco-tourism (Sirakaya, 1997). While reputableconsumer evaluation organizations havebeen established in numerous countries(e.g. Consumer Reports in the USA) andengineering criteria are available for qual-ity control with industrial production (e.g.ISO guidelines), the evaluation of ecotourshas not yet been developed in such a sys-tematic manner. Two important exceptionsare the excellent work of Blake and Becher(1997) in designing and compiling sustain-able tourism ratings for selected eco-tourism operations in Costa Rica, and theEcotourism Association of Australia prod-uct accreditation system (see Chapter 37).

The development of routes, itinerariesand products for independent ecotouristsis also an important issue. Since indepen-dent travellers comprise the largest seg-ment of the ecotourism market, it isimportant to consider how they selectoperators and products. One of the fewstudies to critically explore how indepen-dent tour routes, products and operatorsdevelop, and what impacts they have onlocal communities, is Zurick’s (1995)analysis of independent tourists andadventure travel. He observed that the pro-

fusion of travel books for independent trav-ellers create distinct but parallel routes tosee non-Western countries. Thus, whileindependent travellers may scorn fullypackaged tours offered by outbound opera-tors, the routes, itineraries, and local touroperators they select from alternative travelsources similarly embody a prearrangedand commercialized experience. Since thisselection of destinations, operators andaccommodations has a profound impact onoperators in destination countries, moreresearch should examine this distinctprocess for independent ecotourists.

Even though the experience offered byecotour operators is clearly a crucial aspectof ecotourism, the production of ecotourshas received much less attention withinthe literature than other topics such as pro-tected areas, environmental impacts, biodi-versity or economic valuation (Higgins,1996; Eagles and Higgins, 1998). An exami-nation of ecotourism-related economicstudies indicates the development of a sub-stantial literature, as demonstrated in theexcellent review by Lindberg (1998). Thescope of economic studies has included anumber of public sector issues such as set-ting fees for protected areas (Laarman andGregersen, 1996) and estimating economicimpacts (Dixon and Sherman, 1990). It hasalso included more theoretical subjects,such as assessing demand curves (Crouch,1995) and the contingent evaluation of nat-ural resources (Navrud and Mungatana,1994). Overall though, the economicstudies have had little to say about the sup-ply side of the ecotourism industry or thecharacter, organization, strategies, or geo-graphical distribution of ecotour operators.In fact, this blind spot within ecotourism ispart of a broader gap in our knowledgeabout the supply side of tourism in general.As Ioannides and Debbage (1998) havenoted, the tourist industry has not receivedthe same attention that manufacturing andother economic sectors have been given inthe economics, tourism or geography litera-ture. Consequently, our knowledge of eco-tour production as well as mainstream tourproduction is still limited.

Several features make it a challenge to

538 B.R. Higgins

conduct research about the production ofecotours. First, governments have pub-lished little if any secondary informationregarding ecotour operators, ecotourists, orecotour products. An important exceptionis the Bureau of Tourism Research inAustralia where considerable high qualityresearch about nature and backpackertourists was conducted during the 1990s(Blamey, 1995; Haigh, 1995; Buchanan andRossetto, 1997; Blamey and Hatch, 1998).Second, much of the relevant informationconcerning ecotour operators and productsis either proprietary or confidential innature. Since it is unusual for tour opera-tors to disclose sales figures, costs, financ-ing, profit margins, characteristics ofclients, marketing strategies, business net-works or other crucial business informa-tion, it has been difficult for researchers toanalyse patterns within this sector oramong destination communities. In addi-tion, the operation of tours is a largelyunregulated activity that involves signifi-cant risks and has recently resulted innumerous bankruptcies (Waters, 1998,p. 149). Furthermore, these operations aretypically small businesses with very lim-ited time and energy. Thus, ecotour opera-tors simply may not have time for aninterview or choose to be deliberatelyvague when discussing their operations.

Finally, several definitions of eco-tourism have been used in different con-texts, and a variety of related tourismthemes, as shown in Box 34.1, may also beused by ecotour operators (Blamey, 1995;Zurick, 1995; Weaver, 1998a, b). With theincreasing specialization and importanceof market segmentation, tour operatorshave frequently aligned themselves withinone or more of these broader notions andrelated market segments as they identify anaesthetic for their tours (Mowforth andMunt, 1998). Trekking and adventure tours,such as the type that are offered in the hillcountry of northern Thailand (Cohen,1989; Dearden, 1989), are examples of thisalignment. In this multi-layered context,the use and meaning of ‘ecotourism’ byeither an operator or researcher becomes anissue that requires critical analysis. Since

critical assessments may alienate operatorswho are aligned with other specialitynotions or embarrass operators who haveused the term ecotour primarily as a mar-keting ploy (Wight, 1993; Campbell, 1999),developing a thoughtful research strategyhas become increasingly important. For avariety of reasons then, researchers haveencountered new challenges when collect-ing primary data or requesting unpublisheddocuments through personal contacts.Given the special challenges that may beencountered while attempting to collectevidence from tour operators, such asrefusals, non-response and evasiveness,researchers should carefully consider themethodology of studies to assure that theobservations and conclusions do notexceed the quality of the evidence that hasbeen collected.

Ecotour Operator Networks andOrganization

International market and product distributionnetworks

The most common framework to conceptu-alize ecotour operators and production isto distinguish between outbound, inboundand local ecotourism operators. In thisrudimentary framework, outbound ecotouroperators are based primarily in the indus-trialized countries, inbound operators arefound in international gateway cities ofdestination countries and local operatorsare located in the rural service-centres ofdestination countries (Ashton and Ashton,1993; Higgins, 1996; Wood, 1998; Honey,1999). In select cases, the supply of eco-tours has been conceptualized to alsoinclude travel agents/retailers, who play asignificant role in select world regions suchas Australia (Ziffer, 1989; McKercher,1998). Even though this geographic schemehas frequently been used to distinguishtypes of ecotour operators, the networks ofecotour operators and organization of eco-tour production have seldom been explicittopics of discussion in the literature. Toaddress this oversight the chapter will map

Tour Operators 539

some of the key networks among ecotouroperators and consider the significance ofthese organizational niches for ecotourismas a whole.

A number of issues make it important togo beyond a focus on individual eco-tourism operators and their internal organi-zation to also examine relations betweenoperators and related support organiza-tions. First, as Tremblay (1998) has arguedin detail, the transaction costs and organi-zational diversity of tourism have limitedthe ability of research that focuses primar-ily on firms and ownership to understandthe tourism industry. As an alternative hepresented a network approach to the eco-nomic organization of tourism that hebelieves offers more robust potential toaddress the importance of alliances, coop-erative ventures, and partnerships intourism. Since the relations among distincttour operator businesses and within dis-tinct market niches are clearly crucial forecotourism, this chapter will sketch someof the distinct networks in this economicenvironment. (For a detailed study of thegeography of tourism businesses and thenatural environment in a particular regionsee Higgins and Holmes (1999).)

Vertical operator networks

To appreciate the role of connections andnetworks for ecotourism, consider a typicaloutbound ecotour operation. Such busi-nesses usually have purchasing agreementswith international airlines as well as one ormore inbound tour operators which areusually responsible for the ground trans-portation, food and accommodations in thedestination country. The inbound operatormay be an independent business, a sub-sidiary company that is wholly owned bythe outbound ecotour operator or a jointventure involving a local business and theoutbound operator. Its role is to provide apackage of goods and services, usuallyoffered by smaller, independent operatorswho lack the necessary distributionresources to enter the international market-

place, which the outbound operator canlink with airfare to provide an easy to pur-chase product for the tourist. Althoughempirical studies have seldom systemati-cally mapped these production alliances,such ecotourism business connections areclearly pivotal for ecotour operators of allkinds and sizes.

Under this schema, a series of comple-mentary yet separate tourism businessesorganize themselves to create an integratedpackage. Such integrated networks usuallyinclude air travel, ground transportation,accommodations, food and guiding, asdepicted in Fig. 34.1. They frequentlyinvolve ecotour operators from industrial-ized countries making connections withnational operators located in the interna-tional gateway cities of destination coun-tries. The national inbound operator thennetworks with operators in different areasto provide a diversity of itineraries andproducts. These networks are the basis ofmost outbound tourism (Ioannides, 1998;Tremblay, 1998). Establishing such a net-work allows operators to negotiate price,availability, quality and other features thatare crucial to their ability to market andmanage their operations. Such networksmay be implemented in a variety of ways,including annual contracts, exclusive offer-ing agreements, block purchase or reserva-tion of services and minority investmentschemes.

However, the growing accessibility offax, Internet access, and computer reserva-tion systems has had a significant impacton tourism product distribution (Masonand Milne, 1998; Milne, 1998; Milne andGill, 1998). Changing technology has modi-fied the character of ecotourist marketdemand, since it has become easier for eco-tourists from industrialized countries toindependently arrange their own ecotoursby contacting inbound and local ecotouroperators in destination countries directly.As a result, a variety of new operator net-works are emerging, enabling the local,destination operator to sell his or her prod-uct directly to the international consumer.

540 B.R. Higgins

Ecotourism associations

Another popular form of operator collabo-ration is the formation of a trade or indus-try association (discussed in more detail inChapter 30). Forming a speciality tourismorganization usually involves creating ahybrid organization that has a strong focuson the needs and perspectives of tour oper-ators, but also includes other tourismstakeholders and interests. These groupsare frequently formed at the national levelto organize and highlight the needs of thisspecial tourism segment. Examples includethe Australian Ecotourism Association, Tour-ism Watch based in Germany, IndonesianEcotourism Network, the Brazilian Eco-tourism Society, E-Travel Canada, the International Ecotourism Society based inthe USA and the Ecuadorian EcotourismAssociation. These groups typically includenot only ecotour operators but environmen-tal non-government organizations (NGOs) aswell as professionals and academicresearchers (see Fig. 34.2). A key compo-nent of these networks is to build a broad-based organization that may share businessservices, provide branding, improve mar-keting and advocate policy alternatives forsustainable tourism.

In select cases these speciality groupshave also formed at a sub-national level aswith the various state ecotourism groups inthe USA (e.g. Alaska, Florida and Hawaii)or at the world-regional level as with thePacific Asia Travel Association. Theseorganizations usually provide client refer-rals and marketing for members as well asdeveloping plans and projects to servetheir broader interests. Also, since govern-ments have frequently been reticent toevaluate or regulate tourism, these organi-zations have sometimes provided an alter-native method to deal with the negativeimpacts of tourism as well as advocate sus-tainable tourism guidelines.

Tour Operators 541

Fig. 34.1. Vertical operator network.

Fig. 34.2. Speciality tourism organization.

Community-based operator

Another type of organization that has beengrowing in both popularity and signifi-cance is the community-based ecotouroperator, as illustrated in Fig. 34.3. A num-ber of features are special about this type ofnetwork. First, they are usually basedwithin indigenous communities. Thisintroduces important cultural dimensions,both in terms of ecotourist appreciationand impact as well as business manage-ment and community development. Inaddition, they are typically establishedwithin and designed to serve a particularvillage or group of communities. This dis-tinguishes them from the majority of eco-tour operations that are usually establishedfor control by an individual or family andwith less explicit connections to a particu-lar place or community. Of course, the sys-tematic issues of indigenous developmentand community-based enterprises are notunique to tourism and have been discussedin many other contexts.

A wide variety of studies has addressedcommunity-based ecotourism operators. Infact, research in this sub-field has beengrowing so rapidly that this section shouldonly be considered prefatory in coverage.First, Zeppel (1998) has written an excel-lent overview of sustainable tourism andindigenous peoples with examples frommany world regions. Another insightfuloverview, with examples from around theworld, is the special issue of CulturalSurvival (Wood, 1999). This impressiveedition included 14 separate pieces with aspecial focus on protecting indigenous cul-

ture and land through ecotourism. In addi-tion, Honey’s (1999) critical review of eco-tourism directs substantial attention tolocally controlled development and com-munity-based operators both in her system-atic analysis and in the seven nations shediscusses in detail. Besides these interna-tionally focused works, many studies ofparticular community-based tourism opera-tions are also available. During the 1990sone of the hot spots for indigenous andcommunity-based tourism was clearlyEcuador. Insightful work on differentaspects of community tourism initiatives inEcuador include work by Rogers (1996),Schaller (1996), Smith (1996a, b), Wesche(1996), Drumm (1998) and Wood (1998). Infact, Schaller’s work even included aninteractive web site where visitors can planand manage a locally controlled eco-tourism project in the Ecuadorian Amazon(http://www.eduweb.com/amazon.html).Chapter 22 of this volume, by Hinch, alsorefers to community control issues in thecontext of indigenous communities.

Other studies of community-based oper-ators in South America include an analysisof Lake Titicaca’s campesino-controlledtourism in Bolivia (Healy and Zorn, 1988,1994). In Central America a guide to com-munity-based ecotourism in Belize (BelizeMinistry of Tourism and Environment,1994) and an analysis of select communitysites in Belize by Horwich et al. (1993) aregood examples from this region. In NorthAmerica, tourism operations at Acomahave been very effectively developed byNative Americans and serve as a model fortribal tourism in this region (Smith, 1996).In Africa, a detailed description and analy-sis of four hypothetical approaches to com-munity involvement in Namibia wasdeveloped by Ashley and Garland (1994)and the problems of integrating Maasai tra-dition with tourism were analysed byBerger (1996). Another region that hasbecome a hot spot of community-basedtourism alternatives is Australia–NewZealand. The Northern Territory of Australiaalone had 52 Aboriginal tours listed withits tourism office in 1996 (Zeppel, 1998).For extensive references and more analysis

542 B.R. Higgins

Fig. 34.3. Community-based operator.

of these initiatives see Zeppel’s (1998)detailed consideration of both Australiaand New Zealand. Overall then, the num-ber of community-based ecotour operatorsis small. However, in comparison to thetotal number of operators or their gross rev-enue, the high growth rate, wide interna-tional distribution, and the abundance ofresearch on community-based operatorssuggests that these organizations will beincreasingly important in the future.

Non-profit environmental organizationsoffering travel

As the ecotourism industry continued togrow during the 1990s one of its majorsources of support was the growth of non-profit environmental organizations (seeChapter 30). The tremendous growth in thenumber of organizations, their membershipand the amount of global funding for envi-ronmental NGOs has influenced ecotouroperators in numerous ways. First, the sig-nificant funds that these organizationsreceive and their collaboration with bilat-eral and multilateral development agencieshas had a significant impact on the scopeof international conservation initiatives(Princen and Finger, 1994; Honey, 1999). Inaddition, many of these organizations havedeveloped travel programmes for theirmembers. In some cases the ecotours in thetravel programme are run exclusively bythe NGO but in most cases the travel pro-grammes sign contracts for nature tripswith for-profit operators. Even though it isdifficult to estimate the size of this market,research in 1994 indicated that 11 of 83 or13% of the US-based ecotour operatorsstudied were non-profit organizations whocumulatively served over 20,000 clients or17% of the total market (Higgins, 1996).This sector is the focus of an increasinglylarge body of literature (Weiler andRichins, 1995; Higgins, 1996; McLaren,1998; Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Wood,1998; Honey, 1999).

University travel groups

Another recent development in non-profittravel organizations has been the growth ofuniversity travel programmes. Alumni andeducational travel programmes offer travelalternatives that usually include trips high-lighting nature, conservation and localcommunities. It should be noted, though,that while university travel programmesare extensive within the USA, at the pre-sent time they are much less common inother parts of the world. Within the USA thissubsector has been developing for sometime. In 1985, for example, a for-profit busi-ness named Travel Learning Conferenceswas incorporated that organizes annualconferences to provide connections betweennon-profit institutions and for-profit touroperators. The institutional survey for their1997 meeting indicated that the 200 insti-tutions participating at this meeting soldtrips to more than 37,000 passengers in theprevious year, primarily to foreign destina-tions (TLC, 1998). It is also important thatfor-profit tour operators that are contractedby these non-profit institutions conductalmost all of this foreign travel. Together,the growing number of ecotourists fromenvironmental NGOs and university travelprogrammes has created a distinctive andsubstantial ecotour operator niche asshown in Fig. 34.4.

Ecoresort complex

The recent construction of inclusiveecolodges on private nature reserves withquality guides and eco-packaging has cre-ated alternative ecotourism products. Anumber of forces have been fuelling thischanging environment, where upscalelodges become more environmentally sen-sitive, at the same time as the appreciationof indigenous design and heritage areincorporated more extensively. First, pro-gressive architects, landscape architects,land planners and developers have beenworking to improve the sustainability oflodges and parks for some time. In the

Tour Operators 543

1990s this was highlighted for ecotourismwith the publication of works on the topicof ecolodge design, environmental land-scape layout and park planning (NPS,1992; Andersen, 1993; Hawkins et al.,1995; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996).

Second, resort developers have beenstruggling to address the mounting envi-ronmental criticism of large-scale projectsand establish positive alternatives (Ayala,1995, 1996). The hybrid alternative thathas appeared is termed an ecoresort com-plex as shown in Box 34.2. This is funda-mentally different from the other networkssince it seeks to integrate a wide variety oftour components with corporate manage-ment into one site or complex. While thishas been a well-known strategy of interna-tional resorts for many years, only recentlyhave developers attempted to integratemega-project elements with increased sen-sitivity to the environment and the experi-ence of place. Of course, designing andbuilding such elaborate systems requires

significant planning, development andmanagement experience as well as largeamounts of capital. As a result, bilateraland multilateral development agencieshave recently funded a variety of suchalternatives and large transnational corpo-rations have initiated such products as amulti-layered approach to attract anupscale clientele (Mowforth and Munt,1998; Honey, 1999). To understand theseinitiatives by tour operators and accommo-dation enterprises see the examples andanalysis of Middleton and Hawkins (1998)as well as Hawkins et al., (1995).

544 B.R. Higgins

Fig. 34.4. Non-profit travel organizations.

Box 34.2. Ecoresort complex.

Recreation activitiesNature reserveAccommodationFoodEntertainmentInterpretation

Future Research, Planning and Policy

Changing patterns in the global supply anddemand of tourism have produced manyimpacts during the past two decades. Oneof the more visible trends has been thegrowth of ecotourism as a specialized formof global tourism. This development hasmany dimensions, as discussed in the vari-ous chapters of this Encyclopedia. One ofthe key components in this transformationhas been the formation and growth of thou-sands of ecotourism-related tour operatorsfunctioning within every world region.Even though our current knowledge ofthese actors is often limited, a diverse andvibrant group of researchers, consultantsand operators has made important contri-butions to the growing literature on this

topic. Yet, significant topics have yet to besystematically addressed. For example,what contributions have ecotourism opera-tors made to environmental conservationand biodiversity preservation? How do thecommunity impacts of ecotourism-relatedoperators compare to mainstream touroperations? What strategic interventionswould leverage the most benefit for a largenumber of small ecotour operators? What isthe best method to evaluate and maintainthe quality of ecotours? What are the keygender and labour issues for ecotour opera-tors? As ecotourism research, planning andpolicy studies address these and otherquestions, the economic geography of eco-tourism-related operators will hopefullybecome clear and relations between thehuman and natural environment improved.

Tour Operators 545

References

Andersen, D. (1993) A window to the natural world: the design of ecotourism facilities. In: Lindberg,K., Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2,The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 116–133.

Ascher, F. (1985) Transnational tour operator corporations. In: Tourism: Transnational Corporationsand Cultural Identities. UNESCO, Paris, 57–69.

Ashley, C. and Garland, E. (1994) Promoting Community-Based Tourism Development: Why, What,and How? Research Discussion Paper Number 4, Directorate of Environmental Affairs,Windhoek, Namibia.

Ashton, R. and Ashton, P. (1993) An Introduction to Sustainable Tourism (Ecotourism) in CentralAmerica: Paseo Pantera Ecotourism Program. Wildlife Conservation International, Gainesville,Florida.

Ayala, H. (1995) Ecoresort: a ‘green’ masterplan for the international resort industry. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 3–4, 351–374.

Ayala, H. (1996) Resort ecotourism: a master plan for experience management. Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly 37(5), 54–61.

Beeton, S. (1998) Ecotourism: a Practical Guide for Rural Communities. Landlinks Press,Collingwood, Australia.

Belize Ministry of Tourism and Environment and Belize Enterprise for Sustained Technology (1994)Guide to Community-Based Ecotourism in Belize. Belize.

Berger, D. (1996) The challenge of integrating Maasai tradition with tourism. In: Price, M. (ed.)People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 175–198.

Blake, B. and Becher, A. (1997) The New Key to Costa Rica. Ulysses Press, Berkeley, California.Blamey, R. (1995) The Nature of Ecotourism, Occasional Paper No. 21. Bureau of Tourism Research,

Canberra.Blamey, R. and Hatch, D. (1998) Profiles and Motivations of Nature-Based Tourists Visiting Australia,

Occasional Paper No. 25. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.Britton, R. (1978) International tourism and indigenous development objectives: a study with special

reference to the West Indies. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota,USA.

Buchanan, I. and Rossetto, A. (1997) With my Swag Upon my Shoulder: a Comprehensive Study ofInternational Backpackers to Australia, Occasional Paper No. 24. Bureau of Tourism Research,Canberra.

Campbell, L. (1999) Making the best of a bad situation: promoting ecotourism in rural Costa Rica,presentation at The Society for Human Ecology Conference, Montreal, May 1999.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. World Conservation Union,Gland, Switzerland.

Cloutier, R. (1998) The Business of Adventure. Bhudak Consultants, Kamloops, British Columbia.Cohen, E. (1989) ‘Primitive and remote’: hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research

16, 30–61.Crouch, G.I. (1995) A meta-analysis of tourism demand. Annals of Tourism Research 22, 103–118.Dearden, P. (1989) Tourism in developing societies: some observations on trekking in the highlands

of north Thailand. World Leisure and Recreation 31(4), 40–47.Delaney-Smith, P. (1987) The tour operator: new and maturing business. In: The Travel and Tourism

Industry: Strategies for the Future. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 94–106.Dixon, J. and Sherman, P. (1990) Economics of Protected Areas: a New Look at Benefits and Costs.

Island Press, Washington, DC.Drumm, A. (1998) New approaches to community-based ecotourism management. In: Lindberg, K.,

Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. TheEcotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 197–214.

Eagles, P. and Higgins, B. (1998) Ecotourism market and industry structure. In: Lindberg, K., Wood,M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers. The EcotourismSociety, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 11–43.

Finucane, S. and Dowling, R. (1995) The perceptions of ecotourism operators in Western Australia.Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 14–21.

Haigh, R. (1995) Backpackers in Australia, Occasional Paper No. 20. Bureau of Tourism Research,Canberra.

Hawkins, D., Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (eds) (1995) The Ecolodge Sourcebook for Planners andDevelopers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Healy, K. and Zorn, E. (1988) Lake Titicaca’s campesino-controlled tourism. In: Annis, S. and Hakim,P. (eds) Direct to the Poor: Grassroots Development in Latin America. Lynne Rienner Publishers,Boulder, Colorado, pp. 45–72.

Healy, K. and Zorn, E. (1994) Taquiles’s homespun tourism. In: Kleymeyer, C. (ed.) CulturalExpression and Grassroots Development: Cases from Latin America and the Caribbean. LynneRienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 135–147.

Higgins, B. (1996) The global structure of the nature tourism industry: ecotourists, tour operators,and local business. Journal of Travel Research 35(2), 11–18.

Higgins, B. and Holmes, T. (1999) Tourism Business, Community and Environment in theAdirondack Park. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York.

Holden, A. (1996) A profile of U.K. outbound ‘environmental friendly’ tour operators. TourismManagement 17(1), 60–64.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Island Press, Washington, DC.Horwich, R., Murray, D., Sacqui, J., Lyon, J. and Godfrey, D. (1993) Ecotourism and community devel-

opment: a view from Belize. In: Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide forPlanners and Managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 152–168.

Ingram, D. and Durst, P. (1989) Nature-oriented tour operators: travel to developing countries.Journal of Travel Research 28, 11–15.

Ioannides, D. (1998) Tour operators: the gatekeepers of tourism. In: Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K.(eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: a Supply-side Analysis. Routledge,London, pp. 139–158.

Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K. (eds) (1998) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: aSupply-side Analysis. Routledge, London.

Laarman, J.G. and Gregersen, H.M. (1996) Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. TourismManagement 17(4), 247–254.

Lew, A. (1998) The Asia-Pacific ecotourism industry: putting sustainable tourism into practice. In:Hall, C. and Lew, A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow,UK, pp. 92–106.

546 B.R. Higgins

Lindberg, K. (1998) Economic aspects of ecotourism. In: Lindberg, K., Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D.(eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society, NorthBennington, Vermont, pp. 87–115.

McKercher, B. (1998) The Business of Nature-Based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Melbourne.McKercher, B. and Robbins, B. (1998) Business development issues affecting nature-based tourism

operators in Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2), 173–188.McLaren, D. (1998) Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.Mason, D. and Milne, S. (1998) Putting Paradise On-Line, Case Study No. 1998–06. University of

Wellington, Victoria, New Zealand, pp. 1–18.Middleton, V. and Hawkins, R. (1998) Sustainable Tourism: a Marketing Perspective. Butterworth

Heinemann, Oxford.Milne, S. (1998) Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the global-local nexus. In: Hall, C.

and Lew, A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK,pp. 35–48.

Milne, S. and Gill, K. (1998) Distribution technologies and destination development. In: Ioannides,D. and Debbage, K. (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: a Supply-sideAnalysis. Routledge, London, pp. 123–138.

Morrison, A. (1996) Hospitality and Travel Marketing, 2nd edn. Delmar Publications, New York.Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) The industry: lies, damned lies and sustainability. In: Mowforth,

M. and Munt, I. (eds) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. Routledge,London, pp. 188–236.

Navrud, S. and Mungatana, E.D. (1994) Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recre-ational value of wildlife viewing. Ecological Economics 11, 135–151.

National Park Service (1992) Sustainable Design: a Collaborative National Park Service Initiative. USGovernment Printing Office, Denver, Colorado.

Patterson, C. (1997) The Business of Ecotourism: the Complete Guide for Nature and Culture-BasedTourism Operations. Explorer’s Guide Publishing, Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

Princen, T. and Finger, M. (1994) Environmental NGOs in World Politics. Routledge, New York.Rogers, M. (1996) Beyond authenticity: conservation, tourism, and politics of representation in the

Ecuadorian Amazon. Identities 3(1–2), 73–125.Rymer, T. (1992) Growth of U.S. ecotourism and its future in the 1990’s. Florida International

University Hospitality Review 10(1), 1–10.Schaller, D. (1996) Indigenous ecotourism and sustainable development: The case of Rio Blanco,

Ecuador. Masters thesis, The University of Minnesota, Department of Geography, Minneapolis,USA.

Sheldon, P.J. (1986) The tour operator industry: an analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 13,349–365.

Sirakaya, E. (1997) Attitudinal compliance with ecotourism guidelines. Annals of Tourism Research24(4), 919–950.

Smith, R. (1996a) Crisis Under the Canopy: Tourism and Other Problems Facing the Present DayHuaorani. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Smith, R. (1996b) Manual de Ecoturismo Para Guias y Communidades Indigenas de la AmazoniaEquatoriana. Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador.

Smith, V. (1996) The four Hs of tribal tourism: Acoma – a pueblo case study. Progress in Tourism andHospitality Research 2, 295–306.

TLC (1998) Non-profits in Travel – Manual for the Twelfth Annual Conference. Travel LearningConferences Inc., Ronan, Montana.

Touche Ross and Company (1975) Tour Wholesale Industry Study. Touche Ross, New York.Tremblay, P. (1998) The economic organization of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 25(4),

837–859.Urry, J. (1990) The changing economics of the tourist industry. In: The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and

Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London, pp. 40–65.Vellas, F. and Becherel, L. (1995) Selling and marketing the tourism product. In: International

Tourism: an Economic Perspective. St Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 163–193.Waters, S. (1998) Travel Industry Yearbook. Child and Waters, New Hampshire.Weaver, D. (1998a) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Weaver, D. (1998b) Nature-Based Tourism in Australia and Beyond: a Preliminary Investigation. CRC

for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.

Tour Operators 547

Weiler, B. (1993) Nature-based tour operators: are they environmentally friendly or are they faking it?Tourism Recreation Research 18(1), 55–60.

Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1995) Extreme, extravagant and elite: a profile of ecotourists onEarthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 29–36.

Wesche, R. (1996) Developed country environmentalism and indigenous community controlled eco-tourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Geographische Zeitschrift 84(3/4), 157–168.

Wight, P. (1993) Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell? Journal of Travel Research 31, 3–9.Wilson, M. (1987) Nature Oriented Tourism in Ecuador: Assessment of Industry Structure and

Development Needs. Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina.

Wood, M. (1998) New directions in the ecotourism industry. In: Lindberg, K., Wood, M. andEngeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. The EcotourismSociety, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 45–62.

Wood, M. (1999) Ecotourism, sustainable development and cultural survival: protecting indigenousculture and land through ecotourism, guest editor. Cultural Survival 23(2), 25–59.

Yee, J. (1992) Ecotourism Market Survey: a Survey of North American Ecotourism Tour Operators.Pacific Asia Travel Association, San Francisco, California.

Zeppel, H. (1998) Land and culture: sustainable tourism and indigenous peoples. In: Hall, C. andLew, A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK, pp.92–106.

Ziffer, K. (1989) Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington,Vermont.

Zurick, D. (1995) Errant Journeys: Adventure Travel in a Modern Age. University of Texas Press,Austin.

548 B.R. Higgins

Chapter 35

Tour Guides and Interpretation

B. Weiler1 and S.H. Ham21Department of Management, Monash University, Berwick Campus, Narre Warren, Victoria,

Australia; 2College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Department of ResourceRecreation and Tourism, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

Introduction

The role of the tour guide in ecotourism,and in particular the guide’s use of inter-pretation as an indispensable tool forachieving the goals of ecotourism, is thefocus of this chapter. Many definitions ofecotourism found in the literature (seeChapter 1) acknowledge that educationand/or interpretation is a key element ofecotourism. In other words, the ecotourismexperience is meant to engender an intel-lectual, emotional and even spiritual con-nection between people and places asmuch as it does a physical experience withland and water. The key to establishingthese links between people and places isinterpretation. Originally defined by Tilden(1957), interpretation is an educationalactivity aimed at revealing meanings andrelationships to people about the placesthey visit and the things they see and dothere. The premise of this chapter is thatinterpretation lies at the heart and soul ofwhat ecotourism is, and what ecotourguides can and should be doing.

The chapter begins with a discussion ofthe multiple roles of the tour guide, andprovides an argument as to why interpreta-tion should be regarded as a critical andindispensable element of what ecotourguides do. This is followed by a section

that outlines the principles of interpreta-tion as they apply to guided ecotours, andillustrates their potential to deliver visitorsatisfaction while at the same time achiev-ing the aims of ecotourism. The authorsthen examine the importance of qualityinterpretive guiding in tourist decisionmaking and thus the importance of provid-ing information about the interpretation tobe offered when marketing guided tours.This is followed by an analysis of selectedresearch findings that link quality guiding,and in particular the use of interpretationby guides, to the quality of the ecotouristexperience. Finally, the chapter reviewsand critiques current practices and issuesin tour guide recruitment, professionaldevelopment (including training and quali-fications), best practice standards, andrecognition and reward schemes. While thelast two sections are based largely onAustralian experience and evidence, theyare illustrative of trends and issues thathave global relevance.

Special emphasis is placed on face-to-face interpretation delivered by tour guidesin both developed and developing coun-tries. This includes interpretation on landor on water, as part of guided walks,guided tours using non-motorized forms oftravel (e.g. canoe, raft, mountain bike orhorseback), and vehicle-based tours (e.g.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 549

bus, four-wheel drive, riverboat or sea-going vessels). It should be noted thatmuch of what is discussed applies to anytour guide wishing to provide a quality vis-itor experience, whether as part of an eco-tourism operation or as part of anadventure, cultural or other nature-basedtour, attraction or resort programme. Tourguides often have the freedom and thus theimportant opportunity to practise the prin-ciples of ecotourism and interpretationregardless of where or for whom they work,and irrespective of whether the product islabelled and marketed as an ecotour or assome other type of nature-based product.

This chapter does not concern itselfdirectly with non-personal or ‘static’ inter-pretation such as printed materials, signs,exhibits, self-guided walks, pre-recordedtour commentaries on cassettes or videos,virtual tours, and other electronic media.Many of these interpretive media can beeffective in enhancing visitors’ understand-ing and appreciation of the environmentsbeing visited and the various natural andcultural phenomena experienced. They areimportant elements of the ecotourism expe-rience, and many of the principles andissues discussed in this chapter are applic-able to these static interpretation media.Further discussion on the use of staticinterpretive media may be found in Zehr etal. (1990), Trapp et al. (1991), Ham (1992)and Sorrell (1996).

Interpretation: Just One of the ManyRoles of an Ecotour Guide?

The tour guide’s ‘role’ has been the subjectof scholarly discussion and analysis forjust over a decade. Arguably the main con-ceptual framework used to dissect andanalyse the various roles and functions ofthe tour guide has been Cohen’s model(1985). This model acknowledges both thetraditional ‘pathfinding’ role and the morerecent ‘mentoring’ role of all tour guides,and uses these to produce a 2 × 2 matrix oftour guide roles. The authors feel that themain value of this model is the recognitionthat guides have accountabilities both

within the group (i.e. to facilitate learningand enjoyment of individual clients, and tonurture and manage interaction betweenclients) and outside the group (i.e. to facili-tate and mediate interaction betweenclients and host communities). Weiler andDavis (1993) added a third dimension tothe model for nature-based tour guides:interaction with the natural environmentitself. However, there has been almost nopublished research, with the exception ofHaig (1997), testing or applying theseframeworks.

A number of studies have investigatedthe roles and impacts of both mainstreamtour guides as well as specialist guides,including ecotour guides (Holloway, 1981;Weiler and Richins, 1990; Weiler et al.,1992). The overwhelming finding of thesestudies has been that the tour guide isexpected to play a large number of differ-ent roles, in response to the expectationsand demands of various stakeholders in theecotourism experience.

From a business perspective, it is usefulto frame a discussion of the roles of thetour guide in the context of the variousstakeholders to which guides are account-able. Whether the tour is a brief, 20-minguided walk in the rainforest, or anextended four-wheel drive tour coveringthousands of kilometres and a range ofecosystems, the guide has many masters.Key among these are the tour operator, theclient, the host community, land managers,and the tourism industry itself, each ofwhich is discussed in turn in the subsec-tions that follow.

The tour operator

Guides may be employed on a permanent,casual or freelance basis. Regardless ofemployment status, the guide is presum-ably accountable to deliver what is speci-fied in his or her job description.Traditionally, however, much of what thetour operator expects of the guide is deter-mined by informal understanding ratherthan formal documentation. Increasingly,operators are able and willing to articulate

550 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

what they perceive to be the duties and, toa lesser extent, the outcomes and perfor-mance indicators of their guides. From thetour operator’s perspective, for example, aguide’s duties often include:

• ensuring the safety, health and comfortof clients;

• providing courteous and quality cus-tomer service;

• responding to the needs and expecta-tions of visitors from other cultures andthose with special needs due to age, adisability or special interests;

• managing interactions within clientgroups;

• delivering the tour cost-effectively;• providing high quality, informative and

entertaining commentary;• meeting the legal and moral obligations

and expectations of protected area man-agers, host communities and clients.

The development of industry-wide compe-tency or occupational standards, withinput from operators and guides, has beena relatively recent (1990s) phenomenonthat has helped to formalize and standard-ize employers’ expectations, at least indeveloped countries like Australia andCanada (CTHRC, 1996; Tourism TrainingAustralia, 1999). However, the conditionsunder which tour guides must work, theremuneration associated with satisfactory(or better) performance, and the extent towhich guides are held accountable forwhat they do on the job varies widely.Indeed, for many small tour operators, theguide is also the owner/operator, so isaccountable only to him/herself. Given theimmediacy of the financial, marketing andadministrative demands of operating abusiness (see Chapter 36), insufficientattention is likely to be given to at leastsome of the above duties.

At the other extreme, companies orga-nizing tours to remote areas or in countriesother than where they are based may neveractually observe the tour guide’s perfor-mance on the job, relying totally on theguide’s own assessment of the tour and, tosome extent, client feedback. The deliveryof tour commentary is assumed to be part

of every guide’s job, but the extent towhich the guide is expected to practiseprinciples of effective interpretation varieswidely. Many operators have little or noidea what interpretation is (Weiler et al.,1992; Weiler, 1993b), and no idea whethertheir clients’ understanding and apprecia-tion of nature and culture are enhanced asa result of their guided tour experience.

The visitor

The terms ‘visitor’, ‘ecotourist’ and ‘client’are used here to refer to tour participants,regardless of whether they are local resi-dents, domestic tourists or internationalvisitors, and irrespective of who pays orwhether an overnight stay is involved.

Visitor satisfaction is, many wouldargue, the ultimate measure of success inany tourism business (Ryan, 1995). Visitorsatisfaction is a complex variable, influ-enced to some extent but not entirely byexpectations and on-site perceptions, forwhich it is often very difficult to obtainvalid measures (Blamey and Hatch, 1996;Childress and Crompton, 1997; Ryan,1998). For example, a visitor may indicatethat his/her expectations were met, but isthis satisfaction? Meeting visitor expecta-tions is usually necessary, but may not besufficient, to producing satisfied clientswho will become repeat customers for thecompany and/or recommend the tour toothers, both of which are extremely impor-tant in the ecotourism industry (seeMancini, 1990; Blamey and Hatch, 1996).

Unfortunately, our understanding ofwhat contributes to visitor satisfaction ordissatisfaction, particularly with respect tothe performance of the tour guide, is stillvery poor. Some research, however, hasindeed demonstrated a link between thequality of guiding and tourist satisfaction(see Lopez, 1981; Geva and Goldman,1991). Hughes’ (1991) study of a boat touron Palm Island (Australia) found that theability of the guide to effectively interactwith the group, provide a commentary ofinterest and ensure smooth running of the tour, emerged as the most important

Tour Guides and Interpretation 551

components of the guide’s role. Similarly,Geva and Goldman (1991) in a study of 15guided tours from Israel to Europe and theUSA found that the guide’s conduct (rela-tions with tour participants) and expertisewere the most important of 15 tour attrib-utes in determining client satisfaction.Finally, another Australian study onguided tours in Tasmania (ForestryTasmania, 1994) found that clients placedconsiderable value on the guide’s interpre-tation of the environment and land man-agement. In addition, a growing body ofqualitative evidence, based on the practicalexperiences of businesses and organiza-tions, suggests that providing quality inter-pretive services makes real business sense.According to Conservation International, aWashington, DC-based environmental non-govenment organization, high quality inter-pretation ‘can also improve business byincreasing the quality of guests’ experi-ence, increasing repeat visitation and occu-pancy rates, providing unique marketingopportunities and allowing hotels to chargehigher rates’ (Sweeting et al., 1999, p. 27).

In recent years, and as reflected inChapter 3, a number of authors (e.g. Weilerand Richins, 1995; Blamey and Hatch,1996; Wight, 1996a, b) have argued that eco-tourists are not a homogeneous group.Some of these authors have suggested anumber of proposed dimensions or con-tinua along which ecotourists may vary.These have included, for example:

• preferred type of natural setting;• desire for physical challenge/degree of

self-reliance;• desire for intellectual challenge/motiva-

tion to learn something new;• desire to be directly and actively

involved with the natural environment;• desire to be environmentally responsi-

ble (ranging from minimizing impacts toactively engaging in enhancing or restor-ing visited environments).

Some authors (Weiler and Richins, 1995)have assumed that hard-core ecotouristsare at the extreme end of each of these con-tinua (i.e. that if they want physical chal-lenge, they also want intellectual challenge,

a highly participatory experience, and anenvironmentally responsible one; seeChapter 2). However, in the absence of datato support this notion, it is more likely thata vast range of market segments exists,each with its own unique set of motiva-tions and expectations. In summary, whilethere is some evidence that clients expectand appreciate quality interpretation, thismay vary depending on individual eco-tourists, their motivations generally, andtheir expectations of each particular tour.Much more research is needed to deter-mine the relationship between tour guides’competencies as interpreters, their on-the-job performance, and client satisfaction(Blamey and Hatch, 1996).

The host community

In many situations, the tour guide acts as amediator between visitors and hosts(Cohen, 1985). In the context of eco-tourism, this is most apparent on tours thatvisit indigenous sites or communities andtours to foreign countries. In some of thesecases, the operator is legally required toconsult and gain approval from indigenouscommunities, and the guide may have con-tractual obligations spelled out verbally orin writing. Even where this is not a legalrequirement, the ethics and essence of eco-tourism are that tours are conducted inways which minimize negative socio-cultural impacts and contribute in a posi-tive way toward the host community (see,for example, Nash, 1996). The tour guide’srole in doing so is to provide accurate andculturally appropriate interpretation of thesite or resource in a way that enhances vis-itors’ understanding and appreciation ofindigenous culture, history, contemporarylifestyles, values and issues (see for exam-ple, Harvey and Hoare, 1995). According torecent experiences in Ecuador and else-where (see Sweeting et al., 1999), eco-tourists are willing to pay more for such‘culturally sensitive’ tours, especially whenthe community itself governs the formatand density of use. The tour guide alsoplays an important role in monitoring

552 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

and modelling appropriate cross-culturalbehaviour so that visitors impact in a posi-tive way economically, culturally, sociallyand environmentally (see Chapters 23–28for elaboration of these issues).

There is some debate as to the whether alocal guide (i.e. one who is native to thedestination country or region or even localcommunity being visited) is ‘better’ than aforeign guide. Clearly, the training andemployment of local guides helps to ensurethat more of the economic benefits are feltby the host community, an important con-sideration particularly for tourism in devel-oping countries and regions. Moreover,local guides are more likely to understandthe protocols and sensitivities associatedwith visiting and experiencing culturalsites and communities within the hostcountry. On the other hand, guides withcultural and/or socio-demographic back-grounds similar to their clients are morelikely to understand visitors’ expectations,fears and likely faux pas. A guide who hasnever travelled or lived outside his/herhome community may have little under-standing of appropriate customer relationsand the Western values and attitudes aboutthe environment that many ecotouristshold. In reality, good training can over-come the shortcomings of either. The goalsof ecotourism are probably best met byhaving a local and foreign guide workingtogether, a policy larger tour companies arebeginning to embrace in some countries.

Land managers

Protected-area managers increasing rely oncommercial tour operators to deliver inter-pretation within parks and on other pro-tected lands both in developed anddeveloping countries. Policies that supportand promote privatization of guiding andinterpretation via commercial licences,concessions and outsourcing of guidedactivities within parks have been put inplace in many countries without a clear

understanding of whether commercialtours can and do meet the objectives ofland management agencies. For the visitorwhose experience within protected areas isjust one component of a guided tour, therole of the tour guide is critical. Accordingto many writers (e.g. MacKinnon et al.,1986; Sweeting et al., 1999), it is the appli-cation of interpretive principles that willensure visitors gain an understanding andappreciation of the parks they are visiting.Land managers are also increasinglydependent on tour guides and operators tomonitor their own and their clients’impacts on the natural environment, and toarticulate and model minimal impact prac-tices for their clients (DNRE, 1999).

The tourism industry

Other players in the tourism industry mayhave expectations of the operator and/orthe tour guide and have little or no under-standing of what ‘interpretation’ is or whatbenefits quality interpretive services mightengender for individual companies and thetourism industry as a whole. In Australia,this has become obvious in the develop-ment of some state tourism policies andplans, and in the early developmentalstages of the National Ecotourism Accredi-tation Program (NEAP)1 (see Chapters 9and 37), where some operators and otherindustry representatives use the terms‘education’ and ‘interpretation’ interchange-ably. In some situations, tour wholesalersand travel agents with no understanding ofinterpretation suggest and even dictate thecontent, method and language in which thetour content should be communicated. Insome countries and specific destinationssuch as the Galapagos, tour guiding is regu-lated and controlled by government orindustry bodies, and guides must completespecified training, obtain qualifications ordemonstrate particular competencies inorder to be licensed as tour guides (Brittonand Clarke, 1987). To date, these schemes

Tour Guides and Interpretation 553

1 From January 2000 ‘education’ has been removed from the interpretation section of the accreditationdocument.

have revolved largely around legal, healthand safety issues, and have tended tounderestimate the importance of interpre-tation in law enforcement, in client safetyand satisfaction, and in the overall viabilityof the guided tour sector of the tourismindustry (see Chapter 37).

From the perspective of all stakeholders,it is apparent that tour guides play a piv-otal role in ecotourism and are critical tomeeting the needs and expectations ofoperators, clients, host communities, landmanagers, and the wider tourism industryin both developed and developing coun-tries. The foregoing discussion provides abackdrop against which the guide’s currentrole as interpreter, facilitating understand-ing and appreciation of natural and cul-tural phenomena can be critically examined.Clearly, interpretation is not just one of themany roles that an ecotour guide plays;when it is done well, it is the distinguish-ing feature of ‘best practice’ in guiding. Theremainder of this chapter focuses on theinterpretive role of tour guides.

Principles of Interpretation asApplied to Ecotourism

The premise of this chapter is that the tourguide can and should play a key role infacilitating clients’ understanding andappreciation of natural and cultural phe-nomena. It has also been argued that theuse of interpretation, and more particularlythe application of interpretive principlesby the tour guide, is an essential element ofecotour guiding. But what are these ‘princi-ples’ of interpretation, and why are theyintegral to guided ecotourism experiences?Although this question has been addressedin detail elsewhere (see Ham, 1992), a briefsummary of these principles is needed herein order to critique current guiding activi-ties and identify issues. There are at leastfive such principles:

1. Interpretation is not teaching or ‘instruc-tion’ in the academic sense.2. Interpretation must be enjoyable for vis-itors.3. Interpretation must be relevant for visitors.

4. Interpretation must be well organized sothat visitors can easily follow it.5. Interpretation should have a theme, notjust a topic.

Interpretation is not teaching or ‘instruction’in the academic sense

Although interpretation involves the trans-fer of information about places and cul-tures from guides to tour clients, guides arenot teachers in the sense that visitors mustmaster or remember all the information.Indeed, research shows (see Thorndyke,1977; Ham, 1983; Beck and Cable, 1998)that visitors may forget much of the sup-portive factual information obtained througha commentary yet still internalize a deepoverriding notion of the importance of itall. But research also shows that tourclients will pay attention to a commentaryonly if they choose to. Since they are notaccountable to master the information, theonly motivation they have to pay attentionis that it promises to be a rewarding expen-diture of their time. Ecotourists are there-fore a voluntary audience. Ham (1992)termed this type of audience a ‘non-captive’ audience because, unlike studentsin a classroom (the classic ‘captive’ audi-ence), tour clients are not held prisoner byan external reward system involving gradesand qualifications. The best tour guidesknow this, and they work hard to captureand maintain their audiences’ attention.Students in search of a grade will try to payattention to boring teachers. But visitors insearch only of a rewarding experience willnot make the same effort with a boringguide. Unlike some classroom teachers,guides never have the option of being bor-ing or pedantic. If they are, they will, quitesimply, lose their audiences and ultimatelytheir jobs.

Interpretation must be enjoyable for visitors

A simple yet under-appreciated ideaamong some guides is that interpretationaimed at a non-captive audience like eco-

554 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

tourists must be enjoyable and fun for them(Sweeting et al., 1999). Although entertain-ment is not interpretation’s main goal, itmust certainly be considered one of itsessential qualities. Visitors who joinguided tours are pleasure-seekers. Even‘ecotourists’, who are sometimes (and prob-ably inaccurately) cast as serious studentsof nature and culture, seek fun and enter-tainment from their tour experiences. Ofcourse, what constitutes ‘fun’ will varyamong different types of visitors, and suc-cessful guides pay close attention to thesedifferences and idiosyncrasies. Amongalmost all groups, however, one aspect offun is informality, for example, involvingvisitors in a playful competition, a roleplay, or simply concentrating on usingcommon, everyday language and a conver-sational tone. Some studies have evendemonstrated that the more an interpretivemedium reminds an audience of academia,the less interesting and provocative itbecomes (Washburne and Wagar, 1972;Ham and Shew, 1979). Experiences in bothdeveloped and developing countriesthroughout the world suggest that effectiveinterpretation may have many qualities,but a common one everywhere is that it isfun for its audiences (Ham and Sutherland,1992; Ham et al., 1993; Sweeting et al.,1999).

Interpretation must be relevant for visitors

Beyond the sheer entertainment value of aguide’s commentary, tour clients pay spe-cial attention to those things the guide canrelate to their interests and personalities.Simply put, people pay attention to whatthey can understand and what they careabout (Tilden, 1957; Ham, 1992). When aguide makes what he or she is saying orshowing understandable to a group, visi-tors pay attention, because the new infor-mation is meaningful to them. Experiencedguides make their commentaries meaning-ful by using common language and byemploying analogies, metaphors and othermethods of bridging the unfamiliar worldof the tour route, content and environment

to the things already known and familiar tothe group (Ham, 1992; Sweeting et al.,1999). Similarly, when commentaries focusvisitors’ attention on things they alreadycare about, an attentive audience is almostguaranteed (see Moray, 1959; Cherry, 1966;Ham, 1983). Ham (1992) terms this type ofcommunication ‘personal’ since it connectswhat is being described or displayed tosomething personally important or signifi-cant to visitors (their well-being, theirloved ones, their deepest values, strongestprinciples or convictions, or things of pro-found symbolic importance). According toHam (1992), when a guide has made her orhis commentary both meaningful and per-sonal, she or he has made it highly rele-vant.

Interpretation must be well organized so thatvisitors can easily follow it

As pleasure-seekers, visitors on guidedtours (a non-captive audience) switchattention at will whenever what they arehearing, seeing or doing, fails to gratifythem. Often, attention switching has to dowith how much effort a visitor thinks willbe required to follow a presentation. AsHam (1992) and Beck and Cable (1998)have discussed, a well-organized presenta-tion will require less effort to follow thanthe same presentation which lacks organi-zational structure. As Miller (1956) demon-strated nearly a half century ago, humanscan manage more information with lesseffort if it is organized into no more than5–9 categories or units. Within this 5–9range, Miller’s research found no relation-ship between a person’s level of educa-tional attainment or intelligence and howmany categories of information he or shecould follow. Rather, it is the amount ofexperience or prior interest we have withthe subject at hand (irrespective of our IQ)that determines how many categories ofinformation we can effectively manage andkeep sorted out (see Solso, 1979). Anygroup of tour clients is likely to include across-section of people who have more orless experience with, and prior interest in,

Tour Guides and Interpretation 555

the subjects a guide will discuss. Accor-dingly, Ham (1992) argues that a tour guideis more likely to sustain the attention of thewhole tour group by delivering the inter-pretive commentary organized around fiveor fewer main ideas, regardless of the typeof tour.

Interpretation should have a theme, not just a topic

A central defining principle of ecotourismis its focus on conservation and perpetua-tion of the natural and cultural valuesinherent in the land and water. How eco-tourism achieves this lofty goal is oftendebated, but widespread agreement seemsto exist in the simple fact that what a guidesays to his or her clients can influence howthey think and behave with respect to theplaces they visit. In other words, the mes-sages that a guide imparts to a group of vis-itors, relative to the protected values of aplace, may in large part determine whatthey will think, feel and do both in theshort term (on-site) and possibly even inthe long term, once they have returnedhome.

According to Ham and Krumpe (1996)and others (see, for example, Orams, 1997;Knapp and Barrie, 1998), one of the mostimportant things guides can do is to facili-tate a bonding between their clients andthe places they lead them to, thus connect-ing people and places in powerful waysthat nurture respect and caring about thoseplaces. Guides do this by communicatingstrong themes to their tour clients (Lewis,1980; Ham, 1992; Ham and Krumpe, 1996;Beck and Cable, 1998; Sweeting et al.,1999, and others). Themes are messages,factual but compelling statements about aplace or a thing. Skilful tour guides,according to most contemporary writers,practise thematic interpretation by impart-ing compelling messages to their clientsabout the places they visit.

Themes are whole ideas, morals to thestory, an overriding message that a visitortakes home (Lewis, 1980; Ham, 1992). Theyare contrasted to topics in the sense that a

topic is merely the subject matter of pre-sentation (geology, religion, plants, wildlife,etc.) whereas a theme is a specific messageabout that topic. Drawing on research con-ducted by Thorndyke (1977), Ham (1992)concluded that visitors will forget isolatedfacts from a guided tour, even fascinating,mind-boggling facts, but they will remem-ber and possibly internalize the biggerideas, or themes, of the tour. These themes,according to Ham and Krumpe (1996) aretantamount to ‘beliefs’ which social psy-chologists have demonstrated to be thebuilding blocks of attitudes and relatedbehaviours, including attitudes and behav-iours about conservation. Thus, guideswho concentrate on imparting strongthemes in their tours do far more to furtherecotourism’s aim of facilitating conserva-tion than guides who concentrate on therelatively simple task of saying interestingthings about a topic in entertaining ways.Guides who are armed with strong themes,and who then creatively package their pre-sentations in entertaining, relevant andorganized tours, are the ones who make thereal difference in helping ecotourism toachieve its loftiest of goals, conservation.

Tour Guides and Interpretation asFactors in Tourist Decision-making

So far, this chapter has examined the mul-tiple roles of an ecotour guide, and the cen-trality of interpretation in what ecotourguides do. The chapter now turns to thebusiness implications of quality tour guid-ing and interpretation from a number ofperspectives. One of these perspectivesdeals with how the quality of guiding andinterpretation affects the visitors’ decision-making behaviour and therefore tour prod-uct marketing.

The tourist decision-making process isin fact not a single decision but a series ofdecisions, beginning with a decision totravel or not to travel. Other pre-trip deci-sions can include choice of destination,season and dates of travel, budget, choiceof travelling partner(s), mode(s) of trans-port, accommodation, and selection of other

556 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

tourism products such as packaged toursand guided ecotours. For each decision,there are many factors internal and exter-nal to the individual, the latter includingdestination and product attributes that caninfluence the tourist’s decision (Sonmezand Graefe, 1998). For example, school hol-idays may be a major factor affecting sea-son and dates of travel, with some havingto travel at these times and others avoidingthem.

Most tourist decisions are made withoutconsideration of tour products, let alonethe tour guide. Only if the consumerdecides to pre-select and pre-book a pack-age tour or a guided ecotour will he or sheconsider the quality of the tour guide. Insuch cases, most consumers are concernedmainly with choosing a tour company theycan count on to provide an experience thatis safe, reliable and convenient, and offersvalue for money (Fay, 1992). Such pre-tripdecisions are often made on the advice of afamily member or friend; other influencesinclude travel agents, tour companybrochures, and web sites. Any considera-tion of the guide’s ability would probablybe limited to issues such as the guide’spractical skills (driving, cooking, naviga-tion), language competency, and knowl-edge of the destination/area which mightbe perceived to affect the safety and well-being of the customer. It is likely that onlyhard-core ecotourists would make theeffort to examine the qualifications, knowl-edge or skills of the guide for such pre-tripbookings, and in many cases, there may beno way of determining who the actual indi-vidual guide is going to be.

Once en route or at the destination, thetourist then makes a series of decisions,and it is usually only at this stage that visi-tors may give greater attention to theguide’s competencies. For example, the vis-itor may or may not choose to join a guidedtour. If the choice is to join a tour, then aparticular company as well as a particulartour product may be important considera-tions that determine choice, usually basedon one or a combination of the following:word-of-mouth (especially other travellers),tour brochures, and telephone calls or vis-

its to the tour operator’s office front. At thisdecision making stage, there is some evi-dence that tourists, and ecotourists inparticular, do examine carefully any infor-mation about the qualifications, knowl-edge, skills and abilities of the guide. Astudy by Weiler et al. (1992) found that thequalifications of the guide were promotedin 18% of brochures and promotionalmaterials for guided ecotour products.Again, certain types of ecotourists may bemore likely to look for product differentia-tion with respect to the quality of theguide, and more research is needed toidentify the needs and expectations ofthese market segments.

The Tour Guide and Interpretation asIntegral Elements of the Ecotourist

Experience

Compared to what we know about touristdecision making, the evidence of a rela-tionship between quality tour guiding andinterpretation and the visitor experience ismore revealing. In a study of 295 eco-tourists on 23 very diverse guided daytours, Weiler and Crabtree (1998) foundthat visitors were surprisingly perceptiveabout the knowledge and skills of theirguides and able to provide detail on whatthey liked and disliked about their guide.The study revealed that although clientswere largely complimentary about mostaspects of the guides’ performance, theirmost common criticisms focused on thelack of or incorrectness of conservationthemes imparted by the guide. Given thatthese were all tours at the ‘soft’ end of theecotourism spectrum (i.e. short tours of 1day or less, with limited or no physicalchallenge and limited active involvementby the visitor), it is intriguing to note therespondents’ interest in, and desire for, inter-pretation and minimal impact messages.

Additionally, Weiler and Crabtree’sstudy found that despite the guides’ strongperformance on most evaluative criteriadealing with site knowledge, tourmanagement and interpersonal communica-tion skills, they performed the poorest on

Tour Guides and Interpretation 557

indicators pertaining to interpretationmethods and conservation themes. Theseinclude: (i) delivering organized and the-matic interpretation (e.g. evidence of atheme, sequencing, introduction and con-clusion); and (ii) providing messages onecologically sustainable practices andbehaviours (e.g. monitoring group behav-iour and communicating minimal impactthemes, both on-site and post-tour).

These results suggest that guided eco-tours may be falling short of their potentialto deliver a quality visitor experience whileimparting strong conservation themes. Theremay be a number of reasons for this.Firstly, the operator and guide often havevery limited information about clients, par-ticularly for day tours, where there may belittle more than a name on a list prior todeparture. Research on the interpretiveneeds and expectations of clients of partic-ular ecotour products is virtually non-existent, as individual operators usuallylack the time, money and expertise to con-duct such research.

Secondly, there is often a mix of clien-tele on any particular tour, particularly daytours. As mentioned earlier, ecotouristsvary widely in their interests, motivationsand expectations, some of which directlyimpact on the way interpretive servicesmight be offered on a tour. Visitors mayrange from wanting to be passive listenersand observers to highly active andinvolved tour participants. Some may wantonly to take away a basic message (theme)from the tour, while others may want to beable to recall facts and acquire conserva-tion knowledge and skills that they canapply back home.

If tour products are highly targeted, theguide can make some assumptions anddevelop the content and style of the tour tomatch the targeted market. For example, ifthe tour product is targeting hard-core eco-tourists looking for physical and intellec-tual challenge and willing to becomeactively involved, a product along the linesof the experiences offered by EarthwatchInternational (Weiler et al., 1993) but

underscored by high-quality interpretationwould be appropriate. However, more oftenthan not there are wide variations within asingle tour group and certainly there arevariations on different tours, requiring sig-nificant adaptability and resourcefulnessbetween one tour and the next. Guides whoare versatile and able to apply the princi-ples of interpretation outlined earlier areclearly at an advantage in being able to pro-vide all members of their tour group with aquality experience. This is the third andperhaps most significant reason whyguided tours often fall short of delivering aquality visitor experience. Guides fre-quently lack the knowledge and/or skills toapply interpretive principles to the designand delivery of their guided tours.

In summary, improving the tour guide’spotential to provide a quality visitor expe-rience hinges on three factors. First, bettertarget market research is needed in order todeliver an interpretive experience thatmeets the expectations and ‘needs’ of tourclients and effectively apply the principleof product–market match (see Chapter 36).Second, the guide must harness the princi-ples of interpretation as a way of meetingthe needs and expectations of all tourgroup members, and in most cases thismeans better guide training in interpreta-tion. As we have argued elsewhere (Hamand Weiler, 1999), more research is neededin countries other than Australia to ascer-tain what may be a range of other trainingneeds, but the need for interpretation andminimal impact training is clear. Accord-ing to research and conventional thinking,guides who succeed in bringing these qual-ities to their approach will produce moresatisfied clients and contribute in signifi-cant ways to the expressed goals of eco-tourism. Third, operators and protectedarea managers must ensure that the touritinerary and operating conditions are con-ducive to excellent interpretation, and thismeans protected area manager and touroperator education about interpretationand product development.

558 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

Current Practices and Issues inEcotour Guiding

In Australia, one of the most ecotourism-advanced countries, the tour operationsindustry currently has no industrialawards, i.e. there are no industry-widelegal specifications regarding the rights andobligations, qualifications, working condi-tions and rates of pay, for either tour opera-tors or guides. Some of the larger tourcompanies have enterprise agreementswhich specify such conditions, but gener-ally speaking, the criteria by which opera-tors recruit, select, retain and remunerateguides are largely undocumented. Equallyimportant is the fact that there is no gov-ernment or regulatory body requiring anindividual to be qualified or licensed inorder to work as a guide.

Operators appear to place a heavyemphasis on hiring guides who have prac-tical skills and experience, who are willingto work in difficult working conditions(e.g. unsociable days and hours in remotelocations), and who are multi-skilled, e.g.fluency in a second language. Since mosttour operators in Australia and elsewherehave only a rudimentary understanding ofinterpretation, it is unlikely that they arerecruiting guides for their expertise asinterpreters and/or increasing their pay ifthey upgrade their interpretive skills orqualifications. And generally speaking,tour operators are unlikely to see any rea-son to change what they already considerto be an acceptable level of tour guide per-formance, based on what they perceive tobe satisfied tour clients and sustaineddemand for their products.

For practising tour guides, there is alsolittle incentive for individuals to activelyupgrade their interpretive skills or qualifi-cations or improve the quality of theirtours. To date there has been no evidencethat interpretive qualifications or skillslead to preferential treatment either ingaining employment or in career advance-ment. Thus, despite the evidence thatinterpretation is key to delivering a qualityguided ecotourism experience, neither touroperators nor guides are likely to initiate

dramatic change in how much time orfinancial resources they allocate to improv-ing the interpretive competence of theirguides. It then falls to the wider tourismindustry, educational institutions, pro-tected area managers and other governmentbodies to find ways to, first, raise theawareness of what is ‘good practice’ in eco-tour guiding, and second, provide incen-tives to improve the standard of guidingpractice throughout the industry. As dis-cussed in Chapter 37, the pursuit of excel-lence in the tourism industry has led to anumber of ways of measuring and reward-ing quality. The usefulness and relevanceof these strategies for improving tour guideperformance is discussed in this section.

The earliest and perhaps weakest formsof quality control are professional associa-tions and codes of conduct. There aremany professional tour guide associations,including at least four in Australia alone,but most are focused on city guides orguides working for inbound tour operators.The Ecotourism Association of Australia(EAA) now has a membership categoryspecifically for ecotour guides, and a regu-lar column in its newsletter devoted toguide news and issues, which is helping toraise the level of awareness of guides andguiding. As for codes of conduct, numer-ous behavioural guidelines have beendeveloped for nature-based tourism, butthey tend to be targeted at either the opera-tor or the visitor. The EAA has both, butneither has any influence beyond raisingawareness as to what is sound environmen-tal practice when operating tours in naturalareas.

Competency standards or occupationalstandards are another form of benchmark-ing, and can be very useful if linked toemployee recruitment and selectionprocesses, rates of pay, the development oftraining curricula, and qualificationschemes. In Australia, this was not the casefor ecotour guides or tour guides of anykind as of early 2000. Although consider-able work including industry consultationhas gone into the development and subse-quent revision of the tour guide standards,the vast majority of tour operators and

Tour Guides and Interpretation 559

guides are unfamiliar with the tour guidecompetency standards. Almost any trainingprovider can offer a tour guide trainingprogramme, and while a number of train-ing providers have worked hard to aligntheir guide training programmes to thesestandards, few incentives exist for guidesto select competency-based courses overthose not aligned with the standards. Thevast majority of the tourism industry, andcertainly the travelling public, have nounderstanding of tour guide qualificationsand competencies. This is unfortunate, asmany aspects of the tour guide’s job arewell-articulated in the tour guide compe-tency standards, including those address-ing interpretation (see Tourism TrainingAustralia’s web site: www.tourismtraining.com.au).

In Australia, this situation is poised forchange, largely due to industry-based ac-creditation and certification schemes suchas the NEAP, which has been in operationsince 1997, and the National Ecotour GuideCertification Program (NEGCP), which wasofficially launched in late 2000. To be anaccredited tour product under NEAP, forexample, a tour operator must demonstratethat the product meets the education andinterpretation criteria spelled out in theaccreditation document. Once the NEGCPis fully implemented, it is proposed that aminimum percentage of a tour operator’sguides will need to be NEGCP-certified inorder to gain and/or maintain NEAPaccreditation. The certification criteria areclosely aligned with the tour guide com-petency standards mentioned earlier.

The most powerful and controversialaspect of the ecotour guide certificationscheme is its potential links to the licens-ing and/or issuing of permits to tour opera-tors by protected area managers. InAustralia, protected areas are managedlargely by state land management agenciessuch as Western Australia’s Department ofConservation and Land Management,Queensland’s National Parks and WildlifeService, and Parks Victoria. Currently, touroperators who are NEAP-accredited havespecial privileges with some of these pro-tected area management agencies such as

Parks Victoria, which grants extendedlicences and permission to operate inwilderness areas not accessible by non-accredited operators. If access to these pro-tected areas were limited to NEAP-accredited operators using only NEGCP-certified guides or others who can demon-strate that they meet the agency’s criteriathrough some other means, then both oper-ators and guides would be more likely tosee the value of meeting the standards setby the guide certification programme,including interpretive competency.

Another important step in encouragingprofessionalism in ecotour guiding is tolink certification to existing education andtraining programmes. In the USA, inter-preters are certified via the NationalAssociation for Interpretation (NAI), whichspecifies a university undergraduate degreeas a minimum educational requirement or,alternatively, a 2-year technical degree and5000 h of documented experience (NAIweb site, 1999). In Australia, there appearsto be a preference for recognizing educa-tional qualifications in such a way that stu-dents graduating from such programmesare neither privileged, nor excluded fromcertification. Relevant issues that still needto be resolved include the stipulation of aminimum threshold of industry experi-ence, the requirement for at least someassessment of competency in the work-place rather than entirely in the classroom,the need for regular re-certification and therequirements associated with renewal, andthe appropriateness of levels of certifica-tion to reflect levels of competence (eitherthrough study or through work experience)(see Chapter 40).

Finally, there are some very successfultourism award schemes that recognizeexcellence in both ecotour guiding (e.g. theGolden Guide Award in Western Australia)and interpretation (e.g. the InterpretationAustralia Association and NAI in theUSA). These are truly ‘best practice’awards that complement the minimumstandards approach of the other initiatives,while simultaneously serving to motivateand educate guides as well as to regulatethe practice of guiding.

560 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

Conclusion

Best-practice ecotour guiding need not beconfined to the ecotourism industry. Manyfreelance guides move between operatorswho vary widely in their managementphilosophies and target markets. Theseguides have the opportunity to apply eco-tourism and interpretation principles totours ranging widely in group size, tourlength, subject matter and location, and toreach clients who vary greatly in theirunderstanding of and commitment to theprinciples of ecotourism. There is wide-spread agreement that guides play a pivotalrole not only in the quality of the eco-tourist’s experience, but in facilitating the

conservation goals of ecotourism. SvenOlof Lindblad, owner of Lindblad Expedi-tions, a New York-based ecotourism cruisecompany, proclaimed in a recent fundrais-ing campaign for the Galapagos Islands that‘it will be the passion and insistence of thetraveler that will ultimately save theworld’s special places’ (see Ham andO’Brien, 1998). Lindblad’s prophecy strikesat the heart and soul of interpretation’scentral role in quality ecotour guiding.Saving the world’s ‘special places’ remainsboth the premise and promise of eco-tourism. Interpretation, creatively pack-aged and powerfully delivered, lies at theheart of both.

Tour Guides and Interpretation 561

References

Beck, L. and Cable, T. (1998) Interpretation for the 21st Century. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign,Illinois.

Blamey, R. and Hatch, D. (1996) Profiles and Motivations of Nature-based Tourists Visiting Australia,Occasional Paper Number 25. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.

Britton, S. and Clarke, W.C. (eds) (1987) Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small DevelopingCountries. University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council (CTHRC) (1996) National Occupational Standards forthe Canadian Tourism Industry. Heritage Interpreter, Ottawa.

Cherry, C. (1966) On Human Communication. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Childress, R.D. and Crompton, J.L. (1997) A comparison of alternative direct and discrepancyapproaches to measuring quality of performance at a festival. Journal of Travel Research35(Fall), 43–57.

Cohen, E. (1985) The tourist guide: the origins, structure and dynamics of a role. Annals of TourismResearch 12(1), 5–29.

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) (Victoria) (1999) Best Practice in ParkInterpretation and Education. A Report to the ANZECC Working Group on National andProtected Area Management Benchmarking and Best Practice Program, Melbourne.

Fay, B. (1992) Essentials of Tour Management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Forestry Tasmania (1994) Guided Nature-Based Tourism in Tasmania’s Forests: Trends, Constraints

and Implications. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.Geva, A. and Goldman, A. (1991) Satisfaction measurement in guided tours. Annals of Tourism

Research 18(2), 177–185.Haig, I. (1997) Viewing nature: can the guide make the difference? Unpublished Master of Arts thesis,

Griffith University, Brisbane.Ham, S. (1983) Cognitive psychology and interpretation: synthesis and application. Journal of

Interpretation 8(1), 11–27.Ham, S. (1992) Environmental Interpretation: a Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small

Budgets. Fulcrum/North American Press, Golden, Colorado.Ham, S. and Krumpe, E. (1996) Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmental

education: a theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research 1(1),11–23.

Ham, S. and O’Brien, T. (1998) Unpublished fundraising campaign for the Galapagos ConservationFund. Special Expeditions, Inc., New York.

Ham, S. and Shew, R. (1979) A comparison of visitors’ and interpreters’ assessments of conductedinterpretive activities. Journal of Interpretation 4(2), 39–44.

Ham, S. and Sutherland, D. (1992) Crossing borders and rethinking a craft interpretation in develop-ing countries. In: Machlis, G. and Field, D. (eds) On Interpretation Sociology for Interpreters ofNatural and Cultural History, revised edn. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon,pp. 251–274.

Ham, S. and Weiler, B. (1999) Training ecotour guides in Central America: lessons learned and impli-cations for regional guide training and certification. Paper presented to the Central AmericanRegional Conference on Cleaner Technology and Environmental Management for the TourismIndustry, Guatemala City, Guatemala, 1–3 September.

Ham, S., Sutherland, D. and Meganck, R. (1993) Applying environmental interpretation in protectedareas in developing countries. Environmental Conservation 20(3), 232–242.

Harvey, J. and Hoare, A. (1995) Benefits of ecotourism in local communities. In: HaySmith, L. andHarvey, J. (eds) Ecotourism and Nature Conservation in Central America. Wildlife ConservationSociety, Gainesville, Florida, Chapter 6.

Holloway, J.C. (1981) The guided tour: a sociological approach. Annals of Tourism Research 8(3),377–401.

Hughes, K. (1991) Tourist satisfaction: a guided ‘cultural’ tour in North Queensland. AustralianPsychologist 26(3), 166–171.

Knapp, D. and Barrie, E. (1998) Ecology versus issue interpretation: the analysis of two different mes-sages. Journal of Interpretation Research 3(1), 21–38.

Lewis, W. (1980) Interpreting for Park Visitors. Eastern National Park and Monument Association,Eastern Acorn Press, Philadelphia.

Lopez, E. (1981) The effect of tour leaders’ training on travellers’ satisfaction with tour quality.Journal of Travel Research 1(4), 23–26.

MacKinnon, J., MacKinnon, K., Child, G. and Thorsell, J. (1986) Managing Protected Areas in theTropics. IUCN/World Conservation Union, Cambridge.

Mancini, M. (1990) Conducting Tours: a Practical Guide. South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati,Ohio.

Miller, G. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for pro-cessing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97.

Moray, N. (1959) Attention in dichotic listening: effective cues and the influence of instructions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 11(1), 56–60.

Nash, D. (1996) Anthropology of Tourism. Pergamon Press, Oxford.National Association for Interpretation (NAI) (1999) http://www.interpnet.com/Orams, M. (1997) The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into ‘greenies?’

Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3, 295–306.Ryan, C. (1995) Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Problems. Routledge, London.Ryan, C. (1998) The travel career ladder: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 25(4), 936–957.Solso, R. (1979) Cognitive Psychology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Sonmez, F.S. and Graefe, R.A. (1998) Terrorism risk of foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism

Research 25(1), 112–145.Sorrell, B. (1996) Exhibit Labels: an Interpretive Approach. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Sweeting, J., Bruner, A. and Rosenfeld, A. (1999) The Green Host Effect: an Integrated Approach to

Sustainable Tourism and Resort Development. Conservation International, Washington, DC.Thorndyke, P. (1977) Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.

Cognitive Psychology 9(1), 77–110.Tilden, F. (1957) Interpreting Our Heritage. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North

Carolina.Tourism Training Australia (1999) http://www.tourismtraining.com.auTrapp, S., Gross, M. and Zimmerman, R. (1991) Signs, Trails and Wayside Exhibits: Connecting

People and Places. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point Press, Inc., Stevens Point, Wisconsin.Washburne, R. and Wagar, J. (1972) Evaluating visitor response to exhibit content. Curator 15(3),

248–254.Weiler, B. (1993a) The tour leader: that ‘special’ ingredient in special interest tourism. In: Veal, T.,

Jonson, P. and Cushman, G. (eds) Proceedings of Leisure and Tourism: Social andEnvironmental Change. World Congress of the World Leisure and Recreation Association, UTSSydney, pp. 687–691.

562 B. Weiler and S.H. Ham

Weiler, B. (1993b) Nature-based tour operators: are they environmentally friendly or are they fakingit? Tourism Recreation Research 18(1), 55–60.

Weiler, B. and Crabtree, A. (1998) Assessing ecotour guide performance: Findings from the field.Presented at the 1998 Heritage Interpretation International Conference, Sydney.

Weiler, B. and Davis, D. (1993) An exploratory investigation into the roles of the nature-based tourleader. International Journal of Tourism Management 14(2), 91–98.

Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1990) Escort or expert? Entertainer or enabler? The role of the resourceperson on educational tours. In: O’Rourke, B. (ed.) The Global Classroom Proceedings.Department of Continuing Education, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, pp. 84–94.

Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1995) Extreme, extravagant and elite: a profile of ecotourists onEarthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 29–36.

Weiler, B., Davis, D. and Johnson, T. (1992) Roles of the tour leader in environmentally responsibletourism. In: Weiler, B. (ed.) Ecotourism 1991 Conference Papers. Bureau of Tourism Research,Canberra, pp. 228–233.

Weiler, B., Richins, H. and Markwell, K. (1993) Barriers to travel: a study of participants and non-par-ticipants on Earthwatch Australia expeditions. Building a Research Base in Tourism.Proceedings of the National Conference on Tourism Research. Bureau of Tourism Research,Canberra, pp. 151–160.

Wight, P. (1996a) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences and destinations.Journal of Travel Research Summer, 3–10.

Wight, P. (1996b) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Journal ofTravel Research Spring, 2–10.

Zehr, J., Gross, M. and Zimmerman, R. (1990) Creating Environmental Publications: a Guide toWriting and Designing for Interpreters and Environmental Educators. University of Wisconsin,Stevens Point Press, Inc., Stevens Point, Wisconsin.

Tour Guides and Interpretation 563

Chapter 36

The Business of Ecotourism

B. McKercherDepartment of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung

Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Introduction: Ecotourism the Growth Industry?

For years, we have been reading that eco-tourism is one of the fastest growingtourism segments. Annual growth rate esti-mates have varied from 10 to 30% (Wight,1990; Lindberg, 1991), or about two to fivetimes the background growth rate fortourism in general. The World TourismOrganization (WTO) has even gone as far assuggesting that ecotourism accounts for20% of world travel (WTO, 1998). At thesame time, a number of articles have beenwritten in the academic and public mediaespousing the great potential of eco-tourism. It is so appealing that a number ofcountries have developed formal policiesto capitalize on the apparent demand(Dowling, 1998). Articles such as ‘Ecotourism:the rising star of Australian tourism’(Dowling, 1996), ‘Eco-profitable’ (Oliver,1994) and papers presenting regionaloverviews (Dowling, 1998; Edmonds andLeposky, 1998) imply that the commer-cial potential of ecotourism is almostunlimited.

At an operational level, though, theinterest in ecotourism does not appear tohave translated into the emergence of avibrant, profitable business sector. With theexception of the accommodation sector and

some ecotourism businesses with massmarket appeal, most ecotourism enterprisesare finding it difficult to identify and reachviable market segments. The failure totranslate apparent demand into profitablebusiness ventures is driven by two flawedassumptions made by government agen-cies, academics and many potential opera-tors. The first is the misinterpretation ofstatistics that confuse visitation to naturalareas with demand for commercial eco-tourism products (Blamey, 1996a, b). Mostpeople can consume an ecotourism experi-ence without the need to purchase a prod-uct from a commercial operator. The realmarket demand for ecotourism activities is,therefore, only a small fraction of theapparent market interest (McKercher,1998a). The second reason is based moreon ideological hope than commercial real-ity. Ecotourism is recognized widely as anecologically, morally and ethically pre-ferred form of tourism that, if done cor-rectly, optimizes social, cultural andecological benefits, while providing thetourist with an uplifting experience (Wight,1993; Dowling, 1998; Malloy and Fennell,1998). Further, it is recognized that eco-tourism can only be sustainable if it isprofitable for ecotourism operators(McKercher, 1998a; Tisdell, 1998). Thus, itis felt that because this activity is so

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 565

morally, ecologically and ethically sound, amass market must exist for such activities.

What little empirical research that hasbeen conducted examining the profitabilityof this sector (Tourism Canada, 1988;McKercher and Davidson, 1995; Tisdell,1995; Cotterill, 1996; Wild, 1996) suggeststhat many businesses are under-perform-ing. Indeed, the challenges of running anature-based tourism business are similarto the generic types of challenges faced byall small businesses which, typically, havea 90% plus failure rate (McKercher andRobbins, 1998). These issues include: thefailure to identify real market opportuni-ties, lack of business planning, under-capi-talization, little or no marketing skills andpoor financial management skills. Much ofthis is explained by the fact that many peo-ple apparently enter this sector out of theirlove for certain non-commercial recreationactivities (Bransgrove, 1992). Their motivesare driven by a desire to play, rather thanto develop a quality tourism product. Manynew operators often find it difficult toadjust from the low pressure situation ofleading friends on tour to the greaterexpectations and demands of fee-payingclients.

This chapter examines some of the busi-ness issues affecting the delivery of eco-tourism products. It begins with a briefoverview of the common business planningand business management issues affectingeco-businesses, as identified by Australianecotourism operators. It is acknowledgedthat it is impossible to examine all thebusiness issues in depth in an overviewchapter such as this. Instead, the bulk ofthe chapter will focus on the three mostimportant issues affecting the viability ofthe commercial ecotourism sector: the mar-ket, the product and the nexus between thetwo.

Overview of Business Planning andMarketing Issues in Ecotourism

It is surprising that many people enteringthe ecotourism sector have a remarkablelack of business skills and, of more con-

cern, do not appear to have consideredtheir lack of skills as a problem. Most willbring strong operational skills, based ontheir many years of participation in theirrespected activity. Many people choose toenter the field for lifestyle reasons, think-ing that they can get paid to play. Few haveever run a business before and few seemconcerned about business issues. Butunless they learn about running a business,the lifestyle dream can turn into a night-mare; poverty is not an attractive lifestylefor an aspiring ecotourism operator. Thefollowing discussion summarizes the keyfindings of a study conducted of the busi-ness planning and marketing needs of theecotourism sector as identified by success-ful Australian ecotourism businesses(McKercher and Robbins, 1998).

Few prepare business plans

Entering business with a clear businessplan, is or should be one of the first taskscompleted by prospective operators.Business plans serve two main purposes.The first is that they force prospectiveoperators to work through the fine detail oftheir proposed venture prior to its estab-lishment. By following a logical and rigor-ous process, operators can test their idea tosee if a real business opportunity exists.The goal of the exercise prior to operationbecomes one of demonstrating that a truemarket opportunity exists or aborting anon-viable idea prior to start-up. While abusiness plan will not guarantee success, ithas been shown to reduce failure by 60%or more. The second key role played bybusiness plans begins once the businessstarts. Business plans outline a desiredgrowth path for the enterprise and, impor-tantly, establish benchmarks by which tomonitor the performance of the business.Operators can then adjust their businessplans, or alter their operations if the busi-ness does not seem to match the projec-tions.

Most new entrants do not prepare busi-ness plans. As a result, they fail to identifyclear goals and objectives for their business

566 B. McKercher

or, alternatively, identify unrealistic goals.Many do not know if a viable marketopportunity exists for their idea and do nothave a realistic assessment of the costsinvolved in starting and incubating a busi-ness. Typically, they assume unrealisticallyhigh sales and profit figures and budgetunrealistically low cost figures. The resultis that many businesses are under-capital-ized and because revenue is not what washoped for, cannot thrive. Successful opera-tors appreciate that it takes many years fora business to establish itself. To succeed,businesses must have both a plan to pursueand the resources required to survive dur-ing those fragile early years.

Financial management skills lacking

Financial management is a significant issuefor most new operators. It is not surprisingconsidering that many come from an opera-tional background and have never had tomanage an organization’s finances before.Slower than expected growth, coupledwith higher than anticipated costs causemany operators to face financial crises inthe formative years of the business. A lackof resources will affect all areas of a busi-ness, from marketing and advertising toequipment purchases and the ability tohire staff. A serious miscalculation of thereal costs of running a business can effec-tively strangle growth for many years. Inaddition, many operators do not under-stand the concept of cashflow. Businessesrun on cash, just as a car runs on petrol. Nomatter how expensive a car is, if it does nothave any petrol in the tank, it won’t work.The same applies to a business. Once abusiness runs out of cash, it ceases to func-tion. Few new operators seem to appreciatethe importance of cash, believing that theannual budgeting exercise is all the finan-cial planning that is required.

Lack of marketing knowledge

In a similar manner, there is a general lackof marketing knowledge among many new

entrants. A request for marketing helpoften belies a deeper problem in the busi-ness, namely the failure to identify a com-mercially viable business opportunity rightfrom the start. Regardless, many eco-tourism operators do not understand whatmarketing is or how marketing works.Given that most have limited resources,one would think that they would adopt atargeted marketing approach, allocatingthose scarce resources in such a way thatthey optimize the chance to reach theirdesired markets. Instead, many adopt whatis known in the trade as a ‘shotgun’ market-ing approach, squandering their resourcesand hoping that by chance they will find adesired client. This occurs usually as afunction of not knowing who the targetmarket is, not understanding its habits andbuying power and not having a clear ideaof how to reach that market.

Many operators are also quite ignorantof how the tourism distribution systemworks and also appear wary of having topay between a 10 and 35% commission tosomeone else to sell their product. A com-plex system of retail travel agents, whole-sale tour operators and inbound touroperators has evolved over the past 150years to act as the conduit between theprovider of the product and the market-place. This system works on a commissionbasis. If anyone is interested in gaininginternational distribution for their product,or of even gaining broad national distribu-tion, they must work through the traveltrade. Failure to cost products so that theyare attractive to the travel trade, coupledwith a failure to take advantage of thesenetworks, constrains the ability of mostbusinesses to achieve wide market penetra-tion of their products.

Price is an interesting issue for this sec-tor, for many operators do not understandwhat they are really selling and, therefore,are reluctant to charge what the product isworth. At one level, price is an accountingconcept: you must charge enough to coveryour costs and to provide you with anacceptable profit. At another level, though,price is an important marketing concept,for the price charged reflects the value of

The Business of Ecotourism 567

the product. Many operators adopt a cost-plus approach to pricing by adding up thecomponent costs of the trip (food, guide,vehicle, accommodation, etc.) and thenadding a profit component. These operatorsinvariably under-price their product. Inreality, the true worth of a product and,therefore, the price that can be chargedcomes not from the component costs, butfrom the value-adding made by the opera-tor, often brought about by the ease ofaccess provided by the product and thequality of the personalized service offered.The more unique the product beingoffered, the higher the price that can becharged. Ironically, charging a low price,especially if all around you are charging ahigher price for the same product, may becounter-productive. Consumers may com-pare your product with the competitionand wonder what it is you are leaving out,not what un-needed extras they are adding.After all, a US$14,000 car cannot comparewith a US$45,000 car, even if both willtake you from point A to point B.

Ecotourism is all about selling experi-ences. Good operators have come to realizethat good ecotourism practices begin withgood customer service. Staff must be bothprofessional and approachable. Further,staff must engender a sense of confidence,especially if the experience involves, or isperceived to involve some risk. Effectivecommunication skills are a vital ingredientof good customer satisfaction.

Do you have the right personal skills?

Finally, not everyone is cut out to be in theecotourism game. Operators must possess anumber of personal attributes. Prospectiveoperators must have patience, determina-tion, drive, enthusiasm, a love of hardwork, be willing to work long hours, gen-uinely enjoy meeting and being with newpeople, have a friendly disposition and beable to act in a clear, concise and profes-sional manner. Moreover, stress and therisk of personal burn-out in this sector arehigh, especially during those critical earlyyears of the business. New operators are

faced with long hours and often lowrewards. In most cases, the business willbecome all consuming, becoming an exten-sion of the operator and not just his or herjob. To survive, operators must, therefore,ensure that they have a healthy balancebetween their work and non-work lives.

Are viable business opportunities identified?

The lessons identified above are valuablefor anyone planning on entering the sectorcommercially as a tour operator, accommo-dation provider or attraction owner. Theyhighlight that most ecotourism businessesfail to identify a viable business opportu-nity. Should they be lucky enough to do so,many operators do not know how to capi-talize on that opportunity, either because ofa failure to plan or for a lack of marketingskills. In this author’s opinion, the singlegreatest problem facing this sector is thefailure of prospective operators to identifya commercially viable market and todeliver products that satisfy the needs,wants and desires of that market. Instead,they try to push inappropriate products onto an undifferentiated market that is reallynot very interested in what they are tryingto sell. The key to any successful eco-tourism business is predicated on develop-ing a deep knowledge of who the market isand why it wants to purchase an operator’sproduct (see Chapter 3 by Wight). It is onlyfrom this knowledge that an operator candevelop products that meet the needs ofthe market and can plan to position themattractively for the right markets. The restof this chapter examines the product mar-ket nexus.

The Illusory Commercial EcotourismMarket

How large is the market for commercialecotourism products? No one knows forsure, but it is fair to say it is only a smallfraction of the total number of people whohave been labelled as ‘ecotourists’. Indeed,phantom demand seems to be driving

568 B. McKercher

much of the unrealistic expectations of thesector. On the surface, ecotourism seems tobe a booming activity, which would implythe existence of substantial business oppor-tunities. The Australian Bureau of TourismResearch, for example, suggests that up to50% of the more than 4 million interna-tional tourists to that country engaged inwhat could loosely be described as an eco-tourism experience during their visit(Blamey, 1996b). Similarly, the aforemen-tioned comment by WTO suggests that eco-tourists now account for 20% of worldtravel.

But these figures are misleading, formost of these ‘ecotourists’ are labelled thusbased on a visit they made to a protectedarea sometime during their trip. But, asAcott et al. (1998) argue, visiting an eco-tourism site does not make one an eco-tourist. Whether or not you agree with theirassertion, it is true that visiting an eco-tourism site certainly does not make one aprospective commercial ecotourism client.A deeper examination of Australiantourism statistics reveals that only 5% ofinternational visitors indicated that experi-encing outdoor or nature-based activitiesparticularly influenced their decision totravel to Australia (Blamey, 1996a). It islikely that an even smaller percentage pur-chased ecotourism goods and services. Inreality, the commercial ecotourism marketis a true niche market; small, specializedand discrete. Successful Australian nature-based tourism operators contacted in rela-tion to another study used the terms ‘tiny’,‘micro’ or ‘minute’ to describe the market(McKercher and Robbins, 1998).

Why few people are commercial ecotourists

One factor leading to over-estimation of thesize of the market is the unclear context inwhich the term ‘ecotourism’ is used. To alarge extent, the legitimacy of ecotourismrests primarily in its ability to achieve sus-tainable land uses rather than as a productcategory (Lawrence et al., 1997). Using thissupply-side definition, any visitor to landmanaged along sustainable ecotourism

principles can be labelled an ecotourist,regardless of the activity the person pur-sued. In addition, a lack of clarity over theuse of the term in a tourism context hasfurther confused the issue. There is nodoubt that the term ‘ecotourism’ has beenmisused by tourism marketers and tourismpromotion agencies alike, to the extent thatalmost any form of non-urban tourism canbe labelled as ecotourism (Wight, 1993;Wheeler, 1995; Lindberg and McKercher,1997). But even when used legitimately,ecotourism can describe simultaneouslydestinations, experiences and products(parks, attractions, accommodation andtours). Many ecotourism destinations andexperiences can be consumed at little or nocost, especially when one remembers thatmost land use management agencies have alegislative obligation to provide recre-ational opportunities at minimal cost to thepublic. Further ecotourism destinationsmay not provide business opportunities forcommercial ecotourism operators, espe-cially if the ecotourism attraction is a pro-tected area. Many national parks, forexample, preclude the provision of com-mercial activities inside park boundaries.

The result is a disparity between thenumber of people who visit ecotourismareas and the actual number of ‘real’ eco-tourists. At an operational level, the com-mercial realities of running ecotourismbusinesses further limit the number of peo-ple who are willing or able to pay for ser-vices. Why would anyone purchase acommercial product if they could partici-pate in exactly the same experience at littleor no cost? The answer is few would,unless the ecotourism product offeredsomething of added value that the con-sumer could not otherwise get. Many recre-ational ecotourists are philosophicallyopposed to what they see as the commer-cial exploitation of protected areas andeschew commercial operators. Many for-mer operators have made the fatal mistakeof looking at participation rates in conser-vation/recreational clubs and associations(birdwatching, bushwalking, etc.) andassumed that a ready market was availableto them. What they failed to appreciate is

The Business of Ecotourism 569

that one of the reasons why people jointhese organizations is to gain inexpensiveaccess to high quality experiences. Many ofthese people are exactly the wrong marketfor the commercial ecotourism sector forthey have substitute products that providean experience of equal or greater quality ata fraction of the cost.

The most successful ecotourism busi-nesses fill the need-satisfaction gap that thetraveller would otherwise not have. Forexample, ecotourism operators that visitthe Great Barrier Reef in far north Queens-land, Australia, provide their clients withaccess that most would not be able to pro-vide themselves. In a similar manner, fly-inwilderness fishing lodges in the CanadianShield area of North America provideaccess that would otherwise not be avail-able to all but the hardiest wilderness trav-eller. Many marginally viable businessesfeel their unique selling point is the qualityof the information they impart to the con-sumer, when the consumer clearly feelsthis is not essential to their being able toenjoy the experience.

Finally, it is expensive to operate anecotourism business, and these expensesmust be passed on to the clients in theform of relatively high prices. This finan-cial reality further limits the market bypricing ecotourism as an exclusive activity.Ecotourism businesses rarely enjoy theeconomies of scale of mass-tourism ven-tures, and as such, have relatively highfixed costs per client. In addition, theseventures often must overcome small groupsizes, seasonality issues, higher per capitamarketing costs, in-built volatility in themarketplace and a whole host of other fac-tors that drive up their costs and conse-quently their prices. Space precludes adetailed discussion of this issue. Readersrequiring more information on costing andpricing issues of commercial operators areadvised to refer to The Business of Nature-Based Tourism written by McKercher(1998a).

Profiling the Commercial EcotourismMarket

As discussed in Chapter 3, commercialecotourists are affluent, well travelled, welleducated, independent, have a high dispos-able income, eschew normal packagedtours aimed at the mass market and seek analternative vacation experience (Eagles,1992; Sorensen, 1993; Weiler et al., 1993;Pearce and Wilson, 1996; Wight, 1996;Meric and Hunt, 1998). Their age can vary,with two dominant age groups evident:older experienced travellers who are pre-pared to purchase up-market products andyounger travellers who are seeking innova-tive experiences (Pearce and Wilson, 1996).Most are women and many travel on theirown (McKercher and Davidson, 1995;Meric and Hunt, 1998). They are veryactive and belong to environmental organi-zations more than the general populationas a whole. Their involvement in environ-mental and public interest group organiza-tions means that not only do they have akeen interest in environmental issues, theyalso tend to have a greater knowledge ofenvironmental issues. They choose eco-tourism experiences because they want tobe active, meet people with similar inter-ests, learn new skills and optimize theirtime use.

Women are the dominant client group

That fact that most ecotourists are womenis something that many in the industryseem to recognize, but at the same timeseem to overlook in their product designand promotional activities. It has been esti-mated that women constitute up to 75% ofthe nature-based and cultural tourism mar-ket (Bond, 1997; Meric and Hunt, 1998).This market is affluent: women adventuretravellers in the USA, for example, representa US$55 billion retail sales market (Bond,1997). Most of these women do not want totravel in women-only travel parties. While,in private conversation, operators acknowl-edge that women constitute their dominantmarket, few operators appear to target their

570 B. McKercher

promotional activities, or tailor their tripsspecifically to suit the demands of women(McKercher and Davidson, 1995). Womenand men respond differently to promo-tional activities and read different media.Moreover, women participate in nature-based tourism trips for a variety of reasonsthat operators do not seem to appreciatefully. Research into the nature-basedtourism industry in the Australian state ofVictoria showed that women purchasedcommercial nature-based tourism productsfor the following reasons: ease and conve-nience of participation, safety and securityprovided by a guided trip; and the opportu-nity to travel with others, especially if thewoman was travelling by herself. Theindustry, on the other hand, thought thatwomen purchased their products becauseof the trip attributes, such as route selec-tion, equipment provision and the areabeing visited (McKercher and Davidson,1995). Dissonance between this market’sreal needs and the operator’s perception ofthese needs may explain low participationrates in some businesses.

Different types of ecotourists with different needs

It is a mistake to assume that the nature-based tourism market is a single, unifiedmarket. Instead, different types of peopleare attracted to different activities (ATC,nd; Pearce and Wilson, 1996; Weaver et al.,1996; Wight, 1996a, b; Meric and Hunt,1998). This overview chapter does not per-mit a detailed examination of each sub-market; however, it is important toappreciate that a continuum of ecotouristsexists that can be defined based on thetraveller’s commitment to ecotourism andthe centrality of an ecotourism experiencein their vacation choice (Wight, 1996a;Acott et al., 1998; Meric and Hunt, 1998).These different market segments have beenlabelled alternatively as ‘specialist’ and‘generalist’ ecotourists, or have been placedon a continuum from ‘hard core’ to ‘casual’ecotourists, or deep to shallow (Acott et al.,1998). Dowling and Charters (1999), for

example, have developed a product marketsegment matrix for Queensland ecotourists(see Chapter 2 by Orams).

Specialist or hard core ecotourists arecommitted ecotourists who seek the experi-ence because it provides them with anintense, nature-based tourism activity.They are likely to participate in longertrips, be knowledgeable about the experi-ence offered and be experienced travellers.The nature-based tourism experience is themain purpose of the trip for these people.Specialist nature-based tourists are pre-pared to make sacrifices to participate intheir tourism experience. They are pre-pared to travel long distances to participatein the activity and do not want nor do theyexpect luxurious accommodation, food andnight life (Lang et al., 1996). This market isquite small and is seeking exclusive activi-ties.

‘Generalist’ or ‘casual’ ecotourists, onthe other hand, participate in ecotourismas one of many activities they will dowhile on holiday. Their decision to partici-pate is convenience based. They are likelyto take short duration trips, have limitedknowledge about the area being visited,book at the last minute and may only havea casual interest in the activity. These peo-ple are less likely to travel large distancesexplicitly for the nature-based tourismexperience, but may be prodigious con-sumers if an experience is easy to consumein close proximity to their current destina-tion. Depending on the activity, this marketis large, and in fact, more closely approxi-mates the mass tourism market, especiallyfor easy to consume discretionary eco-tourism experiences provided in main-stream destinations.

Market moving to soft ecotourism

As the popularity of ecotourism grows, themarket is shifting more toward the casualor soft end. This shift presents a number ofopportunities and challenges for eco-tourism providers, as soft ecotourists havesubstantially different needs, wants anddesires from those of hard ecotourists.

The Business of Ecotourism 571

Anyone entering the ‘hard’ ecotourismmarket must appreciate that the absolutemarket for their activities is small. To suc-ceed, operators must provide truly uniqueexperiences that offer exceptional qualityexperiences. These businesses will mostlikely be small scale, with high pricesbeing charged. Location is a critical factorin their success, for the area must be recog-nized as an important ecotourism destina-tion. It will be difficult to run a successfulecotourism venture if the market considersthe location as not having the necessaryqualities it wants in an eco-product. One ofthe factors mitigating against the success ofeco-resorts in Finland, for example, is thatit is not perceived to have high qualityenvironmental assets needed to sustainsuch businesses (Bjork, 1997).

Conversely, recreation, fun, activity andease of access seem to drive demand forsoft ecotourism experiences. In these cases,the thrill of the experience plays a strongerrole in attracting visitors than the skill ordesired learning outcomes. Products thatprovide an enjoyable, recreational and,dare I say, an escapist and commodified,outdoor-oriented tourism experience aredesired by this market. While this assertionmay be an anathema to committed, hard-core ecotourists, it none the less representsthe reality of the desires of a market thatconsumes an eco-experience as one ofmany experiences they might consumeduring a holiday. Further, to be able tocompete, such experiences must be seen asbeing attractive alternatives to other recre-ational experiences. Emanuel de Kadt(1979) said some 20 years ago ‘the normaltourist is not to be confused with ananthropologist or other researcher. Touristsare pleasure seekers, temporarily unem-ployed and above all, consumers; they aretaking their trip to get away from everydaycares’. To a large extent, this maxim stillholds true today for the vast majority oftourists who may be interested in an eco-experience.

Ecotourism ‘Products’ ProvidePersonal Needs Satisfaction

What is it that ecotourists buy when theypurchase a commercial product? Whatdoes anyone buy when he or she buys aholiday? Do you buy airfare, accommoda-tion and transfers or are you really buyingsomething else? You may pay for airfare,accommodation and transfers, but in real-ity you are buying something that will pro-vide you with an intrinsic or personalbenefit. Far too many operators look attheir product from the perspective of whatthey are selling to the tourist and not fromthe perspective of what the tourist is buy-ing. As such, they tend to focus on the tan-gible elements that make up the product. Infact, these features are simply elements thatfacilitate consumption of an experience.

What the ecotourist, and indeed anyconsumer purchases when he or she buys aproduct is personal needs satisfaction.Products are defined as ‘anything that canbe offered to a market for attention, acqui-sition, use or consumption that might sat-isfy a need or a want.’ (Kotler and Turner,1989, p. 435). The key words are ‘satisfyinga need or want’. It is difficult to do, butoperators must always think of their prod-uct from the perspective of the person whois buying the good or service. When con-sumers buy nature-based tourism products,they are buying a range of personal benefits(Hawkins, 1994). Increasingly, tourists arebuying products that satisfy their lifestylepreferences, with the quest for adventureor the desire to see nature becomingincreasingly important aspects of manypeople’s lifestyles (Donoho, 1996).

The key questions to consider whenexamining any ecotourism product are‘what needs are being satisfied by purchas-ing this product?’ and ‘why would anyoneprefer my product over someone else’s?’These questions are so basic that manypeople fail to ask them, let alone answerthem effectively. Is the decision to estab-lish an ecotourism business in a certainlocation based on the ability to satisfy cus-tomer needs effectively, or is made simplybecause that is where the operator lives?

572 B. McKercher

Are tour schedules, itineraries and compo-nents of a trip selected based on customerneeds or on the idea of providing a ‘goodpackage’? More importantly, do you knowwhat it is that the consumer is reallybuying?

Conceptualization of a ‘product’

Products exist on three levels: core, tangi-ble and augmented (Kotler and Turner,1989). The core product represents themost fundamental level of any product andanswers the question of what needs, wantsor desires are being satisfied by buying theproduct. Someone purchasing a hotel roomis buying the need satisfaction of sleep.The bed, colour TV and decor are the tangi-ble components that facilitate this need sat-isfaction. Someone buying a computer maybe purchasing the need satisfaction ofbeing able to communicate with the worldvia the Internet and email. The compo-nents that go into the computer, the RAMand ROM and the like, only serve to facili-tate this need satisfaction. The same is truewith any ecotourism product.

It is only once the core benefit has beenidentified that the rest of the product canbe tailored to deliver the need satisfaction.The tangible aspect of a product representsthe elements that are assembled to facili-tate need satisfaction. In the ecotourismindustry, these are usually features likeaccommodation, transport, food, guidesand the like. There is a challenge in devel-oping the tangible component of the prod-uct when the good being sold isexperiential or ethereal in nature, for theconsumer cannot inspect the product andassess its value (Bharadwaj et al., 1993).Augmented product elements are thoseadditional features and services that makethe product complete. Augmented prod-ucts for the tourism industry might includeeasy reservation services, credit or cancel-lation policies, the provision of travelinsurance, the inclusion of wildlife manu-als while on tour or the sale of film.

First and foremost, the operator mustdefine which core personal benefits the

product will provide. Is it learning, escape,understanding, fun, status, a personal chal-lenge or something else? Once the benefitis decided, then and only then, can theoperator consider how to transform theminto something tangible that the consumercan purchase. Most operators focus on thetangible products without really under-standing what it is that they are selling, ormore importantly, what it is that theirclients are buying. As a former operator,this is understandable, for good tour opera-tors spend weeks and months developingtheir ‘product’ until they feel it is right.Tour operators must research routes,accommodation houses, check added bene-fits, food, prices, reservation proceduresand the like. This is a time consuming andall encompassing task. But, unless theydetermine what benefit they are providingto the client, it may also be a futile task.

Belatedly, a number of operators havecome to realize that success in the nature-based tourism business comes not from asales approach of pushing products on toclients, but from a marketing approach ofdelivering products that satisfy the clients’needs, wants and desires. As a result, manyoperators have had to modify their prod-ucts substantially over the years. One oper-ator related to me, for example, that hisclients were upper-middle-class residents,and as such they were not happy beingprovided with a barbecue every night.They would rough it but really appreciatedsome attempt to lift catering standards. Atag-along four-wheel drive operator (four-wheel drive tours where the clients bringtheir own vehicles and ‘tag-along’ with theguide) expected his clients to be satisfiedwith simple guiding and support services,but soon realized that they also wantedmeals and equipment (McKercher andRobbins, 1998).

Many operators do not fully appreciatethe core need that their product is satisfy-ing. Indeed, it may have less to do with theeco-experience and may have more to dowith the ease with which the experiencecan be consumed. The appeal of purchas-ing a commercial package lies not in theprovision of access to an area that everyone

The Business of Ecotourism 573

can access, nor is it necessarily the qualityof the interpretation, unless the product istargeted at hard ecotourists. Instead, theappeal is that the consumer is offered aone-stop shopping experience. With onephone call, an extremely busy professionalwoman can overcome all the problemsassociated with negotiating departuredates, researching the trip route, bookingall accommodation, food and services,obtaining the equipment needed, overcom-ing safety and security concerns and, inmany cases, finding suitable travel part-ners. The opportunity/cost savings pro-vided by a relatively low-involvementpurchasing decision enables clients toovercome real or perceived time barriersthat would have otherwise blocked theirparticipation.

This is not to suggest for an instant thatthe tangible product is not important in thesuccessful delivery of tourism products. Infact the opposite is true. If the tangibleproduct is substandard or deficient in anyway, clients will not be satisfied becausetheir core needs are not being met. The tan-gible product becomes a reflection of thecore product and, as such, should be devel-oped to satisfy fully core needs. Further,tangible products have a quality- or value-adding level that makes the product as awhole more valuable than the sum of theindividual component parts. They havedistinctive features that distinguish themfrom other similar products. They havesome styling that usually reflects the per-sonality of the owner/operator. Further, asa separate entity, they can be branded.Finally, tangible products have some levelof packaging (such as a brochure) that canbe used to make the product attractive.

The Product–Market Nexus: the MostImportant Business Consideration

The most important business factor influ-encing the success or failure of ecotourismbusinesses is the ability of the operator tomatch the needs of the consumer with theproduct being offered (McKercher, 1998b).Alternatively, some astute operators can

succeed by matching the benefits producedby the product with the desires of targetmarkets. The failure to do either is a recipefor failure. The logic is simple. Whatwould you rather do, provide a servicepeople want or try to push something peo-ple do not want on to an unsupportivemarketplace?

Clearly, the former is preferred, but infar too many instances, the latter is what isdelivered. It is true that all great businessesbegin with great ideas. It is equally truethat not all great ideas lead to viable busi-ness prospects. The difference between agood idea and a business opportunity liesin the ability to determine if a market isinterested in a product, if sufficient num-bers of people are willing to pay for it,whether or not the product can be deliv-ered in a cost-effective manner andwhether or not alternative products satisfy-ing the same needs of the same marketsalready exist.

Four basic tenets

The product–market nexus is predicatedon four basic tenets that should drive allbusinesses:

1. Any successful business delivers prod-ucts that satisfy the needs, wants anddesires of its clients.2. This objective can only be achieved if abusiness knows who its clients are andunderstands their motives.3. Successful businesses must be able totarget their products at market segmentsthat are large enough to be profitable, havegrowth potential, are interested in theproducts on offer, have unique characteris-tics that identify them as discrete seg-ments, are easy to access in a cost-effectivemanner and are willing to pay the pricebeing asked.4. The products must be seen as being pre-ferred products by the target market.

These four tenets need little elaboration.The first law is predicated on a basicunderstanding of why products exist. Thesecond tenet recognizes the assumption of

574 B. McKercher

understanding the motives that drive thedecision making process of the market. It isonly through a deep understanding of whatinfluences a market that anyone can deliverproducts to satisfy their needs. The thirdtenet identifies the features of attractivemarkets. They must be sufficiently large tosupport the business, yet at the same timeshare common characteristics that enablethe operator to identify potential con-sumers, isolate them from the broader mar-ketplace and reach them in a cost-effectivemanner. The fourth recognizes that compe-tition is intense. Successful products mustsomehow offer something to their targetaudience that makes them preferred overthe noise in the marketplace.

In essence, these rules argue that success-ful businesses in general, and successfulsmall businesses in particular, must developspecialized products targeted tightly atdefined markets. Most operators are facedwith a number of challenges. They havelimited resources that must be allocatedeffectively and efficiently. Further, they areforced to compete in a crowded marketplacewhere, in some cases, operators have liter-ally dozens of potential competitors.

Understanding the premise behind theproduct–market nexus, also allows theoperator to understand the basic concept ofstrategic marketing management (Aaker,1995). Strategic marketing argues that noorganization, not even the largest globalcompanies, can be all things to all con-sumers. In order to survive, businessesmust make a number of strategic decisionsabout what they want to be, and who theywant to target. They must further differenti-ate their product offerings in a way that ismeaningful to the consumer in order to gaina preferred place in the consumer’s mind.

Think strategically

Strategic marketing is all about defining anorganization’s product–market nexus bydefining:

• the products it chooses to offer;• the products it chooses not to offer;

• the markets it chooses to target;• the markets it chooses not to target;• the competitors it chooses to compete

with;• the competitors it chooses to avoid.

The act of defining the products offeredand the markets targeted dictates the typesof business the operator will competeagainst. To succeed, one must knowexactly what products it is offering at whatmarkets and who its competitors are. It isonly in this manner that one can developbusiness and marketing strategies to posi-tion the product as the preferred choice forits target markets. By the same token, it isequally important to know what the busi-ness does not do, which markets it doesnot target and which businesses it does notchoose to compete with. This is especiallytrue for small businesses with limited bud-gets that must allocate scant resourceswisely. Too many tourism businesses try todo too many things. As a result, they losetheir focus, and in doing so forget whattheir core product is and who their coremarkets are. Moreover, the features of theproduct usually have to be compromised inorder to broaden the appeal of the productto as wide a market as possible. As a result,the quality and uniqueness of the productis diminished. A true recipe for failure is toassume that any business must competeagainst all other tourism businesses world-wide.

Conclusion

The product–market nexus is the most crit-ical issue affecting the viability of the com-mercial ecotourism sector. Without clearlyidentifying markets and understandingthem thoroughly, and without then devel-oping products that will be regarded as thepreferred choice for these markets, no eco-tourism business can thrive. The product–market nexus forms the foundation fromwhich a business plan evolves and is thecentral feature in the development of suc-cessful marketing tactics. Ecotourism islike all other small businesses; the likelihood

The Business of Ecotourism 575

of success is slim. However, the failure rateand under-performance of many existingbusinesses can be reduced dramatically ifprospective operators see their venture forwhat it is. It is a business whose successwill depend on how well it is planned,financed, managed and marketed as a busi-

ness. It is not a lifestyle, nor is it a meansof getting paid to play. The future develop-ment and, indeed, the future existence ofcommercial ecotourism relies on the devel-opment of appropriate business skillswithin this sector.

576 B. McKercher

References

Aaker, D. (1995) Strategic Marketing Management, 4th edn. Wiley, Brisbane.Acott, T.G., la Trobe, H.L. and Howard, S.H. (1998) An evaluation of deep ecotourism and shallow

ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism (6)3, 238–254.ATC (nd) Asia, Europe, Japan Market Segmentation Studies, Executive Summary. Australian Tourist

Commission, Sydney.Bharadwaj, S.G., Varadarajan, P.R. and Fahy, J. (1993) Sustainable competitive advantage in service

industries: a conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing 57(4), 83–99.Bjork, P. (1997) Marketing of Finnish eco-resorts. Journal of Vacation Marketing 3(4), 303–313.Blamey, R. (1996a) Profiling the ecotourism market. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A.

(eds) Taking the Next Steps. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp. 1–9.Blamey, R. (1996b) The Elusive Market Profile: Operationalising Ecotourism. Bureau of Tourism

Research, Canberra.Bond, M. (1997) Women travellers: a new growth market. What new in Pacific Asia? PATA,

Singapore: http://www.hotel-online.com/Neo/New.…/PataWomenTravellers_Nov1997.htmBransgrove, C. (1992) Tour Operators Business Guidebook. Small Business Development

Corporation, Victorian Tourism Commission, Melbourne.Cotterill, D. (1996) Developing a sustainable ecotourism business. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and

Crabtree, A. (eds) Taking the Next Steps. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp.135–140.

de Kadt, E. (1979) Tourism: Passport to Development. Oxford University Press, New York.Doncho, R. (1996) Broadening their horizons. Sales and Marketing Management 148(3), 126–128.Dowling, R. (1996) Ecotourism: the rising star of Australian tourism. Paper presented at Strategic

Alliances: Ecotourism Partnerships in Practice. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane.Dowling, R. (1998) Ecotourism in Southeast Asia: appropriate tourism or environmental appropria-

tion? Asia-Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12 pp. http://www.hotel-online.com/Neo/Trends/AsiaPacificJournal/July98_Ecotourism SoutheastAsia.html

Dowling, R. and Charters, T. (1999) Ecotourism in Queensland. In: Molloy, J. and Davies, J. (eds)Tourism and Hospitality: Delighting the Senses 1999 Part One Proceedings of the NinthAustralian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference. CAUTHE Bureau of TourismResearch, Canberra, pp. 262–275.

Eagles, P. (1992) The motivations of Canadian ecotourists. In: Harper, G. and Weiler, B. (eds)Ecotourism. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra, pp. 12–20.

Edmonds, J. and Leposky, G. (1998) Ecotourism and sustainable tourism development in SoutheastAsia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 6 pp. http://www.hotel-online.com/Neo/Trends/AsiaPacificJournal/July98_EcotourismSustainable.html

Hawkins, D.E. (1994) Ecotourism: opportunities for developing countries. In: Theobald, W.F. (ed.)Global Tourism: the Next Decade. Butterworth Heinemann, Melbourne, pp. 261–273.

Kobler, P. and Turner, R.E. (1989) Marketing Management, Canadian 6th edn. Prentice Hall,Scarborough.

Lang, C.T., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (1996) Trip driven attributes of Australian outboundnature travellers. In: Prosser, G. (ed.) Tourism and Hospitality Research: Australian andInternational Perspectives. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra, pp. 361–377.

Lawrence, T.B., Wickins, D. and Philips, N. (1997) Managing legitimacy in ecotourism. TourismManagement 18(5), 307–316.

Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximising Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits.World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K. and McKercher, B. (1997) Ecotourism: a critical overview. Pacific Tourism Review 1(1),65–79.

Malloy, D.C. and Fennell, D.A. (1998) Ecotourism and ethics: moral development and organizationalcultures. Journal of Travel Research 36(Spring), 47–56.

McKercher, B. (1998a) The Business of Nature-based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Melbourne.McKercher, B. (1998b) Matching products with markets: essential to survival and a source of compet-

itive advantage. In: Proceedings of Leading Outdoor Organisations: 1998 ORCA Conference.Outdoor Recreation Council of Australia, Sydney, Australia, pp. 179–192.

McKercher, B. and Davidson, P. (1995) Women and commercial adventure tourism: does the industryunderstand its dominant market? In: Faulkner, B., Fagence, M., Davidson, M. and Craig-Smith,S. (eds) Tourism Research and Education in Australia. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra,pp. 129–140.

McKercher, B. and Robbins, B. (1998) Business development issues affecting nature-based tourismoperators in Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2) 173–188.

Meric, H.J. and Hunt, J. (1998) Ecotourists’ motivational and demographic characteristics: a case ofNorth Caroline travellers. Journal of Travel Research 36(Spring), 57–61.

Oliver, S. (1994) Eco-profitable. Forbes 153(13), 110.Pearce, D. and Wilson, P.M. (1996) Wildlife viewing tourists in New Zealand. Journal of Travel

Research Fall, 19–26.Sorensen, L. (1993) The special interest travel market. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly 34(3), 24–28.Tisdell, C.V. (1995) Investment in ecotourism: assessing its economics. Tourism Economics 1,

375–387.Tisdell, C. (1998) Ecotourism: aspects of its sustainability and comparability with conservation,

social and other objectives. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 5(2), 11–22.Tourism Canada (1988) Adventure Travel in Western Canada. MacLaren Plansearch, Tourism

Canada, Ottawa.Weaver, D., Glenn, C. and Rounds, R. (1996) Private ecotourism operations in Manitoba, Canada.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4(3), 135–146.Weiler, B., Richins, H. and Markwell, K. (1993) Barriers to travel: a study of participants and non-par-

ticipants in Earthwatch Australia programs. In: Hooper, P. (ed.) Building a Research Base inTourism, Proceedings of the National Conference on Tourism Research. Bureau of TourismResearch, Canberra, pp. 151–161.

Wheeler, M. (1995) Tourism marketing ethics: an introduction. International Marketing Review 12(4),38–49.

Wight, P. (1993) Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell. Journal of Travel Research 31(3), 3–9.Wight, P. (1996a) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Journal of

Travel Research Spring, 2–10.Wight, P. (1996b) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences and destinations.

Journal of Travel Research Summer, 3–10.Wild, C. (1996) The North American ecotourism industry. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and

Crabtree, A. (eds) Taking the Next Steps. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp.93–96.

World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1998) Ecotourism now one-fifth of market. World TourismOrganisation News 1, 6.

The Business of Ecotourism 577

Chapter 37

The Pursuit of Excellence: Benchmarking,Accreditation, Best Practice and Auditing

J.-P. IssaverdisVictoria University, Footscray Park Campus, Melbourne, Australia

Introduction

Benchmarking, accreditation, best practiceand auditing for the ecotourism sector needto be better understood. This chapter dis-cusses each of these elements involved inthe delivery of quality ecotourism experi-ences, explains the relationships betweenthem and reveals how the use of qualityprocesses can enhance service delivery,business viability and environmental sus-tainability. The chapter is written withinthe framework of the Australian experienceof achieving measurable standards andidentifying the common challenges facingoperators, administrators, researchers, pub-lic land managers and educators. Australiais, arguably, the world leader in this area.The content however, is relevant to eco-tourism destinations in other countries aswell.

Ecotourism is defined broadly inAustralia as:

nature-based tourism that involvesinterpretation and education, and is managedto be ecologically sustainable [and]recognises that the ‘natural environment’includes cultural components and that‘ecologically sustainable’ involves an

appropriate return to the local communityand long-term conservation of the resource.

(Commonwealth Department of Tourism,1994)

The criterion of environmental sustainabil-ity, in particular, requires the establishmentof effective benchmarking, accreditation,best practice and auditing procedures.

In Australia, most ecotourism busi-nesses are small, owner-operator or family-run businesses. Such businesses havelimited resources and available time. Thoseinvolved in ecotourism are primarily moti-vated by their enthusiasm for being in thenatural environment and introducing othersto such settings. Ecotourism activities areusually based on relatively undisturbednatural resources such as national parks,natural reserves and wilderness areas, withfew operating on privately owned land.Within the sector there are many that feelthe establishment of standards is impor-tant, but are challenged by the question ofhow to improve standards. In general, trueecotourism operators are disturbed by theincreasing number of nature-based opera-tors who are simply adopting the term eco-tourism as a marketing opportunity, and

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 579

are not committed to the delivery of a highquality ecotourism product to the consumer.For this reason benchmarks, accreditation,best practice and auditing programmes canhelp ensure the long-term commercial andenvironmental sustainability of the sector.

The major benefit for operators who sub-ject themselves to the processes of bench-marking, best practice, auditing andaccreditation is often not the outcome itselfbut rather the value of closely scrutinizingthe operation. The process can assist in theidentification of areas requiring improve-ment and the implementation of measureswhich will enhance the value of the experi-ence for consumers, improve environmen-tally sustainable practices and increaseyield for the business.

Figure 37.1 demonstrates the interrela-tionship between the four elements.Benchmarking, accreditation and best prac-tice exist independently as well as beinginterlinked. Auditing is the necessary com-ponent to ensure the other concepts arevalid and that reliable measures of improv-ing performance are defined. The centre ofthe model represents the ideal situationwhere an ecotourism business has estab-lished operational benchmarks, hasbecome accredited, is performing at thelevel of best practice, is conducting regular

internal audits and has undergone an exter-nal audit to verify its level of performance.

Key Issues for Consideration

Before discussing benchmarking, accredita-tion, auditing and best practice in greaterdetail, the reader must be made aware of anumber of key issues affecting the sectorand the successful implementation of anyprogramme related to these four criteria.These include:

• The cost of delivering programmes. Thecosts of delivering industry-led bench-marking, accreditation, best practice andauditing programmes must be recog-nized. Documentation, staff, assessment,database and marketing collateral mustbe established to market and deliverprogrammes effectively, in a way whichoffers value, integrity and validity forthe sector.

• The need to offer tangible inducements.Many operators expect tangible benefits,which extend beyond the simple pursuitof standards for the greater good of theindustry. Inducements (real or implied)might include preferred or discountedaccess to government marketing pro-

580 J.-P. Issaverdis

AccreditationBenchmarking

Auditing

Best practice

Fig. 37.1. Benchmarking, accreditation, best practice and auditing systems model.

grammes, special access to restrictedsections in national parks, licence orpermit extensions, branding and market-ing benefits.

• The need to provide impartial stan-dards. Auditing procedures must beestablished which are low cost, consis-tent, non-threatening and can be deliv-ered in remote areas. Issues to beconsidered include the selection of audi-tors, training and skilling, and ensuringconsistent application of assessmentvalues.

• The potential benefits of codes of con-duct. Codes can play a part in the over-all continuum of developing industryprofessionalism and can be a usefulmeans of introducing standards to sec-tors of the tourism industry. A success-ful example of an ecotourism codecurrently in practice is the Guidance forVisitors to the Antarctic code of conductestablished by the International Associa-tion of Antarctic Tour Operators. TheCode covers issues such as the protec-tion of Antarctic wildlife, respect forprotected areas, respect for scientificresearch, safety and the conservation ofAntarctica’s pristine environment. Becauseof the uniqueness of the destination, theclose monitoring of visitor experiencesand the limited numbers of visitors andtours to the Antarctic each year, theCode has been perceived positively asexerting a significant impact on operatorperformance.

• The potential weaknesses of codes ofconduct. Moworth and Munt (1998) sug-gest that industry-based codes of con-duct ‘attempt to influence attitudes andmodify behaviour’ and are mainly vol-untary. Problems associated with codesinclude difficulty of monitoring, andabuse for short-term marketing advan-tage. Some operators also object to theestablishment of codes, for they seethem as a covert attempt to regulate theindustry.

• The role of the consumer in improvingperformance. Establishing benchmarks,becoming accredited, achieving bestpractice and conducting regular audits

can only be approached within the con-text of delivering a better product to theconsumer. One approach to performanceimprovement is simply asking customerswhat they want and implementing rea-sonable suggestions. Regular communi-cation with the customer is essential andcan be achieved through customer sur-veys, comment sheets, feedback formsand face-to-face discussions.

Benchmarking

There is a difference between benchmarkingand best practice. Codling (1998) suggeststhat ‘Benchmarking is often considered as atool to enable systematic comparison of theperformance of an organization against thatof others’. In a more traditional manufac-turing sense, Büyüközkan and Maire (1998)define a benchmark as ‘a point of referencefrom which measurements and compar-isons of any sort may be made’.

Confusion arises when the terms aremixed in the literature. Pearce et al. (1998)suggest that companies can use the bench-marking process to determine best prac-tices and standards of performance bycomparing characteristics and businesspractices of similar organizations. Voss etal. (1997) suggest that ‘benchmarking canbe defined as the search for industry bestpractices that lead to superior perfor-mance’ and Povey (1998) states that‘benchmarking is the art of gathering infor-mation about external best practice’. It isimportant therefore that a clear distinctionis made between benchmarking and bestpractice.

Thomas and Neill, cited in Pigram(1998), suggest that ‘Benchmarking is acontinuous learning process designed tocompare products, services, and practiceswith reference to external competitorsand then implement procedures to upgradeperformance to match or surpass these’.This captures the essence of benchmark-ing, namely a continuous process of gath-ering information both internally andexternally and the use of this informationto improve the performance of the operation.

The Pursuit of Excellence 581

The benchmarking process

For tourism businesses to implementbenchmarks effectively, the followingprocess needs to occur:

• there must be a proper selection of thetarget features and practices to be emu-lated;

• there must be careful selection of theorganizations chosen to compare perfor-mance; and

• there must be an effective monitoringand feedback system to ensure outcomesare improved (Pigram, 1998).

Tourism operators often fail to recognizethe value of spending the money and mak-ing the time available to experience othertourism product as a means of benchmark-ing their own operation. Experiencingother tours, accommodation or attractionsis often the simplest method of gaininginformation in view of the time and dollarconstraints facing many small operators.Another simple and effective means ofcomparing performance is the establish-ment of networks with other operatorsoffering the same, or similar, product.Discussing performance and possibleimprovements with one’s peers doesrequire a degree of openness and confi-dence. Some operators may find this threat-ening. Yet, the process may prove to beinvaluable as an inexpensive means ofmeasuring and improving performanceover time.

Publications produced by governmentagencies or industry organizations areanother effective source of measuring andimproving performance. These publica-tions are usually relatively inexpensiveand can be a valuable resource for assess-ing the implementation of water andenergy conservation measures, waste mini-mization, recycling, building materials andfuture directions. The Tourism Council ofAustralia (TCA), for example, has recentlyreleased two publications: Being Green isyour Business (1999) and Being GreenKeeps You Out of the Red (1998), whichoffer guidelines to tourism operators onimproving environmental performance and

the commercial benefit to be gained.Economic benchmarks suggested by TCAin their publications for the accommoda-tion and attraction sector include:

Energy• expenditure on energy/turnover;• kWh per guest night (or per visitor);• MJ per guest night.

Water• kilolitres supplied per guest night (or

per visitor);• kilolitres supplied per meal cover;• kilolitres supplied per ha of grounds;• kilolitres supplied/turnover. (Tourism

Council Australia, 1998.)

It should be recognized that many ofthese ‘innovative practices’ are becomingreasonably affordable and are beingaccepted as standard practice across theecotourism sector which, given the crite-rion of sustainability, is expected todemonstrate such innovations. Numeroussources of information now exist, includ-ing publications and the Internet, whichoutline simple processes which can beimplemented in the area of business man-agement, interpretation, water and energyconservation, waste minimization, recy-cling, appropriate building materials andfuture directions. In addition to theseresources, it is important that the sectorcontinues to seek improved performancestandards and establish ‘new’ benchmarks.

Accreditation

The concept of accreditation is gainingincreased acceptance by tourism industrymanagers, as a means of enhancing stan-dards (McKercher, 1998; Fennell, 1999). Anumber of factors are providing impetusfor the process. These include the increas-ing expectation of standards and awarenessof service quality by consumers, theincreasing expectation by travel intermedi-aries that the product will be safe and envi-ronmentally responsible, an increasedindustry awareness of sustainable businesspractice and a growing interest in research.

582 J.-P. Issaverdis

The term ‘accreditation’ has wide currencyacross service and manufacturing indus-tries. Historically the tourism industry isfamiliar with accommodation rating sys-tems such as ‘star’ or ‘crown’ systems. Idefine tourism accreditation as ‘pro-grammes that provide a means of establish-ing the extent to which a business offeringtourism experiences meets industry nomi-nated standards. The programme encour-ages the delivery of consistently highquality products and promotes continuousimprovement’.

Key considerations for accreditationprogrammes include:

• the establishment and continuousimprovement of industry standards;

• providing a focus on industry-nomi-nated standards, rather than govern-ment-nominated standards;

• establishing a continuum of measures toimprove professionalism, standards andquality of product delivery;

• applying the term to individuals, indus-try organizations, tourism businessesand ecotourism products;

• recognizing that accreditation shouldnot be compulsory, but rather encourageparticipation through marketing oppor-tunities and incentives (Issaverdis,1998).

Accreditation and environmentalsustainability

The Australian Government report on eco-logically sustainable development (1991)suggests that properly managed tourismcan minimize negative environmentalimpacts and lead to long-term benefits forthe environment. The report recommendsthat ‘An important move to both assist thetourism industry and conserve Australia’sbiodiversity would be to establish anational representative system of protectedareas together with nationally consistentmanagement standards and practices’(Commonwealth of Australia, 1991). Whereit is supported by the industry and prop-erly administered, tourism accreditation

offers the prospect of providing nationallyconsistent standards and environmentalmanagement practices. This may assist thelong-term protection of environmentalassets.

The inclusion of environmentally sus-tainable elements within the accreditationprocess can serve alongside the more estab-lished licensing and permit systems oper-ated by many government environmentalconservation agencies. The AustralianNational Ecotourism Strategy identifiesthat the diversity, and lack of standards inenvironmental management and use by thetourism industry has:

prompted some ecotourism operators andnatural resource managers to call foraccreditation systems for accommodation,tour guides, and field operations that wouldidentify their products in the marketplace,enhance the desirability of products andminimise the impact on the naturalenvironment.

The strategy outlined accreditation systemsand environmental Codes of Practice oper-ating internationally and concluded that‘Accreditation systems involve formalacknowledgment of adherence to agreedstandards’ (Commonwealth Department ofTourism, 1994). An Australian accredita-tion programme is being implemented, asdiscussed in the case study.

Self-regulation

A key aim of self-regulation by industry isto avoid excessive government interfer-ence. For this strategy to be successful, theecotourism sector must prove that it iscapable of handling its own affairs to thesatisfaction of relevant stakeholders,including consumers, entrepreneurs andgovernment. Accreditation systems canprovide a basis for industry self-regulationand, if marketed successfully, provide con-sumers with useful information to assist inthe selection of ecotourism products. Itappears that the more successful industry-led accreditation schemes are self-funding.Success will also depend on the degree to

The Pursuit of Excellence 583

which industry standards meet the expec-tations of both consumers and natural-resource managers and provide tangiblebenefits to operators, such as a marketingadvantage over competitors. If the long-term objective is to ensure that all opera-tors are accredited, a challenge forprogramme managers is to demonstratesustainable advantage.

Public land management: licensing, permitsand tourism accreditation

It is widely acknowledged that becauseenvironmental tourism relies on naturaland cultural resources in a fundamentalway, pressures and problems are createdfor sustainable management. Effective envi-ronmental management can lead to integra-tion between protection and resource use.It is also important that land managementagencies recognize the commercial needsof tourism operators. Appropriately licensedand accredited nature-based or ecotourismoperators may assist in bringing about bothsustainable use and long-term protection.

Licensing and the issuing of permits liewithin a broader legislative framework.They provide a means to control tourismoperator numbers and their activities. InAustralia, government appears to be takinga more active role in setting standards, atrend that is perceived as a threat by cer-tain operators. Examples include publicland permits, vehicle licences, drivinglicences and workplace health and safetypermits. Proponents of accreditation pro-grammes argue that accredited tourismoperators are better placed to control thebehaviour and impact of tour groups. Thisis regarded as preferable to leaving individ-uals and groups to their own devices andunsupervised. Public land managers oftenacknowledge that accredited tourism oper-ators are an extension of the provision ofgovernment conservation and land man-agement services. In this context they mayassist in the process of environmental man-agement and the protection of natural her-itage areas.

An opportunity exists for government

conservation and land management agen-cies to support accredited tourism busi-nesses by providing them with tangiblebenefits. These may include extensions onthe tenure of commercial tour permits orlicences, cooperative marketing venturesbetween operators and land managementagencies, and greater access by commercialtour operators to restricted areas of nationalparks. Such incentives may prompt tourismbusinesses to secure accreditation therebycontinuing the enhancement of professionalindustry standards and environmental man-agement practices. Australian governmentagencies have acknowledged the roletourism industry accreditation can play inthe achievement of sustainable tourismpractices (Issaverdis, 1998).

Accreditation case study: NationalEcotourism Accreditation Program

The National Ecotourism AccreditationProgram (NEAP) was launched in Australiain 1996. Ecotourism operators hadexpressed their desire to differentiate thenature-based tourism and ecotourism prod-uct. The programme focuses on the envi-ronmental management philosophies andpractices of ecotourism businesses (Eco-tourism Association of Australia, 1996).

Ecotourism accreditation aims toencourage businesses to benchmark theirproduct against nominated industry stan-dards, to provide a high standard of inter-pretation, to encourage the provision ofhigh quality ecotourism experiences and tostrive for best practice environmental man-agement. Designed as a self-assessmentprogramme, NEAP is co-managed by theEcotourism Association of Australia (EAA)and the Australian Tourism OperatorsNetwork (ATON). Operators complete theself-assessment programme and submit theapplication for independent assessmentand verification. The applications are thenforwarded to an independent panel forapproval and, if successful, the ecotourismproduct is accredited for a period of 3 yearssubject to an annual renewal (Issaverdis,1998).

584 J.-P. Issaverdis

Ecotourism accreditation covers variousproduct sectors including accommodation,attractions and tours. NEAP may be distin-guished from other business accreditationprogrammes by its focus on individualproducts rather than accreditation of thewhole organization. This approach particu-larly suits those organizations that providea range of tourism experiences and are ableto accredit specific ecotourism product.The concept is a close parallel of the pro-gramme accreditation undertaken in theoutdoor recreation industry (Bassin et al.,1992; Gass and Williamson, 1995).

The programme is designed as a stand-alone programme. It is, however, compati-ble with the completion of businessmanagement accreditation through otheraccreditation programmes such as theATON Tourism Accreditation Program(1996). Completion of both programmes bya business would ensure coverage of bothenvironmental considerations for eco-tourism products and the business manage-ment issues necessary to operate tourismbusinesses effectively.

Two levels of accreditation are available,namely Ecotourism Accreditation andAdvanced Ecotourism Accreditation. Theaccreditation logo differentiates the prod-uct’s level of accreditation (see Fig. 37.2).The difference between the two levelsreflects the commitment and operationalpractices of the business to sustainable

tourism practices and environmental inter-pretation. It should be noted that a thirdlevel of accreditation focuses on nature-based tourism operators and is less rigor-ous than ecotourism accreditation. Theintention of this level is to recognizenature-based operators that have a commit-ment to environmentally sustainable prac-tices. This level forms part of the revisedNEAP that was launched in 2000.

At the time of writing, a total of 184products have been accredited, represent-ing the product of 79 ecotourism busi-nesses at Ecotourism Accreditation orEcotourism Advanced Accreditation level(see Table 37.1). Accredited products maybe further broken down into sectors, show-ing the number of accredited tours, attrac-tions and accommodation (see Table 37.2).Cotterill (1996) has suggested that the eco-tourism sector in Australia comprisesapproximately 600 operators, thereby pro-viding a sizeable potential market for theprogramme. Despite the lack of tangiblebenefits currently available for accreditedoperators nationally, including limited gov-ernment marketing initiatives apart fromthose offered by Tourism Queensland(Dowling and Charters, 1999), the NEAPtake-up rate by ecotourism businesses hasapproximately doubled each year.

Consumer and industry benefitsNEAP provides industry and consumerswith an assurance that an accredited eco-tourism product is backed by a commit-ment to developing best practiceenvironmental management and the provi-sion of quality ecotourism experiences.Accreditation offers consumers and indus-try a branding to identify ecotourism prod-uct (EAA, 1996).

Operator benefitsNEAP provides existing ecotourism busi-nesses with criteria to measure sustainablepractices and interpretation performance. Italso assists new operators to develop gen-uine ecotourism product by providingoperational guidelines and information to

The Pursuit of Excellence 585

Fig. 37.2. NEAP logos.

make nature-based businesses more sus-tainable (EAA, 1996). The branding allowsoperators to seize promotional opportuni-ties available to recognized ecotourismproduct. The programme offers operatorsthe opportunity to improve performance onan ongoing basis and to establish best prac-tice.

Ecotourism accreditation: what should itinclude?

Approval is needed from State and/ornational industry and government organi-zations for accreditation programmes.Programmes must be easily accessible tooperators and the process of accreditationfor the operator must be relatively simple.An independent assessment must be inplace to ensure the integrity of the accredi-tation process. Ideally, an on-site auditshould be conducted, but this may be toocostly depending on location (see Auditingsection for further discussion). Uponapproval, the operator should receiveaccess to a nationally recognized brandthat clearly distinguishes it as an accred-ited product and is easily recognized byconsumers and by the industry.

Ecotourism accreditation programmesshould require businesses to include infor-mation on:

• business operations and management;• legal compliance;• marketing plans and practices;• customer service;• human resource management;• risk management and emergency proce-

dures;• environmentally sustainable practices;• interpretation and education;• cultural and local community involve-

ment (Issaverdis, 1998).

Consumer research

It is important to acknowledge that littleconsumer research has been done in thearea of tourism accreditation. A study byNielsen et al. (1995) sampled nature-basedtourist attitudes towards ecotourism andecotourism accreditation. The resultsshowed strong support for an ecotourismaccreditation programme that accuratelyidentified operators committed to the prin-ciples of ecotourism.

A further consumer-focused study,which encompassed accreditation for theadventure tourism sector, addressed theissue of risk management and general busi-ness practices, rather than environmentalmanagement (Bergin and Jago, 1999). Thestudy showed that consumers are support-ive of accreditation, but would not neces-

586 J.-P. Issaverdis

Table 37.1. NEAP accredited level product breakdown as at June 1999 (n = 79 accredited businesses)(NEAP, Brisbane, 1999, personal communication).

Level of accreditation Total number of accredited products % of total accredited product

Advanced accredited products 123 66.8Accredited products 61 33.2Total 184 100

Table 37.2. NEAP accredited product sectors as at June 1999 (n = 184 accredited products) (NEAP,Brisbane, 1999, personal communication).

Activity type Totals of activity type % of total accredited product

Tours 153 83.2Attractions 6 3.2Accommodation 25 13.6Total 184 100

sarily opt to purchase accredited productover non-accredited product. This may beattributed to a lack of awareness on thepart of consumers. It recommended theconduct of further research to consideraccreditation awareness and the actual andperceived need for accreditation by con-sumers.

The future of ecotourism accreditation inAustralia

For ecotourism accreditation to have along-term future, consumers must see avalue in purchasing accredited product.Ecotourism operators must see the flow-oneffect of improved yield and comprehen-sive industry support by both governmentmarketing agencies and public land man-agers.

Accreditation is steadily developing sup-port through national and state governmentmarketing organizations such as theAustralian Tourist Commission and TourismQueensland (Dowling and Charters, 1999).Public land managers such as Parks Victoriaand the Department of Conservation andLand Management Western Australia (Fieldand Shea, 1995) are viewing accreditationas an additional means to ensure effectivemanagement of tour operators on publicland. Parks Victoria is offering extendedtenure on public land permits to accreditedoperators. Operators are showing increasedwillingness to participate in the programmeas awareness is raised of the potentialbenefits.

Best Practice

Achieving best practice is a goal for mostindustries, including tourism. Best practicemay be distinguished from benchmarkingin that it identifies those practices that areconsidered the most effective and efficientat the time. Best practice is a managementapproach to operations and customer ser-vice, which demands the highest standardof performance at all times.

Pigram (1998) suggests that best practice

is the optimal approach to operations man-agement ‘relative to levels of performancein comparable firms and operations’.Australia’s NEAP defines best practice as ‘acondition, which is considered to be of thehighest quality, excellence, or standing. Ahighly desirable and advantageous statewhich has been created and managed in away for others to reflect on’ (EAA, 1996).

Several principles are commonly associ-ated with businesses that achieve bestpractice. These include a commitment tochange and continuous improvement,retaining a highly skilled workforce, hav-ing a team-based management structure,adopting innovative technology, focusingon customer needs, ensuring superior com-munication processes, using performancemeasurement systems, and benchmarking.A key component for best practice eco-tourism operators is the ‘integration ofenvironmental management into all opera-tions of the business’ (Pigram, 1998).Outstanding economic and environmen-tally sustainable practices and highly effec-tive interpretation of the environmentdistinguish those best-practice organiza-tions from the rest.

Implementing best practice in ecotourism

Many businesses focus on achieving bestpractice in a single area of the organization.This may be the financial or business man-agement aspect, the operational compo-nents or the environmental managementrequirements. To be considered a ‘bestpractice organization’ businesses must adopta philosophy of continuous improvementin all areas of the operation including busi-ness, operational, environmental, risk man-agement, interpretation, marketing andservice standards. It is acknowledged thatthis can often be a complex and time-consuming process for most ecotourismbusinesses.

Management must seek out new andcleaner technologies and apply these toensure that resources such as water andenergy are conserved and recycling prac-tices implemented (including grey- and

The Pursuit of Excellence 587

blackwater reuse and recovery systems).Ecotourism businesses, by definition,should be seen to be leading the tourismindustry in adopting environmentally sus-tainable practices. Other key areas of theoperation include environmental interpre-tation provided to consumers, ongoingeducation of consumers and local commu-nities, and training and up-skilling of staffand active involvement with the localcommunity.

What is the optimal method to achievebest practice? Operators may choose toinvest in the services of consultants, referto industry experts, read industry guides ordocuments, or simply network with otheroperators. In seeking improved environ-mental practices worldwide, there are agreater number of options for operators tochoose from that will enable environmen-tal, operational, business and service objec-tives to be met. An example is the design ofaccommodation facilities with effective,passive solar building design, which willreduce energy costs, improve environmen-tal performance and ensure guest comfort(Commonwealth Department of Tourism,1995).

Cost-benefit analysis

Ensuring that businesses conduct an effec-tive cost-benefit analysis is a requirementfor achieving best practice. It is importantthat a long-term approach is taken and thatall costs are considered including the envi-ronmental costs and time costs. Examplesof different cost-benefit approaches mayinclude:

1. Is it a good idea and can I afford it?This is often an approach taken by smallbusiness. Decisions are usually based uponlittle formal analysis, but rather personalbeliefs regarding the benefits and availabil-ity of funds. This approach may result indecisions that do not effectively reducecosts and environmental impacts.2. Purchase cost comparison. A simplecost comparison approach in which pur-chasing price is reviewed. This approach is

fairly naive as it focuses purely on cashflow and limited capital, again a reality formost small businesses. The issues of ongo-ing operating cost, maintenance cost,replacement costs, servicing requirementsand possible environmental impacts areoften not considered. This approach isextremely risky and is not recommended.3. Payback Period Comparison. Thisapproach considers the time required torepay the extra capital costs of the equip-ment or installation. This approach focusespurely on the financial cost aspects andtends to ignore the savings generated andbroad, long-term benefits of investing inpositive environmental practices.4. Life cycle cost comparison. Thisapproach considers all of the costs andbenefits for each option. Various levels ofanalysis may be used, from sophisticatedcomputer modelling to actual case studycomparison. This approach is inclusive ofall factors affecting the long-term successof the investment and is recommended(Commonwealth Department of Tourism,1995).

NEAP innovative best practice

Australia’s NEAP encourages operators, aspart of their application for accreditation,to nominate innovative best practice in cat-egories including impact assessment, inter-pretation and education, land use andlocation, conservation initiatives, naturalarea management and working with localcommunities. Examples of possible bestpractice are provided in the programme asa guide to encourage improvement (EAA,1996).

Analysis of ‘real-life’ examples of bestpractice, as nominated by operators whohave completed the NEAP programmebetween 1997 and 1999, suggests thatmany ecotourism operators are still rela-tively unsophisticated in their understand-ing of industry best practice. Thenominations are reflective of whatAustralian ecotourism operators believebest practice to be. The operators’ nomina-

588 J.-P. Issaverdis

tion of best practice is based upon theirknowledge and experience gained throughresearch, training, networking, visitationand experiencing other ecotourism prod-uct. Many of the nominations for best prac-tice would be considered as minimumexpectations for ecotourism businesses.This presents the question as to whetherthe level of information and type of educa-tion provided by the industry is appropri-ate, or whether the expectations of theworld’s best practice are unrealistic formost ecotourism businesses. It is suggestedthat the answer lies somewhere in-between.

What is needed to achieve ecotourismbest practice?

Based on the personal experience of theauthor, the following elements are likely tobe found in businesses that are striving forecotourism best practice:

• flexible management structure encourag-ing all staff to share the goal of and takeresponsibility for achieving operationalexcellence;

• business and operational managementsystems or strategies, which encourageorganizational excellence;

• staff experienced and skilled in environ-mental management techniques, goodproblem-solving abilities and willing totake responsibility for the day-to-dayperformance of the organization;

• consumers are encouraged to participatein improving environmental sustainabil-ity and contribute to the ongoingimprovement of the ecotourism opera-tion;

• positive presentation in the market-place, confident of its marketing com-petitiveness;

• regular review of performance, open tooutside scrutiny by making results avail-able to industry experts and throughexternal audits;

• a leader in its field actively contributingto industry issues through conferences,workshops, local tourism and environ-mental organizations.

The marketing benefits of achievingbest practice

Businesses intentionally strive to achievebest practice because it brings opportunityand value. Recognition of achieving bestpractice among peers and industry willlead to increased profile and greater mar-keting opportunities. Government tourismorganizations will seek to profile thosebusinesses with travel journalists, travelagent and wholesaler familiarizations andoverseas trade missions. Operators willgain greater exposure through industryconferences, educational institutions andother training and development pro-grammes. Provided this exposure is usedeffectively in marketing opportunities toconsumers, it can result in making con-sumer choices easier when selecting oneecotourism product over another.

In 1999, the Canadian Tourist Com-mission published a Catalogue of BestPractices in Adventure Travel andEcotourism that has useful, practical infor-mation on business management, productand delivery, customer service and rela-tions, training and human resourcesdevelopment, resource protection and sus-tainability, social and community aspects,packaging, marketing and promotion, andproduct development. The catalogue pro-vides a useful means to identify best prac-tices by industry, and to profile operatorsperforming at this level. The intent is toidentify and market excellence in Canadiannature-based and ecotourism product, andto distribute the information nationally andinternationally to media, travel industry,government and industry tourism organiza-tions (Wight, 1999).

Auditing

Auditing is the process a business under-goes to identify and confirm benchmarks,to provide accreditation with reliabilityand validity, and measure and verify bestpractice. Appropriate internal and/or exter-nal audits can provide ecotourism busi-

The Pursuit of Excellence 589

nesses with valuable information regardingperformance levels and can offer tangiblemeans to improve standards across theorganization. The audit must be basedupon a sound set of guidelines and clearmeasurement criteria must be established.The actual audit process is based on ques-tions about the various operational andbusiness management practices of an orga-nization. A constructive report based uponthe audit, which can be used to improveperformance, should form part of the com-plete process.

Internal and external audits

Internal audits may be conducted by indi-viduals within the organization, providedthose individuals objectively measure per-formance levels against pre-determined cri-teria. Ideally the person should haveundergone some form of auditor training toensure reliability, objectivity and accuracyin the auditing process. External audits,such as Green Globe, are considered to bepreferable as they are less prone to bias,tend to be more objective, and are oftenmore constructive for the operator. Externalaudits may be conducted by trained audi-tors, industry experts, other operators (peerreview) or even consumer-based auditssuch as customer reviews, surveys andgroup feedback sessions.

External audits are critical in ensuringthat development programmes such asindustry-led accreditation programmes doin fact measure operational performanceand that operators are delivering the ser-vice that they promise. The long-term cred-ibility of such programmes is dependent oneffective external auditing being part of theprocess. Ideally, the audit should be con-ducted as part of the initial applicationstage. This may not be feasible, however,given cost, time and geographic location. Itis recommended that an external audit isconducted within 12 months of accredita-tion and at various ongoing stages in theproduct’s lifetime, for example every 2–3years.

Auditing considerations

Cost is a real factor in establishing viableexternal auditing programmes, from the per-spective of both the operator and the manag-ing organization such as NEAP. Ecotourismbusinesses often have to bear the cost of anexternal audit by paying for the servicethemselves. The expertise, time and trans-portation of the auditor and the additionalcost of hosting the auditor during the auditprocess may be costly given the remote loca-tion of many ecotourism businesses. Thisfact alone prevents many small businessesfrom seeking external audits.

From the programme manager’s perspec-tive, the cost of building in auditing coststo programmes such as those discussedabove, may make the programme too costlyfor operators to consider. In addition thecost of auditor training, ensuring consistentdelivery of assessment standards, selectionof appropriate auditors and ensuring confi-dentiality are challenging factors. Auditorsmust have empathy with the operators.They must be familiar with the variouschallenges facing ecotourism businesses,such as low yield, seasonality, the lack ofbusiness management training and the highcost of recyclable materials. Auditors mustapproach the audit with a positive attitudeto ensure that the operator accepts the out-comes of the audit.

Training providers as auditors

The Australian accreditation process hasconsidered linking auditing to traditionaltraining providers such as training collegesor universities. Strong views exist bothsupporting and opposing this considera-tion. In support of the concept is the factthat training providers are often basedregionally and therefore travel costs for theauditor can be minimized. The fact thatprofessional trainers are skilled communi-cators, understand the process of develop-ing skills in others and should be objectivein their assessment lend credibility to theconcept. The use of training providerswould also fulfil the desirable outcome of

590 J.-P. Issaverdis

removing the auditing responsibility fromthe programme’s managing organization.

The opposing view is that trainingproviders are often narrow in their base ofexpertise, often have little practical oroperational experience and may see a com-mercial advantage in conducting negativeaudits to pressure operators into seekingformalized training. The matter is stillunresolved. By utilizing carefully selectedtraining providers who have operationalexperience and are already based in thelocal area, then developing their auditorskills through training, an effective audit-ing programme may be developed. It couldbe considered the ideal to establish anindependent audit organization although,as previously discussed, the issue of costbecomes a major factor. Such organizationsneed to be commercially viable and there-fore profit based.

Environmental auditing

Most ecotourism businesses are morefamiliar with the concept of environmentalaudits, as opposed to business audits.Environmental auditing is described byPigram (1998) as ‘a process whereby opera-tions of an organization are monitored todetermine whether they are in compliancewith regulatory requirements and environ-mental policies and standards’. Thisimplies the need for businesses to be famil-iar with relevant environmental legislationand the industry standards set in pro-grammes such as NEAP or Green Globe(World Travel and Tourism Council, 1997).The audits can be conducted through inter-nal or external review. The person con-ducting the audit, the purpose of the auditand for whom, as well as the broad opera-tional and business environment also needto be considered (Moforth and Munt,1998).

Environmental audits as management tools

Environmental audits are a managementtool that can provide a regular and objec-

tive evaluation of the environmental per-formance of the organization. It is impor-tant that the process is systematic andaddresses all components of the operation(Goodall, 1995). Environmental audits havesimilar objectives to environmental impactassessments and should be seen as comple-mentary processes in achieving sustainabletourism practices among ecotourism busi-nesses. The audit confirms compliancewith environmental management planningregulations and ensures that the organiza-tion is maintaining environmental standardsover time through relevant managementand operational procedures.

The importance of environmental audit-ing programmes in establishing bench-marks and achieving best practice is welldocumented. Environmental auditing pro-grammes:

increase the overall level of environmentalawareness of the industry, assist tourismmanagement to improve environmentalstandards through ‘benchmarking’ againstproven performance, identify opportunitiesto reinforce positive environmentalinteractions and accelerate the achievementof best practice environmental managementin the industry.

(Pigram, 1998)

Operators adopting environmental auditsmay achieve the following tangible, com-mercial benefits:

• more efficient use of resources andwaste minimization will result in costsavings;

• environmental problems may be identi-fied before they become liabilities;

• positive environmental practice bench-marks may be established;

• an organization’s corporate image maybe improved;

• various marketing advantages may berealized;

• investors, regulators, customers and thecommunity will have increased confi-dence in the product;

• higher quality employees, who are bet-ter motivated, may be recruited(Goodall, 1995).

The Pursuit of Excellence 591

The value of audits is undisputed. Theyform an integral part of benchmarking,accreditation and best-practice ecotourismmanagement. The challenge is to establisheffective audit programmes which are notcost prohibitive, can be easily implemented,and deliver acceptable outcomes for opera-tors, which can be continuously reviewed.Audits must be perceived by the sector asan essential tool to improve performance,not some form of ‘test’ or criticism.

Conclusion

It has been argued that one can only be asgreen as one can afford to be. Is it going totake an environmental or operational disas-ter to ‘force’ ecotourism businesses toundergo business improvement processes?The ecotourism sector would be welladvised to demonstrate a greater commit-ment to continuous raising of standards, ifit wishes to maintain its marketing advan-tage as a sector which achieves sustainabil-ity and offers high-quality products.

The pursuit of establishing benchmarks,supporting industry-led accreditation pro-grammes, striving for best practice andimplementing internal and external audit-ing processes must become an integral partof the ongoing business practices of all eco-tourism operators. Wearing (1995) suggeststhe ecotourism sector needs to prepareeffectively for a growth in professionalism,with increased demand for ecotourismproduct, an increasing number of eco-tourism operators and more informedtourists. As discussed in the chapter, acommitment to the various processesintended to improve performance mustcome with a commitment to underpinningthe integrity of these processes throughauditing. Consideration should also begiven to linking with other types of busi-ness accreditation and award programmes,education and staff development pro-grammes, such as formalized training formanagers, guides and other employees.

Threats to the success of industry-ledimprovement programmes exist in the formof industry complacency, operators perceiv-

ing the process to be too hard, consumerspurchasing ecotourism product based onprice alone, and lack of tangible benefits foroperators from government and industryorganizations. It is vital that the benefits ofpurchasing accredited and best practiceproduct are communicated to consumers.

Recognizing the ‘best’ ecotourism practice

Perhaps it is time for the ecotourism sectorto make a positive move towards recogniz-ing outstanding environmental, businessand operational performance. Awards havenot been discussed in the chapter but arean area of growing interest. An award pro-vides recognition of the ‘best’ operators ina category. There must be a tangible valuein encouraging operators to go through therigorous process of award submission andassessment such as a marketing advantageover competitors. The process must beinclusive, open to scrutiny and open to allcomers. The award process should also belinked to national or international pro-grammes to further enhance credibility andincrease the value to operators. The valueto operators as well as consumers, and ulti-mately to sustainable environmental prac-tices is the fundamental purpose of allimprovement programmes.

Adopting improved ecotourism businesspractices

The growing awareness and understandingof the many challenges facing the sector indefining and improving benchmarks,implementing accreditation programmes,establishing best practice and developingoperational audit programmes which havevalue to both consumers and the sector isclearly highlighted. The ultimate goal isthat ecotourism businesses must perceivethe advantage in achieving audited bench-marks, accreditation and best practice, or atleast be convinced of the disadvantage ofnot pursuing this approach.

The advantages must clearly relate tothe economic benefits to the business. The

592 J.-P. Issaverdis

goal of these programmes is not to have allecotourism businesses adopting the sameapproach to business management, butrather to encourage all businesses to dobetter in all areas of their operation, partic-ularly environmental practice (Pigram,1998). Industry development programmesmust allow for the diverse, dynamic natureof the ecotourism sector and must allowwell-performing ecotourism operationsopportunities for further innovation.

Acknowledgement

Gratitude is expressed to the NationalEcotourism Accreditation Program for sup-plying the NEAP Accreditation product fig-ures and operator Best Practice material,and Victoria University in Melbourne,Australia.

The Pursuit of Excellence 593

References

Australian Tourism Operators Network (1996) ATON Tourism Accreditation Program – TourOperators and Attractions. Australian Tourism Operators Network, Melbourne.

Bassin, Z., Breault, M., Fleming, J., Foell, S., Neufield, J. and Priest, S. (1992) AEE organizationalmembership preference for program accreditation. Journal of Experiential Education 15(2),21–27.

Bergin, S. and Jago, L.K. (1999) Accreditation of adventure tour operators: the consumer perspective.In: Molloy, J. and Davies, J. (eds) Delighting the Senses, Proceedings of the Ninth AustralianTourism and Hospitality Research Conference, CAUTHE, Adelaide, pp. 305–316.

Büyüközkan, G. and Maire, J.L. (1998) Benchmarking process formalization and a case study.Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology 5(2), 101–125.

Codling, B. (1998) Benchmarking: a model for successful implementation of the conclusions ofbenchmarking studies. Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology 5(3), 158–164.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1994) National Ecotourism Strategy. CdoT, Canberra.Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1995) Best Practice Ecotourism: a Guide to Energy and

Waste Minimisation. CdoT, Canberra.Commonwealth of Australia (1991) Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups – Final

Report Tourism. CdoT, Canberra, pp. 14–36.Cotterill, D. (1996) Developing and sustainable ecotourism business. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J.

and Crabtree, A. (eds) Ecotourism and Nature-Based Tourism: Taking the Next Steps.Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia National Conference. EAA, Brisbane,pp. 135–140.

Dowling, R. and Charters, T. (1999) Ecotourism in Queensland. In: Molloy, J. and Davies, J. (eds)Delighting the Senses: Proceedings of the Ninth Australian Tourism and Hospitality ResearchConference. CAUTHE, Adelaide, pp. 262–275.

Ecotourism Association of Australia (EAA) (1996) National Ecotourism Accreditation Program.EAA/ATON, Brisbane.

Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: an Introduction. Routledge, New York.Field, G. and Shea, S. (1995) Tour accreditation – beyond licences and workshops. In: Richins, H.,

Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A. (eds) Ecotourism and Nature-Based Tourism: Taking the NextSteps. Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia National Conference. EAA,Brisbane, pp. 211–213.

Gass, M. and Williamson, J. (1995) Accreditation for Adventure Programs. JOPERD January, 22–27.Goodall, B. (1995) Environmental auditing: a tool for assessing the environmental performance of

tourism firms. Geographical Journal 161(1), 29–37.Issaverdis, J. (1998) Tourism industry accreditation – a comparative critique of developments in

Australia. MBus thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.McKercher, B. (1998) The Business of Nature-based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Melbourne.Moforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World.

Routledge, London.

Nielsen, N., Birtles, A. and Sofield, T. (1995) Ecotourism accreditation: shouldn’t the tourists have asay? In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A. (eds) Ecotourism and Nature-BasedTourism: Taking the Next Steps. Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of AustraliaNational Conference. EAA, Brisbane, pp. 235–242.

Pearce, P.L., Morrison, A.M. and Rutledge, J.L. (1998) Tourism: Bridges across Continents. McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

Pigram, J.J. (1998) Best practice environmental management and the tourism industry. In: Cooper, C.and Wanhill, S. (eds) Tourism Development: Environmental and Community Issues. John Wiley& Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 117–127.

Povey, B. (1998) The development of a best practice business process improvement methodology.Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology 5(1), 27–44.

Tourism Council Australia (1998) Being Green Keeps you Out of the Red. TCA, Sydney.Tourism Council Australia (1999) Being Green is your Business. TCA, Sydney.Voss, C., Ahlstrom, P. and Blackmon, K. (1997) Benchmarking and operational performance: some

empirical results. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 17(10),1046–1059.

Wearing, S. (1995) Professionalism and accreditation of ecotourism. Leisure and Recreation 37(4),31–36.

Wight, P. (1999) Catalogue of Exemplary Practices in Adventure Travel and Ecotourism. CanadianTourism Commission, Ottawa.

World Travel and Tourism Council (1997) Green Globe. World Travel and Tourism Council, London.

594 J.-P. Issaverdis

Section 8

Methodologies, Research and Resources

D.B. WeaverSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,

Queensland, Australia

Ecotourism, as stated several timesthroughout this volume, is still in itsinfancy as a focus of both research andpractice. The purpose of this final collectionof chapters is to assess how far ecotourismhas evolved during the past 15 years withrespect to the means by which knowledgein this area is being generated and dissemi-nated, and with regard to the knowledgethat is still required. Good research is thekey to the development of a reliable knowl-edge base upon which sound managementdecisions can be made, and therefore thefindings of Backman and Morais in Chapter38 give cause for concern. In an analysis ofa major refereed journal that showcasesmuch of the leading edge ecotourismresearch, they show that most articles usesome kind of quantitative approach to thecollection of data. However, the greatmajority of these articles do not progressbeyond simple frequencies and distribu-tions, or beyond ‘exploratory’ studies.Statistical techniques that demonstratecause-and-effect relationships or facilitatecategorization and analysis, such as clusterand factor analysis, or analysis of variance,are notably inconspicuous. Furthermore,few attempts were evident to test or pro-pose general theories, or even to engage incomparative case study analysis. The arti-

cles that employed qualitative research arefrequently based on perfunctory methodsproviding no confidence that the resultscan be extended beyond each particularcase in point. In short, ecotourism (liketourism in general, it should be added) hasyet to demonstrate the same rigour in theapplication of methodology that character-izes some of the more mature social sci-ences. Until it does so, the reliability of itsunderlying database will be a matter ofconcern.

In Chapter 39, Eagles pursues the themeof information needs and sources withinthe ecotourism sector, again pointing outthe need for a higher level of knowledgeand expertise across an array of areas as thesector becomes increasingly complex andcompetitive. Product managers, for exam-ple, must provide quality interpretation inorder to ensure visitor satisfaction, and thismeans that the standard and knowledge ofguides must be constantly improved. Yet,relatively little information is currentlyavailable, and that which is available maynot be accessible to or known by the rele-vant practitioners. The same can be said formarket segmentation research, much ofwhich is controlled by private companies.The situation is improving in some areas.For example, Eagles cites a recently pub-

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 595

lished book (McKercher, 1998) that detailsthe practical business aspects of eco-tourism and compiles a great deal of usefulgeneric information that hitherto had beenscattered among hundreds of separatesources. It is to be hoped that similar workswill appear in such critical areas as inter-pretation, marketing, impact management,and so on. Much good information isalready available in these areas, though ina highly fragmented form, and often in dis-ciplines not directly related to ecotourismor tourism in general.

Eagles rightly states that good eco-tourism management will require the kindof broad and rigorous training that can onlybe provided by the tertiary education sec-tor. In Chapter 40, Lipscombe andThwaites take stock of the situation withrespect to ecotourism training and educa-tion, focusing on Australia because of theleadership demonstrated by that country inthis field. They report that the ecotourism-trained graduate must possess a variety ofskills, attitudes and knowledge in order tomeet the needs of the sector, includingevaluative and analytical skills that requirefamiliarity with various research tech-niques. An increasing number of pro-grammes have been established inAustralian universities and communitycolleges to produce such graduate out-comes, and this is a very positive sign ofthe sector’s growing maturity. From virtu-ally no relevant programmes in 1994, therewere about 75 on offer in Australia by2000, only a small number of which, how-ever, actually include the word ecotourismin the course name. Despite this progress, amajor outstanding issue is the lack of inter-action between the tertiary sector and theindustry that will eventually absorb mostof the ecotourism graduates. Industry tendsto favour ‘real life’ experience, while grad-uates complain that industry does not

value the analytical and theoretical skillsthat are obtained in a university environ-ment. The promotion of a more formal dia-logue between the education and privatesector is, therefore, an imperative if each isto benefit from exposure to the other.

The final chapter in this section reflectson the research needs that are required inthe ecotourism sector. Like several of theother contributors to this section, Fennellpoints out and laments the lack of rigour,sound empirical data, and theory-buildingwithin the field of ecotourism, thoughacknowledges that this is largely explainedby its infancy. According to Fennell, theareas that should be recognized and pur-sued as priority research foci in ecotourismare related to ethics, values, attitudes andimpacts. This is because of the specialonus that ecotourism places on issues suchas learning, interaction with sensitive envi-ronments, and the imperative of sustain-ability. Hence, even the more utilitarianaspects of ecotourism, such as the businesscomponents described by Eagles, areunderpinned by these deeper considera-tions. Operators need to balance environ-mental sustainability with their ownfinancial viability, while ecotourists needto balance the former with their desire forsatisfying experiences. For example, eco-tourism operators must be aware of ‘socialtraps’ wherein the environment isdegraded because of a tendency to considerthe individual rather than collective wel-fare. Fennell also discusses values andethics as dimensions that underlie thetypes of experience that are sought by eco-tourists and offered by practitioners, codesof ethics being one example of a relatedpractical outcome. In sum, all of theseoften neglected dimensions must beengaged by all participants in the sector ifecotourism is to fulfil its mandate as a‘responsible’ form of tourism.

596 D.B. Weaver

Reference

McKercher, B. (1998) The Business of Nature-based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Elsternwick, Victoria,Australia.

The reviewing of past research efforts facil-itates an improvement and understandingof research and reveals the philosophical,conceptual, substantive and technicalproblems of research in a field as broadlydefined as ecotourism (Wells and Picou,1981; Reid and Andereck, 1989; Malhotraet al., 1999). This process can be particu-larly beneficial to a developing field likeecotourism, where there is a limitedknowledge base regarding research prac-tices and techniques employed.

As research in areas such as tourism andmarketing show (Dann et al., 1988; Reid andAndereck, 1989; Malhotra et al., 1999), astarting point to gain this knowledge isthrough assessing academic journals. Thesepublications constitute an indicator of thedirection a field has taken and provide anindex of the level of research proficiencyachieved by the field. Thus, in the examina-tion of the research techniques used, it ispossible to assess the methodological sophis-tication of current ecotourism researchefforts and compile an inventory of the pop-ularity of various techniques utilized.

The purpose of this chapter is to sum-marize the current state of research in eco-tourism by reviewing the breadth andpopularity of research techniques used in

the field of ecotourism. This was accom-plished by reviewing the primary thrust ofarticles published in the Journal ofSustainable Tourism (JST) between theyears 1994 and1999, along with a review ofsome technical reports and a sample ofarticles from other journals such as theAnnals of Tourism Research (ATR) and theJournal of Travel Research (JTR) during thesame 6-year time period. The chapter alsopresents a brief review of a sample of thedifferent academic fields as they appliedtheir methods to the study of ecotourism.Additionally, a cross-classification of vari-ous research techniques using ecotourismresearch was done and observations on theapplication of these research techniques toaddress methodological issues in eco-tourism are reported. Finally, the chapterprovides a discussion of the limitations ofthis study and some direction ecotourismresearch could take as we move furtherinto the 21st century.

Method

The main data analysed for this chapterwere the research methodologies used inacademic journals. The use of academic

Chapter 38

Methodological ApproachesUsed in the Literature

K.F. Backman1 and D.B. Morais21Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson,

South Carolina, USA; 2School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 597

journals as a sample source for this studywas deemed appropriate because one of thesteps in the scientific process is the com-munication of research findings to a wideraudience, and particularly to one’s acade-mic peers. Also, academic journals, thoughsometimes prolonging the delay in publica-tion because of the peer-review and print-ing processes, are still generally consideredthe primary source for ‘cutting edge’research in a field (Babbie, 1995; Witt,1995). The major criticism against acade-mic journals has been the limited accessi-bility and applicability of many of theirideas to practitioners in professional set-tings. However, for the purposes of thischapter, the important component to con-sider is the identification of the ‘cuttingedge’ methods being used in ecotourismresearch, not their potential application byprofessionals. The reason that the threejournals listed above were selected overother journals publishing tourism researchwas their major focus on tourism sustain-ability, which is a core criterion of eco-tourism. Although a large proportion of thearticles in JST, ATR and JTR therefore dealdirectly or indirectly with ecotourism, thisis not the sole focus of these journals. Thetotal number of articles examined over this6-year period was 147. The research meth-ods were differentiated first between thequantitative and qualitative methods used,then evaluated for the type of statistical oranalytical method employed. The thirdevaluation used in this study was geo-graphic, in terms of the location of theresearch studies as well as the institutionswith which the authors are affiliated.Because this is only a descriptive assess-ment of what research methods have beenused in the ecotourism literature, no in-depth analysis of the data was attempted.

A Sample of Disciplinary FieldsStudied in Ecotourism

Economic studies

Economic benefits of tourism are often thedriving force for implementing ecotourism.

As a consequence, there has been an abun-dance of studies of the economic impact ofecotourism development. The large major-ity of those studies use an input–outputeconomic model (see Chapter 23). A prob-lem that becomes apparent upon analysisof the economic impacts of ecotourism isan evident increase in leakage due to con-trol of the industry by foreign investors.Two main factors limit the economic bene-fits of the local community: (i) all-inclusivelodging is centred on multinational chainhotels blocking local ownership fromdirect profits; and (ii) high paying jobs arenot offered to locals, which limits theimpact through employment. For example,some studies of national parks in Kenyarevealed that national parks’ visitor rev-enues were used to maintain the parkranger system, and were not used toimprove the quality of life of the local resi-dents or preserve the natural environment(Dieke, 1991).

Ecological studies

Many studies in the literature have focusedon the impact of ecotourism in the environ-ment, and have used a more diverse arrayof methods than is evident in the econom-ics literature. In Kenya, studies revealedthat daily observation of the cheetah inhib-ited them from hunting and gave themundue difficulties to survive and mate.Other studies in Central America examinedthe management policies necessary to con-trol the negative impact on coral reef andfish populations that has been registered inBelize and other popular marine scuba-div-ing destinations. For example, researchershave discovered that rays in a marine parkin Belize have been suffering from skinburns (from tourist handling), and changesin behaviour and feeding habits (touristsfeeding them) (Lindberg et al., 1996). InAntarctica, observation methods borrowedfrom biological sciences were employed toexamine the influence of the impact of ice-cruises on the wildlife and flora of the mostpopular landing areas of the SouthShetland Islands (Aeero and Aguirre, 1994).

598 K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

Social-psychological studies

A few studies in the ecotourism literatureattempted to evaluate social-psychologicalaspects of ecotourist behaviour. Initialstudies of motives were carried out in areasas diverse as Australia, Canada and the USA(Eagles, 1992; Wight, 1996; Blamey andBraithwaite, 1997). Another approach is tosegment the ecotourism market, as wasdone in South Carolina, USA, using psy-chographic characteristics of visitors. Forexample in one study in the south-easternregion of the USA, ecotourists were foundto be highly involved in their ecotouristbehaviour and considered themselves to beopinion leaders in the south-eastern regionof the USA (Jamrozy et al., 1996).

Types of Methods Used in theEcotourism Literature

The quality of qualitative and quantitativemethods

The research design of a study generallybegins with the selection of two things:first a topic and second a paradigm(Creswell, 1994). Paradigms are used insocial science to help understand phenom-ena. They also advance assumptions aboutthe world being studied, how the scienceshould be conducted. As Creswell (1994)states, paradigms generally encompassboth theories and methods, and the twomost widely used in the literature are thequalitative and quantitative paradigms. Inthis chapter, a qualitative study is definedas being consistent with the assumptions ofa qualitative paradigm. It includes anenquiry process of understanding an eco-tourism problem by building a complex,holistic picture formed with words, report-ing the detailed views of informants andconducting this research in a natural set-ting (Creswell, 1994).

As opposed to the qualitative process,the quantitative study is consistent withthe quantitative paradigm, and is anenquiry into ecotourism problems based ontesting a theory composed of variables,

measured with numbers and then analysedwith appropriate statistical procedures(Creswell, 1994). The results of these statis-tical procedures help to determine whetherthe predictive generalizations of the theoryhold true in the ecotourism context(Creswell, 1994; Babbie, 1995).

The question then comes to mind, whyselect one paradigm over another? The rea-sons for selection relate to the researchers’views of the world, their training and expe-rience in research, the researchers’ psycho-logical attributes and the attitudes andnature of the problem being researched. Inthe qualitative study method twoapproaches to the unit of observation canbe used. The emic approach emphasizesthe importance of collecting data in theform of verbatim texts from the informantsin order to preserve the original meaning ofthe information (Pelto and Pelto, 1978).The second approach is the etic whichstudies human behaviour as the classifica-tion of body motions in the terms of theeffect these emotions have on the environ-ment (Pelto and Pelto, 1978). Thus, someemic-focused study methods are partici-pant observation, key-informant interview-ing, collection of life histories andstructured interviews and surveys. Someetic-focused study methods are measure-ment of social interaction, proxemics andvideotape research, content analysis offolktales and other literature, archivesrecords and technical equipment in field-work.

The qualitative study approaches thathave been used in tourism research in gen-eral and to some lesser extent ecotourismresearch are methods focused around areassuch as managerial perspectives, national,regional and municipal perspectives,industry perspectives and impact assess-ment. Particular data collection methodsused in tourism research include surveys(pre-trip, en route and post-trip), delphitechnique methods, model building, multi-dimensional scaling, marketing assessment(of communication, advertising, conversionstudies, etc.), forecasting tourist demand,and industry structure (Ritchie andGoeldner, 1994; Smith, 1995).

Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 599

Finally, the thrust of the debate betweenwhich research study method (qualitativeor quantitative) is most appropriate ismoot, for what that decision should beguided by is the research problem identi-fied. The researchers in ecotourism may beguided by the concept that if the problemis concentrated to a few subjects and youneed a great deal of information on them aqualitative research method would be mostappropriate. If, on the other hand, the prob-lem relates to a large number of subjects,but only requires information on a fewvariables then probably a quantitativemethod might be performed.

There are several criteria that may beused to assess the quality of the methodol-ogy used in a study. An important qualityof the data obtained is its neutrality. Theconcept of neutrality is related to the factthat both qualitative and quantitative meth-ods use some degree of subjectivity in theprocess of data collection. To minimize sub-jectivity of data collection, and therebyattain more valid findings, authors attemptto document their judgements with evi-dence. They might also use multipleobservers and seek consistency among theirobservations and interpretation of the dataobtained (Newman and Benz, 1998). In theecotourism literature, few authors reportexplicit attempts to minimize the subjectiv-ity of their data collection and interpreta-tion process. The problem of subjectivity, incontrast, was prevalent in case studieswhere data was obtained from selected sec-ondary sources and their interpretation wasbased on the experience of the authors.

A challenge applicable mainly to stud-ies adopting a qualitative methodology isthat sometimes the data obtained mayaccurately describe an occurrence, but notcapture the true essence of the phenome-non. Also the data may not detect if theoccurrence is frequent or sporadic, andtherefore atypical of the phenomenon. Tominimize these challenges, authors need toconduct their study with prolongedengagement on-site to detect trends andabnormal events, and they need to conductpersistent observation to determine the fre-quency of events (Newman and Benz,

1998). In the ecotourism literature,researchers frequently conduct participantobservations consisting of only a few visitsof short duration to a destination. Manythen fail to recognize the limitations oftheir data and assume to have captured theessence of the culture they are visiting.

Often in ecotourism research, authorsbecome very attached to the destinationthey are researching, and tend to collectdata and interpret them based on their sub-jective beliefs. To compensate for this ten-dency researchers may debrief theirfindings with other experts, the authorsmay go back to their original subjects andcheck if their interpretation was accurate,or the authors may obtain data from multi-ple sources and compare the consistency ofthe findings (i.e. triangulation) (Newmanand Benz, 1998). The ecotourism literaturehas been poor in reporting methods ofreducing researcher bias. Only a limitednumber of studies used the triangulation ofqualitative and quantitative methods togain a more accurate insight into the phe-nomenon being studied.

Qualitative methods

A significant portion of the literatureemploys qualitative methods to examinevarious ecotourism phenomena. The use ofqualitative research methods can arguablybe very useful in this field due to the lackof knowledge and need for understandingthe meaning of phenomena that do not nec-essarily obey the theories developed underthe scope of mass tourism. However, manyof the qualitative studies encountered inthe ecotourism literature are characterizedby poor methodology. For example, manyauthors use personal notes from informalinterviews as the main source of data fortheir discussion. Others engage in partici-pant observation during a reduced numberof visits to a destination, and use the lim-ited insight from that data collection andtheir personal experience to reach broadconclusions and recommendations. Fre-quently, regardless of the data collectionmethods used, authors do not give an

600 K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

explanation of how they conducted theanalysis of the information they collected.Finally, only a very limited number ofstudies (e.g. Getz and Jamal, 1994) usedsome type of triangulation to improve theiraccuracy.

On the other hand, there are a smallnumber of studies that have used qualita-tive methodologies to their best capability.Very often, the qualitative methods wereused in parallel with quantitative ones,which typically strengthened the study. Agood example of a study incorporating bothquantitative and qualitative methodologieswas the Banff-Bow Valley Study (Ritchie,1998). This study used focus-groups andon-site surveys to gather information aboutthe impact of tourism in an ecologicallysensitive destination. Other studies haveincorporated structured interviews or par-ticipant observation to bring depth to moresuperficial but extensive findings obtainedthrough on-site surveys and analysis of sec-ondary demographic data (Wall, 1993;Barron and Prideaux, 1998).

Case studiesThe qualitative method most frequentlyused in ecotourism literature has been thecase study (see Table 38.1). This methodol-ogy is also used very frequently in the gen-eral tourism literature (Ryan, 1995). Casestudies have been mainly used to describethe evolution of several variables suppos-edly due to the implementation of specifictourism developments. Many articles con-sist of the analysis of the environmentunder the perspective of the researcher.The discussion is based on personal expe-rience, or based on secondary data col-lected from local, regional or nationaltourism-governing agencies. Despite thevalue of this type of report, they lack gener-alizability and therefore have limitedimportance to the development of the bodyof knowledge addressing ecotourism.Furthermore, these idiosyncratic studiesseldom use knowledge from previousempirical findings, and often do not con-sider the results from similar case studiesconducted elsewhere. In addition, these

studies are often undertaken by individualsassociated in some form with the governingagencies of the study area, which couldpotentially compromise the credibility ofthe document. Therefore it would be advis-able that researchers try to strengthen theircontribution to the ecotourism literature byseeking collaborative efforts with acade-mics or other independent researchers thatare clearly removed from pressures of localtourism agencies and community. Anexample of a study that incorporated thecollaboration of independent researchers isPalacio and McCool’s (1997) analysis of theecotourist segments in Belize.

InterviewsOther methods used frequently to collectdata are structured and unstructured inter-views (see Table 38.1). These interviewsare conducted either with tourists, withlocal residents, or with travel agents. In-depth interviews are not used as frequentlyas either structured or informal interviews.Burton (1998) used in-depth interviews ofecotourism operators to assess their strate-gies to cope with tourism growth inAustralia. Focus groups are a special formof interviewing that benefit from the inter-action of various subjects with the help of amoderator and are useful to help identifyspecific research topics to concentrate onand to suggest questions and issues impor-tant to the subject population. For exampleHobson and Mak (1995) used focus groupsto gain insight into the characteristics andmotivations of tourists who participated ina tour focused on the culture and commu-nity of Hong Kong.

Observation methodsAnother method used frequently in qualita-tive studies has been participant observa-tion. This method, however, has not beenused to its full potential. Participant obser-vation involves prolonged contact withthe study subjects either informing them ofthe study or hiding it from the subjects. Asan example, Thomlison and Getz (1996)participated in a number of prolonged

Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 601

ecotours in Central America to gain in-depth, first-hand knowledge of the workingenvironment of ecotourism companies.Other forms of observation methods usedby ecotourism researchers have beenmechanical forms of observation, and meth-ods borrowed from the biological sciencesto measure impact on the environment. Amechanical observation device (automaticperson and bicycle counter unit) was usedby Cope et al. (1998) to assess the use levelof a long-distance cycle route.

Analysis of qualitative dataOnly rarely did studies report the specifictechniques used to analyse the dataobtained from qualitative methods. Someof the techniques reported in the eco-tourism literature were coding (1.3%), sort-ing (1.3%), imagery and semiotics (1.3%),looking for dominant themes (2.6%), andphenomenological interpretation (1.2%)(see Table 38.2).

Quantitative methods

Studies employing quantitative methods inthe field of ecotourism can be classified

into two broad categories. First, there arestudies that examine essentially demo-graphic data through the use of descriptivestatistics, typically with the objective ofcharacterizing the economic and socialenvironment of a host population or targetmarket. Second, more comprehensive stud-ies examine complex relationships andcause-and-effect associations between vari-ables describing the hosts or markets andtheir behaviour. These latter studies oftenemploy factor-cluster segmentation proce-dures, or other simpler forms of clusteringprocedures. They typically include differ-ent statistical tests for examining the differ-ences between the groups obtained. Thetests observed were chi-squared, t-test, andanalysis of variance. In addition, somestudies used multiple regression to modelthe variables explaining certain behav-ioural patterns.

There was an apparent differencebetween authors that used more sophisti-cated statistical analysis, and those wholimited their data analysis to description.That is, it seems that some authors testedprinciples and relationships of masstourism in the ecotourism field, and forthat purpose they used more sophisticatedmethods. On the other hand, other authors

602 K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

Table 38.1. Data collection methods used in the ecotourism literature.

Methodology Data collection Frequency Percentage

Qualitative Case study 21 14.3Structured interviews 9 6.1Informal interviews 6 4.1Participant observation 4 2.7Content analysis 4 2.7Focus groups 2 1.4In-depth interviews 2 1.4Other forms of observation 2 1.4Analysis of images 1 0.7

Quantitative On-site surveys 16 10.9Mail-out surveys 15 10.2Secondary data 15 10.2Phone surveys 5 3.4Mechanical/systematic observation 3 2.0

Qualitative and quantitative 3 2.0Conceptual 39 26.5Total 147 100

Some articles used multiple methods of data collection.

seemed to be analysing the ecotourismphenomenon as a completely new field ofresearch and therefore had to start bydescribing the context.

Results of Examination of EcotourismLiterature

Method of data collection

The most common method of data collec-tion used in the sampled articles was theon-site survey, which represented 10.9% ofmethods (see Table 38.1). This method hasbeen attributed with the advantage of pro-viding a short turn-around on the data col-lection process. The next two mostcommonly used methods were mail-outsurveys and secondary data analysis at10.2%. The most commonly used quantita-tive method used for data collection wasstructured interviews at 6.1%. The secondmost popular method used was informalinterviews at 4.1%, followed by participantobservation and content analysis each at2.7%.

When including all types of articlesaddressing ecotourism in the literature, thetwo most frequently used methodologies

were conceptual articles at 26.5% and casestudies at 14.3% (see Table 38.1). Thesefindings tend to support Ross and Wall’s(1999) argument that in the research andpractice of the ecotourism field, the onemissing element has been the absence ofecotourism theory and the operationaliza-tion of that theory. The articles reviewedfor this chapter suggest that some effort isbeing made to move toward the develop-ment of more theoretical grounding in eco-tourism research but that, at the point thisbody of research is today, the field has fur-ther to go to get to the level Ross and Wall(1999) are suggesting the field shouldreach.

Ecotourism data analysis methods

The results of an evaluation of the types ofdata analysis used in the ecotourism litera-ture suggested that for quantitative studiesthe most frequently used method of ana-lysts was the reporting of descriptive statis-tics, at 55.8% of the total (see Table 38.2).However, this summary reporting, in mostinstances, was all the analysis needed andwas appropriate for the purposes of thestudies conducted and reported in the

Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 603

Table 38.2. Data analysis techniques used in the ecotourism literature.

Methodology Data analysis Frequency Percentage

Quantitative Descriptive statistics 43 55.9Chi-squared 4 5.2T-tests 4 5.2ANOVA 3 3.9MANOVA 1 1.3Discriminant analysis 3 3.9Regression 3 3.9Factor analysis 4 5.2Cluster analysis 5 6.5

Qualitative Coding 1 1.3Sorting 1 1.3Imagery + semiotics 1 1.3Triangulation 1 1.3Dominant themes 2 2.6Phenomenological interpretation 1 1.2

Total 77 100

Conceptual articles and articles without specified methods of data analysis were not included in this table;some articles used multiple types of techniques.

journal. Other types of statistical methodsused besides descriptives were clusteranalysis 6.5%, and factor analysis, chi-squared analysis, and t-tests at 5.2% each.As for qualitative data analysis methodsused in the literature, these were usedmuch less often, but are certainly of no lessimportance. Identification of dominantthemes in the data collected were used in2.6% of the studies, while coding, sorting,imagery and semiotics, triangulation andphenomenological interpretation were allused at an equal frequency of 1.3% (seeTable 38.2).

In summary, the previous discussionsuggests that the vast majority of the stud-ies using a quantitative methodology in theecotourism field used descriptive statisticsto present their findings. This does notmean quantitative research methodology issuperior to qualitative but more likelymeans that quantitative methods arequicker to complete and easier to interpret,especially if conducted at such a rudimen-tary level. In fact there is a lot to gain byincorporating both methodologies in onestudy. Only three (2.0%) of the studiesexamined incorporated both methodologi-cal approaches (see Table 38.1), but it wasevident that these studies presentedstrengths and provided in depth and rigor-ous analysis and discussion of the findings(Hobson and Mak, 1995; Barron andPrideaux, 1998; Ritchie, 1998).

Geographic Distribution of Researchand Authors

Location of destinations

The third aspect of research methodologyin the ecotourism literature considered inthis analysis includes the destinationwhere the data was collected. This aspectof the research process is important to theassessment of which regions of the worldare taking the lead in adopting ecotourismas a viable industry and where most newknowledge regarding the field is originat-ing. In this study, the USA was the mostpopular location at 13.8% (see Table 38.3),

followed by Canada at 11.7%, Australia at10.6%, and New Zealand, UK, Indonesiaand Antarctica at 5.2% each. These coun-tries were followed by many other coun-tries on every continent. This shows thatecotourism research is a global concernand the likelihood is that ecotourism willcontinue to grow in importance as wemove further into this century.

Location of ecotourism researchers

The study characteristic analysed withregard to the ecotourism literature is not somuch a true methodology component butrather relates to the origin of who is doingecotourism research. Thus, we assessed theliterature in search of the country of originof the authors of the papers on ecotourism,that is, the location of the author’s acade-mic or employer affiliation as reported inthe published articles. It was found thatauthors from the UK, at 22.7%, were mostrepresented (see Table 38.4). This groupwas followed by authors from Australia20.3%, the USA at 18.8% and Canada at17.9% of all authors publishing in thisjournal. Again, many other countries fromaround the globe were represented but at amuch lower frequency of publication thanthe first four mentioned. Finally, as Figs38.1 and 38.2 reveal, the number one geo-graphic region in which ecotourism hasbeen researched is the Americas, and thisis the number one geographic region of ori-gin for ecotourism researchers as well.However, the figures from Oceania, thoughsignificantly lower, are remarkable in theirown right given the relatively small popu-lation of this region. This shows thatdespite the global nature of the ecotourismfield much of the current research is con-centrated in the more developed countries.

Conclusions

With regard to the development of aresearch agenda, a field such as ecotourismthat is in its relative infancy requiresassessment of its research agenda and

604 K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 605

Table 38.3. Destinations studied in the ecotourism literature.

Destination

Continent Country Frequency Percentage

America USA 13 13.8Canada 11 11.7Costa Rica 3 3.1Belize 2 2.1Honduras 2 2.1Ecuador 1 1.1Jamaica 1 1.1Dominica 1 1.1Cayman Islands 1 1.1Brazil 1 1.1

Sub-total 36 38.3

Oceania Australia 10 10.6New Zealand 5 5.2

Sub-total 15 15.8

Europe UK 5 5.2Ireland 2 2.1Austria 2 2.1Spain 2 2.1Poland 1 1.1Sweden 1 1.1Greece 1 1.1Switzerland 1 1.1Romania 1 1.1Germany 1 1.1

Sub-total 17 18.1

Asia Indonesia 5 5.2Thailand 3 3.1Pacific islands (Fiji, Tahiti,Hawaii, Tonga) 2 2.1

Malaysia 1 1.1Hong Kong 1 1.1Maldives 1 1.1India 1 1.1China 1 1.1

Sub-total 15 15.9

Antarctica 5 5.3

Africa Zambia 1 1.1Tanzania 1 1.1Uganda 1 1.1Rwanda 1 1.1Ghana 1 1.1Kenya 1 1.1

Sub-total 6 6.6Grand total 94 100

Conceptual articles were not considered in this table.

606 K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

Oceania15.9%

America38.3%

Europe18.1%

Antarctica5.3%

Africa6.4%

Asia16.0%

America39.1%

Europe30.5%

Africa0.8%

Asia2.3%

Oceania27.3%

Fig. 38.1. Percentage of continents included asecotourism research sites.

Fig. 38.2. Percentage of authors publishingecotourism research origin.

methods in current use to see in whichdirection it needs to go. In the evaluationconducted for this chapter, ecotourismresearch has shown little common direc-tion and has appeared scattered across thespectrum of research methodologies. Thisis not necessarily a negative situation forecotourism research but rather reflects thefield’s stage of development. In reviewingthe research being carried out currently inecotourism, the quality level of researchwas found to be excellent in most cases.The selection of research methodologyappropriateness was also found to be excel-lent in the current body of literature avail-able in ecotourism. As was presentedpreviously, there has been some over-repre-sentation of certain research methods inthe literature compared with others, suchas the use of case studies. While case stud-ies can be a viable way for approachingcertain problems or research questions,they tend not to provide a great contribu-tion to the knowledge in the ecotourismfield beyond describing yet another loca-tion and its local population. These caseanalyses are needed. However, for the fieldand its knowledge base to evolve, more rig-orous research efforts are required as well.

Only generalizable findings from soundresearch can provide a clearer understand-ing of what ecotourism is, who ecotouristsare, and how they differ from other tourists(if they do). So, where does ecotourismresearch go from here?

The findings in this chapter need to bequalified by identifying certain limitationsin the assessment process. Specifically, thefindings presented are based primarily onthe research published in just one tourismjournal, and second, the evaluation is notwithout a certain amount of subjectivebias. Therefore, to truly understand theextent of the body of literature publishedin ecotourism today, it would be necessaryto compile and analyse a database thatreviewed all the refereed journal materialpublished globally, which is beyond thescope of this chapter.

In assessing the state of ecotourismresearch methods over the past 6 years, twotrends become apparent. First is that thenumber of research studies being con-ducted and published is growing at anextremely high rate, whereas in the early1990s only two or three articles a year werepublished on ecotourism. Currently, six oreight articles a year are being published in

each of the major journals. The secondtrend is the move from articles beingexploratory, case study-oriented and con-ceptual in nature to more of a focus onapplication of traditional tourism princi-ples applied or tested in the context of theecotourism field. But, as for a clear move-ment from a particular research approachor statistical approach to another, there areno trends that are currently apparent.

One process that may prove useful inhelping to guide ecotourism researchers inthe future is presented by Smith (1995) inwhich he states tourism researchers face anumber of challenges in trying to under-stand the industry called tourism. Thesechallenges seem equally appropriate for

ecotourism researchers and may providedirection for their research:

1. The lack of credible measurements fordescribing the size and impact of tourism.2. Great diversity in the industry, withsome analysts questioning whether tourismis a single industry or group of relatedindustries (see, e.g. Leiper, 1993).3. Spatial and regional complexities.4. A high degree of fragmentation (Smith,1995, p. 14).

To briefly address these challenges from anecotourism perspective it would be appro-priate to say that ecotourism still lackscredibility in the eyes of many decisionmakers (with a few exceptions as presented

Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 607

Table 38.4. Location of ecotourism authors.

Origin of authors

Continent Country Frequency Percentage

America USA 24 18.8Canada 23 17.9Belize 2 1.5Argentina 1 0.8

Sub-total 50 39.0

Oceania Australia 26 20.3New Zealand 9 7.0

Sub-total 35 27.3

Europe UK 29 22.7Switzerland 2 1.5Austria 2 1.5Ireland 1 0.8Spain 1 0.8France 1 0.8Sweden 1 0.8Greece 1 0.8Denmark 1 0.8

Sub-total 39 30.5

Asia Indonesia 1 0.8Hong Kong 1 0.8Israel 1 0.8

Sub-total 3 2.4

Africa Uganda 1 0.8Grand total 128 100

Articles with authors from multiple nationalities were considered as one observation for each of the differentnationalities; articles with multiple authors from one nationality were considered as only one observationfor the respective country of origin.

in earlier chapters). In addition, ecotourismresearchers have far to go in estimating thescope and breadth of the field. The secondchallenge as to whether ecotourism is asingle industry or a group of related indus-tries needs researching due to the fact thatthe field still has difficulty accepting orsupporting any unified definition of whatecotourism is (Sirakaya et al., 1999).Moreover, the field has difficulty in decid-ing what activities and services constitutean ecotourism experience. Certainly, whenyou look at research published on eco-tourism a point that immediately becomesapparent is spatial and regional complexi-ties in this research. As presented previ-ously, studies were completed on everycontinent, with the majority being con-ducted in the Americas and Australia. Still,more fundamentally, researchers need todecide at what level ecotourism should bestudied; i.e. nationally, state/province orlocally, or all of the above. Finally, frag-mentation not only exists in the currentbody of research methods used but alsoamong the sectors involved in ecotourism.Whether from the perspective of naturalresources, economic impacts, social or cul-tural implications, planning and policy, oradministration, all have tended to mini-mize coordination and cooperation relatedto product development and marketing.

In the investigation of research in eco-tourism in the published literature, onegreat void that can be identified is the lackof longitudinal research studies. Most or atleast 95% of research published, regardlessof study method used, was a cross-sectional study of a one-time analysis of a

problem or issue. Rather than trying tounderstand the causal process of theseproblems over an extended period, conclu-sions are drawn and recommendationsmade on the basis of observations madefrom one point in time. Studies are neededwhich use each of these three longitudinaltypes of research especially if researchersare going to truly understand and be able toexplain a phenomenon such as ecotourism.These methods are: (i) trend studies thatexamine changes within the host popula-tions and visitor populations over time(years); (ii) cohort studies which examinesubpopulations such as visitor segments asthey change over time; and (iii) panel stud-ies which examine a set of travellers to eco-tourism destinations over a period of years.Then, through the coordination of the cur-rent and longitudinal studies, ecotourismresearchers will begin to more fully under-stand this complex industry and its marketsegments.

Thus, it would appear to be most appro-priate to focus future research around anagenda such as this rather than aroundwhether it is preferable to use qualitativeas opposed to quantitative research meth-ods. The only certainty the future has withregard to ecotourism research is that to bet-ter understand this phenomenon the fieldshould take advantage of new technologysuch as geographical information systems,global positioning units, and sophisticatedand path analytical modelling. Their use asresearch tools will become more importantto help understand what is the most effec-tive and efficient development of eco-tourism.

608 K.F. Backman and D.B. Morais

References

Aeero, J.M. and Aguirre, E.A. (1994) A monitoring research plan for tourism in Antarctica. Annals ofTourism Research 21(2), 295–302.

Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research, 7th edn. Wadsworth Publishing Company,Belmont, California, USA.

Barron, P. and Prideaux, B. (1998) Hospitality education in Tanzania: is there a mood to developenvironmental awareness? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(3), 224–237.

Blamey, R.K. and Braithwaite, V.A. (1997) A social values segmentation of the potential ecotourismmarket. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1), 29–45.

Burton, R. (1998) Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: two Australian marine environments.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2), 117–142.

Cope, A.M., Doxford, D. and Hill, T. (1998) Monitoring tourism on the UK’s first long-distance cycleroute. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(9), 210–223.

Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, California.

Dann, G., Nash, D. and Pearce, P. (1988) Methodology in tourism research. Annals of TourismResearch 15(1), 1–28.

Dieke, P.V.E. (1991) Policies for tourism development in Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 18(2),269–294.

Eagles, P.F. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 32(2),3–7.

Getz, D. and Jamal, T.B. (1994) The environment-community symbiosis: a case study for collabora-tive tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(9), 152–173.

Hobson, J.S.P. and Mak, B. (1995) Home visit and community-based tourism: Hong Kong’s familyinsight. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(4), 179–190.

Jamrozy, U., Backman, S.J. and Backman, K.F. (1996) An investigation into the relationship ofinvolvement and opinion leadership in nature-based tourism. Annals of Tourism Research23(4), 908–924.

Leiper, N. (1993) Industrial entropy in tourism systems. Annals of Tourism Research 20, 221–226.Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996) Ecotourism questioned: case studies from Belize.

Annals of Tourism Research 23(3), 243–562.Malhotra, N.K., Peterson, M. and Kleiser, D.B. (1999) Marketing research: a state-of-the-art review

and directions for the twenty-first century. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27,160–183.

Newman, I. and Benz, C.R. (1998) Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology. Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, Carbondale, Illinois.

Palacio, V. and McCool, S.F. (1997) Identifying ecotourism in Belize through benefit segmentation: apreliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(3), 234–243.

Pelto, P.J. and Pelto, G.H. (1978) Anthropological Research: the Structure of Inquiry, 2nd edn.Cambridge University Press, New York.

Reid, L.J. and Andereck, K.L. (1989) Statistical analyses used in tourism research. Journal of TravelResearch 28, 21–24.

Ritchie, J.R. (1998) Managing the human presence in ecologically sensitive tourism destinations:insights from the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(4), 293–313.

Ritchie, J.R. and Goeldner, C.R. (1994) Travel, Tourism and Hospitality: a Handbook for Managersand Researchers, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Ross, S. and Wall, G.C. (1999) Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. TourismManagement 20, 123–132.

Ryan, C. (1995) Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Problems. Routledge, London.Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V. and Sonmez, S.C. (1999) Redefining ecotourism: the need for a supply-

side view. Journal of Travel Research 38, 168–172.Smith, S.L.J. (1995) Tourism Analysis: a Handbook, 2nd edn. Longman Group Limited, Harlow, UK.Thomlinson, E. and Getz, D. (1996) The question of scale in ecotourism: case study of two small eco-

tour operators in the Mundo Maya Region of Central America. Journal of Sustainable Tourism4(4), 183–200.

Wall, G. (1993) International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1), 38–47.

Wells, R. and Picou, J. (1981) American Sociology: Theoretical and Methodological Structure.University Press of America, Washington, DC.

Wight, P.A. (1996) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences, and destinations.Journal of Travel Research 35(1), 3–10.

Witt, P.A. (1995) Writing for publication, rationale, process and pitfalls. Journal of Park andRecreation Administration 13(1), 10–17.

Methodological Approaches Used in the Literature 609

Chapter 39

Information Sources for Planning andManagement

P.F.J. EaglesDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo,

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Introduction

All decisions are dependent upon informa-tion. The better the information availableto the planner and manager, the better thechance for a good decision. Ecotourism,like the broader field of tourism, is a chal-lenging activity to plan and manage.Ecotourism functions in an information-rich environment. The markets are oftenglobal, with worldwide information needsand sources. The destinations are sensitiveand use of these sites requires specialknowledge sets. The private operators areoften small with few efficiencies of scalefor a global market. Some of the main ele-ments of the ecotourism activity are large,such as national parks and nationaltourism agencies, but are frequently naiveabout ecotourism management. The socialand cultural implications of tourism inremote areas are large and important. Thiscomplexity requires decision makers to becognizant of the requirement for carefulconsideration of the many facets of theactivity.

Ecotourists demand high levels of accu-rate and competently communicated infor-mation. Much of the information requiredby planners and managers can also be used

in ecotourist information and interpreta-tion programmes. Ecotourism planning andmanagement require information from awide variety of fields: ecology, park man-agement, marketing, social impacts, cul-tural management, finance, law, guidetraining and personnel management.Ecotourism is built upon the notion thatindividuals are travelling, and spendingtheir hard-earned money and time, to learnand experience nature. These travellers arelooking for experiences, knowledge, per-sonal satisfaction and social contact. Thosethat service such needs must provide a richecological, social and cultural environmentaround the tourist experience. So, both thetourist experience and the management ofthe production system that provides thisexperience are based upon a strong, infor-mation-rich environment.

This chapter proposes a model todescribe the planning and management ofthe ecotourism experience (Fig. 39.1). Thismodel provides a synthetic pattern for adiscussion of the components of eco-tourism, and is a framework for thedescription of the information sources thatare necessary for effective planning andmanagement. The central component ofecotourism is the ecotourist experience by

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 611

a traveller. This experience is influencedby four important managerial activities.The quality and presentation of the naturalenvironment is critical to the experience,and therefore environmental managementof that environment is key. The travel expe-rience is heavily influenced by the busi-ness management elements of all thoseinvolved in producing the experience. Poorbusiness management means that eco-tourism will fail. Ecotourism typicallyinvolves travel to remote places, often withlocal populations that are heavily influ-enced by the tourism. The social and cul-tural management policies and proceduresare vital elements of ecotourism. Eco-tourism only exists if individual peoplefind out about the destination, discoverattractive activities, detect that the site andactivities will provide useful personal ben-efits, determine suitable levels of safetyand comfort, find suitable transport, andthen decide to travel. Marketing is there-fore a critical precursor to the ecotouristexperience. This chapter discusses theinformation sources and needs for eco-tourism using these categories as a frame-work.

The literature on ecotourism is large andgrowing rapidly. The Ecotourism Society,in cooperation with Parks Canada and theUniversity of Waterloo, publishes an eco-tourism bibliography of English languagepublications at frequent intervals (Eaglesand Nilsen, 2001). The Ecotourism Societyis constantly publishing highly relevant

material in the field and the publicationscan be reviewed through a web site andpurchased from the Society (The Ecotour-ism Society, 1999).

Higgins (1996) found that the eco-tourism industry in the USA grew dramati-cally over the previous two decades. Thisgrowth, which was almost certainly mir-rored in other industrial nations, will con-tinue into the foreseeable future. Thisgrowth will increase the demand for suit-able information to serve all aspects of theexpanding ecotourism industry.

Describing the Ecotourist

Before one can discuss numbers, flows andimpacts of ecotourism, one must have anoperational definition of ecotourism andthe ecotourist. Elsewhere in this book arediscussions of the definitions of ecotourismand ecotourists. Here we only briefly intro-duce the topic, for the purpose of under-standing information needs.

Before one describes ecotourists oneneeds to have a definition that allows formeasurement (Ballantine and Eagles, 1994).Blamey (1995, 1997) developed a minimal-ist approach to the definition of eco-tourism. He concluded that for marketresearch purposes the following definitionsare most useful:

An ecotourism experience is one in which anindividual travels to what he or she considersto be a relatively undisturbed natural areathat is more than 40 km from home, theprimary intention being to study, admire, orappreciate scenery and its wild plants andanimals, as well as any existing culturalmanifestations (both past and present) foundin these areas.

An ecotourist is anyone reporting to haveundertaken at least one ecotourismexperience in a specified region during aspecified period of time (for example, duringa stay in Australia).

Importantly, Blamey was successful in pro-viding definitions of ecotourism and eco-tourists that can be used operationally in

612 P.F.J. Eagles

Businessmanagement

Ecotouristexperience

Marketing

Social andcultural

management

Environmentalmanagement

Fig. 39.1. Model of the ecotourism experience.

social and market surveys. It is critical thatsuch definitions are operational when vol-ume and trend measurements are required.

Blamey and Braithwaite (1997) reportedthat an understanding of social valuesassists with the comprehension of theideals that a person has about their world,their country and their community. Thoseideals impact on many issues, such as theproper method of payment for park man-agement, income taxes versus user fees, forexample. They make the telling point thatpeople’s social values of community affectthe structure and form of an ecotourismexperience.

The largest market study of ecotourismundertaken so far was done for BritishColumbia and Alberta in Canada in 1995(HLA and ARA, 1995a, b). For this study,the term ecotourism was used and wasdefined broadly and simply as ‘nature,adventure and cultural experiences in thecountryside’ (HLA and ARA, 1995a, p. ES-1). The study found a very large ecotourismmarket in Canada and the USA. In theseven metropolitan areas studied, Seattle,San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas,Chicago, Toronto and Winnipeg, a marketof 13.2 million potential ecotravellers wasfound, a high percentage of the area’s pop-ulation. This was much larger than antici-pated, and showed a substantial market inNorth America. Wight (1996a, b, 1998) pro-vided further analysis of this data anddescribed the market profile and trip char-acteristics of potential North Americanecotourists. Unfortunately, the excellentmarket studies from Australia and Canadaare much too rare. More such studies areneeded in all industrial countries, andneed to be repeated at a frequent rate.

Visitor Experience

All ecotourism is based on a personal inter-action between a traveller and a naturalenvironment. This intimate personal expe-rience has several key elements that mustbe well understood and managed. TheOffice of National Tourism (1999a) ofAustralia produced guidelines to assist and

direct potential ecotourists. These includetips on selecting a tour operator, on mini-mum impact behaviour in sensitive sites,and on cultural sensitivity. The visitorexperience is composed of several ele-ments: visitor satisfaction, guides and guidetraining, accommodation, food, transport,as well as site and trip information.

Visitor satisfaction

The visitor’s satisfaction with an experienceis based upon a mixture of expectations andexperiences. It is critical that the ecotourmanager attempts, as much as possible, tounderstand the existing visitor knowledgelevel and expectations. The development ofa visitor’s background knowledge andexpectations typically occurs before theactual on-site experience. It is important,based upon an understanding of the visi-tor’s knowledge level and expectations, forthe manager to design programmes to fur-ther influence the visitor’s expectations inthe desired direction. It is then necessary tooperate the programme to provide thedesired experiences.

The interactions among the visitor, thenatural environment, the ecotour provider,and the other tourists provide the site basisfor the visitor experience. All of thoseinvolved in the design and provision of thevisitor experience must have sufficientinformation on each of the elements of theexperience so as to design a suitable andsatisfying programme. This information isoften difficult to obtain, but sources areavailable. The managers should ensure theprovision of detailed information for theneeds of management, and for the needs ofthe visitors.

The natural environment knowledge ofthe planner, manager and operator comesfrom two primary sources. The first is for-mal, academic preparation of the decisionmaker in ecology and resource manage-ment. Abundant and relevant informationis available in universities all over theworld in these fields. The second source isprimary on-site experience with the naturalenvironment of the local area. It is best if

Information Sources for Planning and Management 613

this on-site experience builds upon the the-ory and background obtained by formalacademic training. It is naive to think thattechnical knowledge can be obtained accu-rately and comprehensively without atten-dance at an academic institution (seeChapter 40). Guides, and others, that areself-trained may know the local flora andfauna intimately, but usually have littleconcept of the fundamental properties ofecology, geology, biology, meteorology, lim-nology, fisheries, marine biology, genetics,ornithology, mammalogy, forestry, conser-vation biology, landscape ecology, or parkmanagement. The lack of theoreticalknowledge means that any informationprovided will be shallow in scope, withoutan understanding of background princi-ples. Additionally, ecotourists are a highlyeducated population and only a well-edu-cated guide can deal with a full range ofinformation needs of such a population(see Chapter 3).

For the ecotour operator to provide a ful-filling ecotourist experience, it is importantthat this operator knows more about the sitefeatures and about the experience than doesthe visitor. However, in many places in theworld, especially those in very remote sitesand those involving high cost, the eco-tourists are often very knowledgeable aboutthe natural environment. With high levelsof knowledge come high expectations offurther learning, widespread background inthe field and the need for carefullydesigned visitor programmes. It is criticalthat the guide, when one occurs, has suffi-cient knowledge in the subject area and oftechniques of interpretation.

Guides and guide training

The guide is a critically important part ofthe ecotour. In the case of non-personalecotours, the guide may be a guide book, apark brochure or a specialized publicationon special site characteristics. These typesof non-personal interpretation sources arevitally important because the independenttraveller may rely heavily on one source ofinformation, such as a guide book. The

huge demand for such information has ledto an industry of guide books, of which theLonely Planet guides have become particu-larly successful.

There is a wide variety of types of per-sonal guides available. They may be spe-cially trained guides just for ecotourism, orthey might be someone whom the eco-tourist just happens to encounter on theirtrip. The latter may be problematic becausethe information might not be accurate, ormight be purposely misleading due tosome ulterior motive of the provider. Iknow of some people who asked for direc-tions in Venezuela. The directions theyreceived from a local boy took them rightinto the hands of a robber. It behoves theinternational and national tourism bodiesto ensure that sufficient accurate informa-tion is available in order to warn tourists ofthe pitfalls, as well as provide correctdirections. However, government and pri-vate tourist companies are sometimes loathto provide accurate and potentially alarm-ing information on problems and dangersdue to a concern that this will scare awaypotential clients.

Specially trained guides are sometimesneeded. In the cases of sensitive sites,crime-ridden communities, difficult travelsituations, and highly specialized condi-tions, some site managers require alltourists to be accompanied by a trainedguide. The types and amounts of trainingrequired for guides is often under debate,though over time, as the ecotourism indus-try matures, the guides are expected to gainhigher levels of formal training. As moreinformation becomes available, consumersexpect that their ecotour operators havestaff that keep up to date with that informa-tion.

Those responsible for hiring guides andinterpreters usually require training in thesubject matter of environmental studies,and in the techniques of interpretation. It ismuch easier to teach a formally trainedbiologist, for example, techniques for pub-lic speaking, safety and interpretation, thanit is to train an interpreter the complexityof biology and ecology. The lack of accredi-tation for guides in most countries leads to

614 P.F.J. Eagles

much confusion for the potential eco-tourist. From the point of view of thepotential consumer of a service, there areinformation, personality, cost and safetyconcerns. It is very difficult for the eco-tourist to evaluate the effectiveness of aguide before the purchase decision. And inmany cases the ecotour operator provideslow levels of information to the consumeron the guide’s characteristics. In maturetourism markets, as in most Europeancountries, the guides are all accredited andlicenced. This leads to a much higher levelof quality across the guiding fraternity andto more quality assurance by the consumer.A typical example is the ‘Blue BadgeGuide’ training system in place acrossmuch of the UK (British Tourist Authority,1999; The Guild of Registered TouristGuides, 1999).

It is critical that the ecotour operator,whether public or private, provides accu-rate and sufficiently detailed informationon the guide so as to enable the potentialclient to make an informed decision and toform appropriate levels of expectation.

Accommodation

A critical element of any trip is the accom-modation. It must have suitable amenities,pricing and location. Recently, with theadvent of the ecolodge, the accommodationfacilities have become ecotour attractionsin themselves, with abundant natural envi-ronmental elements around the rooms, agood library, some minor scientific sup-plies, and suitable opportunities for on-siteinterpretation.

It is crucial for all those involved in eco-tourism to fully assess the suitability ofaccommodation for ecotourists. This can bedone using the normal information sourcesof brochures, familiarization tours and dis-cussions with other operators. Good refer-ences are available on many aspects ofecolodge development. The Ecolodge Source-book contains information on site selection,finance, planning, design, alternative energyapplications, conservation education, guide-lines and an impressive set of resources,

including a variety of architectural plans forecolodges (Hawkins et al., 1995). Recently,the advent of the World Wide Web hasallowed ecolodges to provide a global viewof their facilities to their potential clients.This availability of information means thatall those involved in ecotourism can get siteinformation in a speedy and comprehensivefashion. It also means that the ecotourist canbe very well informed of sites well before thesite visit occurs.

Food

Food is an important, but standard part ofany travel experience. It is important thatall people involved in ecotourism under-stand their clients’ food preferences. It isdoubtful that ecotourists’ desires and needsfor food are much different from any othertourists. However, ecotourists are probablymore likely than the average tourist torequest locally grown food, and to be con-cerned that the food production is environ-mentally suitable.

Transport

Transport to and from the primary eco-tourism site typically consists of standardforms such as aeroplanes, boats, buses andprivate cars. The biggest difference withecotourism is the specialized forms oftransport that occur on-site. Over the last50 years many specialized transport vehi-cles have been developed just for eco-tourism. These include the safari vehicles,of several types, developed and usedthroughout Africa, the snowmobiles devel-oped in Canada for snow-based movement,the specialized submarines built inVancouver for moderate depth ocean view-ing and used extensively in marine parksin the tropics, and the sport utility vehiclesthat are now utilized all over the world. Allof this transport requires a thoroughknowledge of the capability, functionalityand cost of the vehicles. In many privateecotour companies the vehicles are thebiggest single expenditure unit and the

Information Sources for Planning and Management 615

most time-consuming part of the businessoperation. Information on such equipmentcan be obtained at trade shows, from otheroperators, from equipment dealers, andfrom the Internet.

Site and trip information

The ecotourists want to know about thesite they are considering visiting. Siteinformation includes: the general ecologi-cal features of the site, special site featuresto be expected, special or sensitive speciesto be encountered, available tourism ser-vices, prices and expected behaviours.They also want to know key informationabout the trip. This trip informationincludes: the cost, the length, the starttime, the end time, the types of accommo-dation, the types of transport, the expectedweather, potential dangers, required cloth-ing, safety issues, special expectations ofthem by the tour providers, special equip-ment needs, the physical difficulty of thetrip, and cultural expectations.

It is best that all of this information isprovided to the ecotourists well before thetrip. This enables proper preparation andthe development of suitable expectations.The information can be provided in writtenformat. This is inexpensive and effective, ifit is read. In high volume settings special-ized videos are available. These can be sentto the person’s home before the visit, andcan be repeated in the visitor centre or onthe bus on the way to the site. In somecases the company offers special meetingsor training sessions. These are usuallydone for long-distance, high-cost trips.Increasingly the Internet allows for the rel-atively easy, inexpensive and fast transferof written, visual and video information tothe traveller’s home well before the trip.

Marketing

Information for marketing of ecotourismcan be categorized into: understanding theclient, attracting the ecotourist, settingprices and programme evaluation.

Understanding the client

All ecotourism is dependent upon the per-sonal desires of individual people. It iscritical that those involved in ecotourismunderstand these desires and how they arederived. Several key questions needanswers:

• Why does this person choose to travel,rather than save their money or spend iton another service or a good?

• What personal attitude set predeter-mines a desire to take this trip?

• What type of experience is beingsought?

• What memories, products or experi-ences are looked for?

• How much experience with ecotraveldoes the person have?

• What is the person’s financial capabil-ity?

• What is their physical capability? • What language do they speak and read? • What information sources do they uti-

lize?

A solid ecotourism marketing effort isbased on a good understanding of theanswers to these questions. Such answersare relatively difficult to obtain due to alack of publicly available research in thisarea, but a few studies provide useful infor-mation.

Eagles and Higgins’ (1998) case studiesof the ecotourism market in Kenya andCosta Rica revealed principles that can beuseful elsewhere. The development of asolid, sustainable ecotourism industry isdependent upon several key factors.Important ecological sites must be pro-tected within a set of national parks andreserves that are well managed and avail-able for tourism use. Most of the eco-tourism visitation in these two countriesinvolves the national reserves, but privatereserves and ecolodges play a role throughthe provision of specialized programmesand services. The long-term success of parktourism requires cooperation between thepublic and private sectors. An ecotourismindustry will only survive if the quality ofthe natural environment is maintained.

616 P.F.J. Eagles

Protected sites best survive politicallywhen a mobilized constituency, includingthe tourism industry, argues for their exis-tence.

Forestry Tasmania (1994) found thatmany private ecotourism operators misun-derstood the desires and intentions of theirclients. For example, most ecotouristsplaced higher emphasis on the quality andcontent of the environmental interpretationthan did the operators providing the ser-vice. This study revealed that even whenin constant contact with their clients, theecotour operators were unable to properlyassess a key part of their clients’ needs.This reinforces the need for independentand thorough evaluation of ecotourism pro-grammes, and especially the component ofunderstanding the ecotourist. Wild (1998)described the ecotourism marketing experi-ence in Canada. Silverberg et al. (1996)found that psychographic research tech-niques were useful in differentiating seg-ments within the nature-based tourismmarket. The information on the lifestylecharacteristics of the tourists was derivedfrom a consumer survey. Statistical analy-sis of the research data found at least sixgroup types within their sample. Carefullydesigned and implemented consumer sur-veys are important primary sources ofinformation on ecotourists.

Attracting the ecotourist

There is an abundant literature describingthe characteristics of ecotourists, and moreis becoming available on a continuousbasis. Eagles (1992) provided an early studyof the social and attraction motivations ofCanadian ecotourists. Ballantine and Eagles(1994) described Canadian ecotourists visit-ing Kenya. Crossley and Lee (1994) foundthat ecotourists differed significantly frommass tourists in several ways: age, educa-tion, income, occupation, trip duration,number in tour group, trip partner, trip sea-son, type of lodging, trip planning, and per-centage of tour cost spent for transport.They found no difference in gender or totaltrip cost per day. Weiler and Richins (1995)

studied the ecotourists who participated inEarthwatch Expeditions in Australia.McCawley and Teaff (1995) described thecharacteristics and environmental attitudesof divers on the coral reefs of the FloridaKeys in the USA. Obua and Harding (1996)studied the visitor characteristics and travelattitudes of the visitors to Kibale NationalPark in Uganda. Silverberg et al. (1996)investigated the lifestyle characteristics oftourists in an area of the USA. They con-cluded that psychographics can be used todifferentiate segments of the nature-basedtourism market. Wight (1996a, b) provideda thorough and sophisticated summary ofNorth American ecotourists. Woods andMoscardo (1998) described Australian,Japanese and Taiwanese ecotourists, one ofthe first papers in English to discuss theemerging ecotourist populations in Japanand Taiwan.

These studies, and many others likethem, provide a reasonably thoroughdescription of the characteristics of eco-tourists in the countries studied. Thesedata provide a good basis for the develop-ment of a market analysis and marketingstrategy aimed at attracting the ecotouristto a particular destination or product. Forthe operator in the field, one limitation inaccessing the information available is itspresence in unpublished governmentreports, and in academic libraries.Furthermore, there is very little marketinformation available, in English, on theecotourists of many countries, such asGermany, Japan and Italy.

Setting prices

Surprisingly, there is little available onecotourism pricing policies. J. Laarman andH. Gregerson (unpublished) prepared asummary of the policy and administrativeaspects of nature-based tourism pricing.Silverberg et al. (1996) found that there aresubtle differences in various sectors of eco-tourism, each of which require a differentpricing approach. Much more work needsto be undertaken on setting prices for eco-tourism.

Information Sources for Planning and Management 617

Programme evaluation

All programmes can be improved with for-mal, frequent evaluation. Since marketingis such a key function in the ecotourismbusiness, it is critical that such pro-grammes are frequently evaluated. It isimportant to check if the tourists are arriv-ing at the site properly prepared psycho-logically, physically and with properclothes and equipment. Did all aspects ofthe food, transport, and guiding functionproperly? What made the clients chooseone destination or company over others?Many of these, and other important busi-ness elements, are best evaluated by themarketing section of the business or gov-ernment agency. This arm must maintain acertain level of independence from the restof the operation, so that it can function asan independent source of critical informa-tion for the decision makers.

Forestry Tasmania (1994) undertook anelegant and practical evaluation of the pro-fessionally guided tours taking place in thestate forests of Tasmania. This study foundfundamental weaknesses in the privateindustry’s ability to earn profit and torespond to the market demand. The find-ings in this useful report reveal the impor-tance of a carefully structured evaluation ofecotourism operations and programmes.

Business Management

Business management in ecotourism can beseen as composed of several fields: finance,law, licences and permits, accreditation, lia-bility and insurance, staff training, and per-sonnel management. The most compactsource of business management informationon ecotourism is McKercher’s (1998) book.This one source provides a solid back-ground to all major aspects of businessmanagement for ecotourism. The value of aformal business education, as found in abusiness school or a leisure studies schoolwith a business programme, is high andshould not be underestimated. There is alot of naivety in tourism. Too many feel thatthey can be successful in a tourism busi-

ness, with only good intentions and hardwork. The high failure rates and turnoverrates reveal that good intentions can neverreplace solid educational preparation.

The Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC)(1995) produced a summary of the potentialfor ecotourism and adventure tourism inCanada, revealing important business need inCanada. They undertook a road show ofadventure and ecotourism consultationacross the country in 1997. This effort pro-duced a useful set of documents describingthe business opinion of the industry and out-lining policy needs (Villemaire and Murray,1997). This document provides a useful lensinto the business concerns of the many smallecotourism businesses in that country. TheDepartment of Environmental Affairs andTourism in South Africa (1996) produced astatus and summary statement on ecotourismin that country. Given the importance of eco-tourism to the national economy in SouthAfrica, national government policies are veryimportant in encouraging and guiding thebusiness development in this rapidly grow-ing industry. Lindberg et al. (1998) edited oneof the most useful books available on eco-tourism management, entitled: Ecotourism: aGuide for Planners and Managers. This bookhas an international focus and provides soliddescriptions of many aspects of ecotourismbusiness management.

Finance

All operations, big and small, governmentand private, require finance. This chapterand this book are not the appropriateplaces to fully discuss the details of busi-ness finance. Typically, one needs theassistance of financial experts whendesigning and implementing a businessplan. This can be obtained by using spe-cialized finance consultants or, in simplersituations, banks and loan companies mayhave staff that can assist. All predictions oftourism volume, cash flow and expensesshould be conservative, in order to err onthe positive.

The Australian tourism bodies frequentlyproduce useful publications in ecotourism

618 P.F.J. Eagles

management. An excellent way to reducefinancial costs and to reduce the ecologicalfootprint of an operation is to adopt policiesto minimize chemical use, energy use andwater use. Excellent guidelines on environ-mentally sensitive tourism design and man-agement are available from the AustralianDepartment of Tourism (CommonwealthDepartment of Tourism, 1995).

Law

All business operations must functionwithin the laws of the country of business.In ecotourism, the international aspect ofthe travel means that a complicated, multi-jurisdictional approach to the legal aspectsof business must be adopted. The inboundoperator may be based in one country, thetransport company in a second country, theoutbound operator in a third country, andthe ecotourists from many others. This cre-ates challenging contractual, monetary andoperational issues.

It is critical that the base of operationsof any business is in a country with a fairand operational rule of law. The policemust be honest and the judiciary indepen-dent and honest. Without these key factorsany property ownership, contract, licenceor agreement will be exposed to the whimsof corruption and bribery. Many ecotouroperations have failed when corrupt gov-ernment officials, police or local operatorsengaged in fraudulent activities. It isimperative that any ecotour businessbecomes familiar with the legal situation intheir area of operation.

Licences and permits

All ecotour operators, both public and pri-vate, require licences and permits in orderto operate. These can include: access per-mits for parks, vehicle safety permits, foodhandling permits, firearm permits, businessoperations licences, land-use developmentapprovals, building permits, tax collectionlicences, proof of incorporation, workplacehealth and safety approval, proof of insur-

ance, employee training certification, busdriver licences, and many others. Thelicences can be issued by the national,provincial, regional or local governments.Park and protected area agencies oftenrequire special permits before sites can beused. All licences and permits must becomprehensively handled by competentstaff and kept up to date.

Accreditation

Ecotourists look for independent indicatorsof product quality, and accreditation is anexcellent way of indicating the achievementof such quality. Accreditation is a formalprocess for the determination of productand service quality. In a competitive mar-ket, such as tourism, accredited operatorsand sites have a competitive advantage.Given the difficulty faced by potentialtourists in their ability to assess the travelproduct before purchase, independentaccreditation is seen as a very useful signof quality. Given this market pressure, themore mature the tourism markets, thehigher the levels of accreditation.

The best example of accreditation inecotourism in the world today is found inAustralia (see Chapter 37). The nationalecotourism accreditation scheme is func-tioning well, is widely accepted and hasbecome a model for other countries. Theprogramme has helped to raise the stan-dards of ecotourism across the country. Itallows competent operators to clearlyreveal to others their high level of businessmanagement. It provides a framework forcontinuous improvement in the industry.Up-to-date information on this programmecan be found on the web site of the Officeof National Tourism (1999b).

The Green Globe programme of tourismaccreditation is gaining wider acceptanceglobally. Some of the larger operators areadopting the ISO 9000 series of programmeoperation standards to improve their opera-tions and to prove to their clients that theyare serious about quality. In all cases, it isimportant for tourism operators to seesome form of independent assessment of

Information Sources for Planning and Management 619

quality, such as accreditation. Once this isachieved, this must be communicated topotential clients.

Liability and insurance

All people providing a service to others inreturn for financial remuneration have aduty of care to their clients. Typically, thisduty of care involves providing a level ofservice and safety as would be normallyexpected in similar circumstances in thearea of operation. However, tourists fromdistant locales may have service and safetyexpectations quite different from that nor-mally occurring in the local area of opera-tion. All operators, both public and private,should make themselves aware of the stan-dard of care normally expected in their area.They then must put operational proceduresinto place to ensure that all parts of theiroperation provide this standard of care. It isimportant that sufficient levels of insurancecoverage are maintained. It is important thatthe legal structure of the country of opera-tion is sufficiently mature to allow insur-ance to function at internationally acceptablelevels. Mature ecotourist operations provideinformation to their clients on the levels ofsecurity, safety and insurance coverage thatthey hold. Experienced ecotourists demandsuch information before making a traveldecision.

Staff training

Ecotourism is an information-rich, highlypersonal activity. Ecotourists generallyhave high service, safety and informationexpectations. Those who have travelledwidely know very well what it means to beserviced by personnel with appropriatelevels of ecological, service and interpreta-tion experience. Therefore, all staffinvolved in ecotourism, from the safari dri-ver to the booking agent, require high lev-els of service training. Typically, this isachieved by local or regional colleges, or insome countries by industry training bodies.

Personnel management

After the features of the natural environ-ment that attracts the ecotourists, the quali-ties of the personnel are the mostimportant component of any ecotourismbusiness. It is critically important toattract, properly reward and retain goodpersonnel. All ecotourism businesses needto be very concerned about professionallevels of personnel management. Unfortun-ately, small size and seasonality may limitthe abilities of many ecotourism operatorsto attract and retain well-qualified staff.Some countries, such as Kenya andAustralia, have specialized college pro-grammes for ecotourism training. The out-comes of such training are obvious in thesecountries, with higher than average servicequality, more skilled information provisionand better operations overall.

Social and Cultural Management

The policies for and management of thesocial and cultural elements of ecotourismare important for long-term success. Suchmanagement can be seen as being composedof several areas: community relations, cul-tural impact, and local economic impact.

Community relations

Most ecotourism occurs in beautiful,remote locales. In most of those localeslocal people are affected by the tourismactivities. Generally, the local residents areused to having a resource-based economicsystem, based on the exploitation of theforests, the fisheries, or the agriculturalpotential of the area. In very remote localesthe local people may not be in a marketeconomy, and are used to trading betweeneach other for needed goods and services.Tourism is quite different. Those whoexploit natural resources see the environ-ment as a source of physical products, andfrequently do not understand an economicsystem that sees the environment as asource of experiences.

620 P.F.J. Eagles

There are many potential sources ofconflict between the ecotourism industryand the local people. The goal interferencebetween those who want to physically uti-lize nature and those who want to spiritu-ally experience nature can be the basis ofsubstantial conflict. The influx of foreignmoney, new ideas and new power struc-tures may leave the locals in a state of con-cern. Therefore, the ecotour manager,whether he or she works for government ora private company, must be astute in devel-oping positive community relations. Everycommunity has its own needs, but experi-ences elsewhere in the world show somegeneral principles worth considering(Ashley and Roe, 1998). These principlesare outline below.

In most cases, it is very important thatthe ecotourism provides obvious andappreciated local community benefit. Ittakes intelligence gathering to develop anunderstanding of what type of benefit isappropriate. And the benefit must be suffi-ciently visible so that the local communitysees it occurring and understands where itis coming from. For example, the provisionof jobs for local people is an obvious bene-fit, and one that is usually appreciated andvalued. People who work in the ecotourismbusiness naturally become supportive ofthat industry and support it in communitydecision processes.

In many parts of the world there areconsultants available who specialize incommunity relations and communitydevelopment. For example, throughouteastern and southern Africa, there is acadre of people with expertise in the devel-opment of community relations plans forthe application of development pro-grammes. In both Kenya and Tanzania thenational park agencies have specializedstaff whose role is that of community rela-tions. These people work with local politi-cal bodies, develop personal relationshipswith politicians, serve as a sounding boardfor complaints, and importantly develop alist of community needs. Ruaha NationalPark is in southern Tanzania. When theroof blew off the local government councilbuilding in a storm, the Ruaha community

development officer quickly found thefunds to build a new roof. The symbolismof the local town council meeting eachweek under a park-provided roof is strongevidence of the tourism benefit flowing tothe town. In eastern Kenya, the KenyaWildlife Service has built schools for localcommunities, and in one case provided acement mixer to a village. In all threeexamples the agencies made sure that signson the structures showed, to all who couldread, that they were provided with fundsderived from the nearby park agencies,with the money ultimately coming fromtourism income.

Some private companies and many gov-ernment agencies have programmes to pro-vide specialized training to talented youngpeople. This can take the form of smallscholarships, or can be substantial grantsfor education at colleges or universities.Utali College in Nairobi, Kenya, is a fineexample of a college designed specificallyfor the training of people for all aspects ofthe tourism industry. This college providestraining for all types of jobs in tourism,such as room cleaners, cooks, waiters,safari drivers, guides and hotel managers.

Cultural impact

Tourism has value-changing impact on allinvolved. Given that ecotourism has aninherent goal of personal education, it hasthe potential for higher levels of personalchange for the travellers and for the localpeople than many other forms of travel.Many ecotourist destinations have beensubstantially changed by the tourismindustry. It is a hotly debated topicwhether these changes are positive or nega-tive, and in most cases they are probablyboth, depending on the view of theobserver (Travis, 1982).

All involved in the ecotourism industrymust be aware of the cultural impact inher-ent in this activity. This requires a certainhumility, recognizing that people’s ideas,values and behaviours will be changed for-ever due to tourism. Tourism planners andmanagers may have to hire or otherwise

Information Sources for Planning and Management 621

involve local expertise in cultural manage-ment. For long-term programme successpositive cultural management policies willensure a supportive local community.

Local economic impact

Positive local economic impact is one ofthe strongest arguments made by govern-ments and local people when they supportecotourism development. The financialgain can come from three sources: (i) thespending of the tourists; (ii) the investmentof the private sector; and (iii) the invest-ment of the public sector. Typically, thepublic sector investment, in the form ofspecial protection regimes, such as the cre-ation of national parks and wildlifereserves, comes first. This is followed bysmall tourist flows. As the private sectorrecognizes a potential market, its invest-ment of money and expertise often resultsin much larger tourist flows.

Many studies have looked at the eco-nomic impact of ecotourism (Butler andHvenegaard, 1988; Hvenegaard, 1992; Filionet al., 1994; Lindberg and Enriquez, 1994;Driml and Common, 1995; Kangas et al.,1995). These studies are typically availablein university libraries. However, economicimpact from tourism is not always obvious.This is especially true when many othereconomic activities are also occurring inthe same area. In these latter cases, eco-tourism managers have a responsibility todocument the local economic impact, andthen ensure that this impact is communi-cated to the appropriate people.

There are many ways to approach themeasurement of local community impact.The provincial economic impact modeldeveloped for the Federal Provincial ParksCouncil in Canada is a user-friendly com-puter model for the calculation of the eco-nomic impact of a park (Stanley et al.,1999). The model has been specificallydesigned to be useful to a manager who hasno special training in economics, but wantsa competent estimate of the economicimpact of a park or a cultural event. NewSouth Wales National Park and Wildlife

Service spearheaded an effort to undertakelocal economic impact studies in Australia.Examples include the economic impact ofCoolah Tops National Park (Conner andChristiansen, 1998) and Montague IslandNature Reserve (Christiansen and Conner,1999). These Australian and Canadianapproaches are useful examples of theapproaches that can be effectively used forthe calculation of the economic impact ofparks and the associated ecotourism. TheCanadian approach calculates provincial-level impact, the Australian model calcu-lates community-level impact.

Environmental Management

The effective management of the naturalenvironment and its presentation for eco-tourists are key components of ecotourism.Environment management is composed ofseveral fields: site sensitivity and ecologi-cal impact, environmental protection andsustainable operations, and park manage-ment.

Site sensitivity and ecological impact

Almost by definition, sites that have highecotourism potential are ecologically sensi-tive. Therefore, all activities must be verycarefully planned to ensure maximum pos-itive ecological benefits and minimum nega-tive ecological impacts. Many governmentshave laws and policies requiring the cre-ation of an environmental impact study ofproposed developments in ecologicallysensitive areas. Adherence to such laws orpolicies requires special studies under-taken by highly trained specialists. Largegovernment agencies, such as park agen-cies, often have such staff within their ownorganizations. Corporations typically hireconsultants to undertake the work. Smallcorporations must rely on their own exper-tise and that gleaned from government staffand private experts. After the impact stud-ies are complete, site design and construc-tion must be carried out in a manner thatfollows the recommendations from the

622 P.F.J. Eagles

impact studies. Facility and programmeoperation must adhere to developed envi-ronmental standards.

The field of environmental managementsurrounding ecotourism is too large to dis-cuss within this particular chapter. How-ever, such management is heavily datadependent. Large amounts of current andrelevant data must be collected on theenvironmental features of the subject area.These data must be intelligently analysedin order to produce useful information forplanning and management purposes.

The SEACAM programme in easternAfrica produced useful guidelines for theassessment of the impact of tourism facili-ties in coastal areas (Grange and Odendaal,1999). This book describes in detail theinformation needs, the procedures, andmany applied examples of coastal tourismdevelopment. The book is a good combina-tion of theory and practice in planning fortourism in sensitive environmental andcultural areas. The book is designed forcoastal tourism, but has general utility inthe environmental assessment of tourism.

Environmental protection and sustainableoperations

Virtually none of the Earth’s surface goeswithout some form of human use. Theissue is not one of use, it is one of type andamount of use. Ecotourism is inherentlyprotective because the ecotourists want tosee the environment sensitively managedso that it is available to provide experi-ences with nature.

The Australian national government,private ecotourism operators and researchgroups are the best sources of environ-mentally positive operational guidelinesand procedures for ecotourism. TheCommonwealth Department of Tourism(1995) of Australia produced a useful set ofguidelines aimed at minimizing the use ofenergy, water and supplies in ecotourismprojects. Boele (1996) outlined in detailenergy efficiency measures in tourism. TheTourism Council of Australia (TCA andCRC Tourism, 1998) published a guide to

best-practice approach for developing envi-ronmental sustainability and maintaining aviable business. More recently Basche(1999) wrote a manual explaining the gen-eral principles of sustainable tourism asadopted by the Tourism Council ofAustralia. The principles are explainedunder the following headings: use resourcessustainably, reduce over-consumption andwaste, maintain diversity, integrate tourisminto planning, support local economics,involve local people and indigenous com-munities, consult stakeholders and thepublic, train staff, market tourism responsi-bly, and undertake research. This bookprovides understandable directions for sen-sitive and sustainable tourism. Details areprovided on seven specific activities: roadtransport, marine tours, camping tours,bushwalking tours, horse-riding, raft andkayak tours, light aircraft and helicopters.This is the only publication of its typeavailable.

Park management

A substantial amount, and possibly amajority, of the world’s ecotourism occursin national parks and other forms of pro-tected areas. This cultural institution nowcontains the best pieces of wild nature thatstill exist on Earth. This high ecologicalvalue, the cultural heritage connectionswithin society, the sense of increasingscarcity, and the increasing demand for usemakes parks and protected areas key areasfor ecotourism.

Many parks contain very large-scaletourism activities, and have considerableexpertise in the field. It behoves those out-side park management to become familiarwith the legal, policy and politicalstructure surrounding park management intheir area. It behoves those within parkmanagement to become familiar with theneeds, constraints and operations of theprivate ecotourism operators who worklocally. Tourism operations can become asource of major conflict in park manage-ment. However, properly designed and sen-sitively handled tourism park relationships

Information Sources for Planning and Management 623

can become a major, positive force in parksand in local communities.

Summary

Ecotourism is a complicated and sophisti-cated enterprise. Good management requiresa flow of useful and accurate informationfrom many fields. It is critical that man-agers put themselves into a position so thatthey get the information they require whenit is most needed. It is necessary that themanagers sufficiently understand thesources and methodologies used to collectthe information, so its accuracy and utilitycan be properly evaluated.

Managers must ensure that they get allinformation, not just that which is positive.It is easy to develop a system where thesources for a manager provide only goodnews, leaving out the difficult bits. This maybe easy on the psyche, but only for a shortperiod. If a problem is developing with alocal community, with a staff person or withthe cash flow, the manager must becomeaware at the earliest possible opportunity.

It behoves the government tourism andstatistical agencies to provide a continu-ous, relevant and accurate flow of data ontourism. Whenever possible, the datashould be interpreted so that the widestrange of users can see their utility (CTC,1995, 1997; DEAT, 1996). It is important forthe government and private users of suchdata to demand their collection, and thento support the collection agencies politi-cally. There are a large number of demands

made on governments, and if tourism infor-mation flows are to be maintained theymust be cultivated, just as one would waterand fertilize a garden.

The private sector often collects expen-sive and proprietary data on tourism.These are used for their own businessinterests, naturally enough. However, theprivate sector is often negligent in not mak-ing such data available to others in theindustry when they are no longer of directutility to the collecting company. Such richdatasets should be made available to uni-versity researchers, to park agencies and tothe general tourism industry at the earliestfeasible date.

Ecotourists require high levels of infor-mation. Much of the information requiredfor competent planning and managementcan also be useful in the design and deliv-ery of interpretive services to ecotourists.Those operations with higher levels of suit-able information stand a much betterchance of making more suitable decisionsin environmental, cultural, social, eco-nomic and business areas of operation. Theuse of information is dependent on theeducation and abilities of the managerswho are making decisions. There is no sub-stitute for a well-educated planning andmanagement staff.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Stephanie Yuill, DavidWeaver and Anne Ross for many insightfulcomments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

624 P.F.J. Eagles

References

Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (1998) Enhancing Community Involvement in Wildlife Tourism: Issues andChallenges, Wildlife and Development Series No 11. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, London.

Ballantine, J.L. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1994) Defining Canadian ecotourists. Journal of SustainableTourism 2(1), 1–5.

Basche, C. (1999) Being Green is your Business. Tourism Council Australia, Woolloomooloo, NewSouth Wales.

Blamey, R.K. (1995) The Nature of Ecotourism. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.Blamey, R.K. (1997) Ecotourism: the search for an operational definition. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism 5(2), 109–131.

Blamey, R.K. and Braithwaite, V.A. (1997) A social values segmentation of the potential ecotourismmarket. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1), 29–45.

Boele, N. (1996) Tourism Switched On: Sustainable Energy Technologies for the Australian TourismIndustry. Tourism Council Australia, Barton, Australia.

British Tourist Authority (1999) Travel Trade. http://www.bta.org.uk/traveltrade/bluebadge.htmButler, J.R. and Hvenegaard, G.T. (1988) The economic values of bird watching associated with Point

Pelee National Park, Canada and their contribution to adjacent communities. Unpublishedpaper presented at The Second Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management.University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) (1995) Adventure Travel in Canada: an Overview of Product,Market and Business Potential. Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa, Ontario.

Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) Adventure Travel and Ecotourism: the Challenge Ahead.Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa, Ontario.

Christiansen, G. and Conner, N. (1999) The Contribution of Montague Island Nature Reserve toRegional Economic Development. NPWS Environment Economics Series, New South WalesNational Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1995) Best Practice Ecotourism: a Guide to Energy andWaste Minimisation. Commonwealth Department of Tourism, Canberra.

Conner, N. and Christiansen, G. (1998) The Contribution of Coolah Tops National Park to RegionalEconomic Development. NPWS Environment Economics Series, New South Wales NationalParks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales.

Crossley, J. and Lee, B. (1994) Characteristics of ecotourists and mass tourists. Visions in Leisure andBusiness 13(2), 4–12.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (1996) The Development and Promotionof Tourism in South Africa: White Paper. Government of South Africa, Cape Town.

Driml, S. and Common, M. (1995) Economic and financial benefits of tourism in major protectedareas. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 2(2), 19–39.

Eagles, P.F.J. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 31(2),3–7.

Eagles, P.F.J. and Higgins, B.R. (1998) Ecotourism market and industry structure. In: Lindberg, K.,Epler Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, 2ndedn. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. 11–43.

Eagles, P.F.J. and Nilsen, P. (2001) The Ecotourism Bibliography, 5th edn. The InternationalEcotourism Society, Burlington, Vermont (in press)

The Ecotourism Society (1999) TES Bookstore, http://www.ecotourism.org/books.htmlFilion, F.L., Foley, J.P. and Jacquemot, A.J. (1994) The economics of global ecotourism. In:

Munasinghe, M. and McNeely, J. (eds) Protected Area Economics and Policy: LinkingConservation and Sustainable Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 235–252.

Forestry Tasmania (1994) Guided Nature-based Tourism in Tasmania’s Forests. Forestry Tasmania,Hobart, Tasmania.

Grange, N. and Odendaal, F. (1999) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Coastal Tourism.The Secretariat for Eastern African Coastal Area Management (SEACAM), Maputo,Mozambique.

The Guild of Registered Tourist Guides (1999) The Professional Association of Blue Badge Guideswithin the British Isles. http://www.blue-badge.org.uk/guild/frameset.html

Hawkins, D.E., Epler Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (1995) The Ecolodge Sourcebook. The EcotourismSociety, North Bennington, Vermont.

Higgins, B.R. (1996) The global structure of the nature tourism industry: ecotourists, tour operatorsand local business. Journal of Travel Research 35(2), 11–18.

HLA Consultants and ARA Consulting Group (1995a) Ecotourism – Nature/Adventure/Culture:Alberta and British Columbia Market Demand Assessment: Main Report, 1st edn. Ministry ofSmall Business, Tourism and Culture, Victoria, British Columbia.

HLA Consultants and ARA Consulting Group (1995b) Ecotourism – Nature/Adventure/Culture:Alberta and British Columbia Market Demand Assessment: Ecotourism Market LiteratureReview, 1st edn. Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Victoria, British Columbia.

Hvenegaard, G.T. (1992) Marketing and economic benefits of ecotourism at Point Pelee National Park,Canada. Unpublished paper presented at The First World Congress on Tourism and theEnvironment, Wetlands Management Field Seminar, Belize City, Belize.

Information Sources for Planning and Management 625

Kangas, P., Shave, M. and Shave, P. (1995) Economics of an ecotourism operation in Belize.Environmental Management 19(5), 669–673.

Lindberg, K. and Enriquez, J. (1994) An Analysis of Ecotourism’s Economic Contribution toConservation and Development in Belize. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K., Epler Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (1998) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners andManagers, Vol. 2, 1st edn. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

McCawley, R. and Teaff, J.D. (1995) Characteristics and environmental attitudes of coral reef divers inthe Florida Keys. In: Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Sustainability, Vol. Gen. Tech. Rep.INT-GTR-323. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,Ogden, Utah, pp. 40–46.

McKercher, B. (1998) The Business of Nature-based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Elsternwick, Victoria,Australia.

Obua, J. and Harding, D.M. (1996) Visitor characteristics and attitudes towards Kibale National Park,Uganda. Tourism Management 17(7), 495–505.

Office of National Tourism (1999a) Ecotips for Travellers to Australia. http://www.tourism.gov.au/ecotour/ecotip.html

Office of National Tourism (1999b) National Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP).http://www.tourism.gov.au/ecotour/ecoacred.html

Silverberg, K.E., Backman, S.J. and Backman, K.F. (1996) A primary investigation into the psycho-graphics of nature-based travelers to the south eastern United States. Journal of Travel Research35(2), 19–28.

Stanley, D., Smeltzer, S. and Perron, L. (1999) Provincial Economic Impact Model: InstructionManual. Department of Canadian Heritage, Hull, Quebec.

Tourism Council Australia (TCA) and CRC Tourism (1998) Being Green Keeps You Out of the Red.Tourism Council Australia, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales.

Travis, A. (1982) Managing the environmental and cultural impacts of tourism and leisure develop-ment. Tourism Management 3(4), 256–262.

Villemaire, A. and Murray, J. (1997) Adventure Travel and Ecotourism Implementation Workshops:Summary Report. Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa, Ontario.

Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1995) Extreme, extravagant and elite: a profile of ecotourists onEarthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 29–36.

Wight, P. (1996a) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Journal ofTravel Research 34(4), 2–10.

Wight, P. (1996b) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences, and destinations.Journal of Travel Research 34(5), 3–10.

Wight, P. (1998) Appealing and marketing to the North American ecotourist. In: Johnston, M.,Twynam, G.D. and Haider, W. (eds) Shaping Tomorrow’s North: the Role of Tourism andRecreation. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, pp. 75–97.

Wild, C. (1998) Lessons from developing and marketing ecotourism: a view from Canada. Paper pre-sented at the Ecotourism Association of Australia annual meeting, Margaret River, Australia.

Woods, B. and Moscardo, G. (1998) Understanding Australian, Japanese, and Taiwanese ecotouristsin the Pacific Rim region. Pacific Tourism Review 1, 329–339.

626 P.F.J. Eagles

Chapter 40

Education and Training

N. Lipscombe and R. ThwaitesSchool of Environmental and Information Science, Charles Sturt University, Albury,

New South Wales, Australia

Introduction

This chapter discusses formal educationand training programmes developed to ser-vice the ecotourism industry. It willendeavour to differentiate ecotourism fromother forms of tourism as a base on whichto justify the need for and the rapid devel-opment of formal education programmes.Particular reference is made to Australia, asAustralia was the first country to developspecific ecotourism degree programmes.The authors also refer to their own experi-ences in developing and teaching inAustralia’s first ecotourism degree pro-gramme. The chapter is structured underfive key issues now facing educationalinstitutions, graduates and the ecotourismindustry. Since ecotourism education isstill a relatively new phenomenon, thechapter seeks to raise questions that needaddressing, rather than provide definitiveanswers to specific issues. As such, the dis-cussion leads to the identification of issuesthat have arisen during the short history ofecotourism education in Australia that per-tain to educational sectors elsewhere. Forthe authors, and for all the educators whohave a vested interest in delivering indus-try relevant education and seeing graduates

into the industry of their training/educa-tion, the benefit of such an approach lies in having the questions/concerns/issuesexposed for future discussion and debate.

The ‘Greening’ of Tourism

Recent decades have seen a growing aware-ness of environmental issues and interest innatural and cultural heritage conservationby the world’s communities. This has hadflow-on and growth effects in the tourismindustry with commercial operators, world-wide, finding it economically viable to offertour experiences which focus on the naturaland cultural values of an area and/or whichare provided in a natural setting (Buckleyand Pannell, 1990). In addition to the trendtoward the use of natural areas, the growingemphasis on ecologically sustainable prac-tices with respect to activities and develop-ments is also evident.

The concept of ecotourism, which hasevolved at the same time, has a number ofprinciples which set it apart from othertypes of tourism, which in turn, createdifferent educational challenges whencompared with mainstream tourism pro-grammes. These principles include:

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 627

• Natural area focus: ecotourism relies onthe use of natural areas in general, pro-tected areas, and/or places with specialbiological, ecological or cultural inter-est.

• Education and interpretation: eco-tourism should include components ofeducation and interpretation of naturaland cultural aspects of a place. Visitorsshould learn about and develop arespect for the culture of the places theyvisit, and develop an understanding ofnature and natural processes of thatplace and, through this process, forother places and conservation in gen-eral.

• Ecologically sustainable management:ecotourism is managed to avoid or mini-mize negative impacts and to conferbenefits on host communities and envi-ronments, for present and future genera-tions.

• Contribution to conservation: eco-tourism must benefit conservation; thebenefit can be a net benefit: changedcommunity norms through educationand, consequently, changed politicaland social priorities. Ecotourism mustbe low impact, or at least well managed.

• Benefits to local communities: eco-tourism should generate economic, cul-tural and social benefits for local people.This may be in the form of increasedemployment and entrepreneurial oppor-tunities or, equally, it may be by way ofstrengthening specific cultural traits orvalues. At the very least, ecotourismshould have net benefits on local socialand economic development.

• Cultural content: ecotourism recognizesthat it is possible to identify and applymanagement approaches that reduce thestresses on communities and maximizethe flow-on of benefits to them.

National and international figures suggestthat ecotourism is one of the fastest grow-ing tourism sectors (Reingold, 1993 cited inBlamey, 1995; Wight, 1996), although somepeople question this status (Blamey, 1995a,b; Blamey and Hatch, 1998). In Australia,for example, the Office of National Tourism

reported a rise of 45% in the number ofinternational visitors visiting indigenoussites and attractions in one year from 1995to 1996 (ONT, 1998). Recent researchundertaken by the Australian state ofQueensland’s Tourist and Travel Corpora-tion (1998) showed the importance of eco-tourism to this region (which encompassesthe Great Barrier Reef and World Heritagelisted rainforest). The study of 780 touristsrevealed that 27.6% of respondents couldbe defined as ‘definite’ ecotourists, andanother 29% as ‘probable’ ecotourists. Thesurvey showed further that over half of therespondents had an underlying dispositiontowards nature and learning as part of theirvacation, but only about a quarter actuallydemonstrate this in planning and undertak-ing vacations. On the other hand, Blamey(1995a, b) and Blamey and Hatch (1998)found little evidence to support the claimthat ecotourism in Australia is growing at arate greater than that of inbound tourism asa whole. They found, however, that partici-pation in certain activities such as white-water rafting, outback safari tours andvisits to Aboriginal sites have grown fasterthan visitor arrivals. While they do not dis-pute that the ecotourism sector is growing,is it growing faster than inbound tourismas a whole?

It appears evident that ecotourism isproviding increasing opportunities foremployment, regardless of whether it isgrowing at the same pace or faster thantourism in general. Further, trend studiesand forecasts (TFC, 1999) suggest it willcontinue to provide employment opportu-nities into the future. However, as identi-fied in Box 40.1, a number of questionsarise about the nature of the employmentprovided, which further raises issues relat-ing to the type of ecotourism education andtraining required.

Cotterill (1996) estimated that Australiahad some 600 ecotourism operatorsemploying 6500 full-time, part-time andcasual employees or around 4500 full-timeequivalent employees (about 1% of totaltourism employment). He offered a conser-vative estimate of the industry payroll to be AU$115 million, with turnover about

628 N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

AU$250 million. His profile of the eco-tourism industry suggested that the averageoperator employs about ten staff, or sixfull-time equivalents, but that most opera-tors have only four or fewer employees.McKercher (1998) described the nature-based tourism sector as typified by busi-nesses which are

run by owner-operators who have few or nofull-time staff other than family members.Most have no formal business or tourismtraining. Many of the businesses aremarginal, and many owners are forced toseek a second income to keep themoperational. Too many operators say they arein the tourism game as a ‘lifestyle’ choice.Distressingly, the drop-out rate of failedbusinesses is extremely high.

(McKercher, 1998, p. 2) (see alsoChapter 36)

Why an Ecotourism Education?

The need for formal education programmeswas recognized in the Australian NationalEcotourism Strategy (Allcock et al., 1994,p. 41) as a means of ensuring that highquality industry standards are met. Thestrategy called for the development of‘environmental education modules toencourage the adoption of best practice in ecotourism (industry, conservationgroups, tertiary education institutions)’. TheQueensland Ecotourism Plan (Department

of Tourism, Small Business and Industry,1997, p. 30) was more specific, referringdirectly to undergraduate and postgraduatedegree courses which include ecotourismcomponents but which are also productiveand active research programmes aimed atthe delivery of quality ecotourism prod-ucts. It states

Ecotourism operators and their employeesrequire specialised training in areas such asecology, environmental education,environmental and resource management,communication and business skills. Trainingshould be competency based, tailored to theparticular requirements of the industryand provided in a culturally appropriatemanner.

Such outcomes, clearly, are desirable notjust in Queensland and the rest ofAustralia, but in other ecotourism destina-tions as well.

In developing a bachelor of applied sci-ence degree in ecotourism, Charles SturtUniversity, located in southern New SouthWales, consulted with various industry andgovernment agency representatives oncourse structure and content. A range ofknowledge, skills and attitude require-ments were identified which would needto be developed in students to ensure thaton graduation they could contribute to thedevelopment of the ecotourism industry(N. Lipscombe, unpublished). These aresummarized in Box 40.2.

Education and Training 629

Box 40.1. Industry sector and employment growth.

Is the perceived growth in ecotourism resulting in increasing employment opportunities?Is ecotourism really growing, or is there just increased recognition of the place of certain nature-basedoperations within the overall market?Is there a growing demand for qualified employees?What jobs are available, and what skills, experience and training are employers looking for in applicantsto fill these jobs?What are the needs of the ecotourism industry of prospective employees?Does the ecotourism industry offer a ‘spectrum’ of opportunities, seeking employees with a range ofskills and experience?Is there a growing demand for graduates in ecotourism?Do ecotourism operators need to employ university graduates?Where do university and TAFE-trained graduates fit into an ecotourism job ‘spectrum’?

For the full potential of ecotourism to bereached it is vital that there is a highlyskilled workforce with the capacity to mar-ket, interpret and deliver ecologically, cul-turally, socially and financially sustainableproducts (A. Crabtree, unpublished). Acredible tourism industry is dependent ontraining and education that provides thesespecialized skills, especially at the tourist/operator interface: the guide. At this level there needs to be particular emphasison training that includes a significant pro-portion of environmental and culturalcontent, combined with training in inter-pretation (see Chapter 35). At the ‘operator’level there needs to be a balance of thisagainst business management, accountingand marketing components. At all levels,training should aim to enhance visitors’

experiences and lead to more sustainableenvironmental practices; to apply the prin-ciples on which ecotourism is based.

Extent and Nature of EcotourismEducation

Tertiary and post-secondary educationalinstitutions in Australia and in other partsof the developed world are currently in astate of change as federal and state govern-ment policies move education towards ‘feefor service’ arrangements. As educationbudgets are diminished, institutions aresubject to organizational and financial con-straints which, while limiting their abilityin the short term to respond to changingindustry training needs, has forced the

630 N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

Box 40.2. Educational requirements identified by Charles Sturt University, industry and governmentrepresentatives.

KnowledgeContemporary philosophy and ethics towards ecotourismBasic ecological and geomorphological principles pertaining to AustraliaAustralian wildlife and vegetation dynamics and interrelationshipsEnvironmental impact occurrence and management relating to ecotourismEcologically sustainable development and environmental management principlesCultural heritage and cultural heritage management principlesBusiness management theoryEcotourism business practicesCommunication and interpretation theory relating to natural and cultural heritageLeadership theory

SkillsAbility to apply philosophical and ethical practice in ecotourism managementSkills in communicating the dynamics, interrelationships and management of natural and culturalheritageSkills in business management and ecotourism business practicesSkills in the application of leadership theorySkills in recognizing, evaluating and resolving tourism-related environmental, social and culturalimpactsAbility to implement ecologically sustainable development principles pertaining to ecotourism

AttitudesAn appreciation of ecologically sustainable development principlesAn appreciation of ethical business practiceAn awareness of the importance of environment and heritage management to the ecotourism industryAn appreciation of ethical ecotourism operationsThe encouragement of an ethical profile of ecotourism to the public through environmentallyresponsible ecotourism operations

identification of niche markets which, onthe basis of predicted growth, can expecthigh student demand.

It was on the basis of an expectedincreasing market in ecotourism employ-ment opportunities that universities andpost-secondary colleges (Colleges of Tech-nical and Further Education (TAFE) inAustralia, Community Colleges in theUSA) have in recent times developedcourses designed to provide qualified andtrained graduates to fill positions withinthe ecotourism sector. In the years leadingup to the development of the first eco-tourism course in Australia, tourismresearchers were beginning to recognizethe need for combining tourism manage-ment with recreation or environmentalstudies (Bowden, 1991; Richins et al.,1995). Bowden (1991) stressed that all peo-ple involved in the travel and tourismindustry, including educators, needed torespond to the growing market demand forenvironmentally friendly tourism. Bowdenalso speculated that ethical practiceswithin the industry would only be adoptedif all people in the industry received someenvironmental education.

Before 1994, there were very fewcourses being presented offering studentsinformation specifically related to eco-tourism. Today there are a large number ofcourses offered at different levels, dealingwith ecotourism, cultural tourism, andinterpretation of natural and culturalheritage. In the Ecotourism EducationDirectory compiled by the Australiangovernment (CDOT, 1996), a total of 75ecotourism courses are listed. Twenty-eightof these are university courses, rangingfrom graduate certificates offered part-timeover 1 year, to Bachelor degrees of 3 years’full-time study. Honours degrees, graduatediplomas and Masters degrees are alsolisted. As well as these, postgraduateresearch degrees are listed at ten differentuniversities. The 47 ecotourism courseslisted which are not university based arevery diverse, ranging from 1-day seminarsto 1-year full-time TAFE certificates.

Of the 75 courses listed, eight includeecotourism in the course name. Five of

these are offered at universities, includingBachelor Applied Science (Ecotourism),Bachelor of Science (Ecotourism), Bachelorof Technology (Ecotourism), and GraduateCertificate (Ecotourism). The other threeinclude an Introduction to EcotourismCertificate, the Ecotourism Planning andManagement Training Program, and aCertificate in Ecotourism Operations. A fur-ther nine courses have a strong emphasison ecotourism, sustainable or environmen-tal tourism, including two at universities(Bachelor Applied Science (EnvironmentalManagement and Tourism), and GraduateCertificate (Natural and Cultural HeritageInterpretation)). Seven are offered outsideuniversities (certificates in tour guiding,environmental and cultural tourism, andshort courses in eco-awareness and ecolog-ically sustainable diving).

Twenty-four of the 75 courses focusspecifically on interpretation and guidingin the natural and cultural environment.Many of these are training programmes tar-geting specific groups, such as DiscoveryRangers, and Aboriginal communities,offering courses from 1 day only to 1 fullyear. Five of the listed courses are univer-sity based, offering Bachelor, Grad. Dip.and Masters degrees in outdoor education,Masters of social and environmental educa-tion, and Masters of tourism interpretation.A further 13 courses seem to be focused inthe area of general tourism, with no strongemphasis on ecotourism or interpretationand guiding in the natural or cultural envi-ronment, while 21 of the listed coursesseemed to only indirectly relate to tourismand ecotourism. These include universitydegrees in environmental science and envi-ronmental management, nature conserva-tion, protected area management, coastalresource management, recreation planningand management, and environmental edu-cation. The non-university courses coveredareas such as resource management, land-care, conservation, landscape managementand reef biology.

While 17 of the courses listed focusspecifically on ecotourism, environmentalor sustainable tourism, and 24 on interpre-tation and guiding in the natural and

Education and Training 631

cultural environment, 34 (almost half)seem to have little specific reference to eco-tourism, relating to tourism more generallyor environmental management. Other exist-ing courses in areas such as tourism,tourism marketing, tourism and hospitality,and tourism management are not listed inthis directory of ecotourism courses. How-ever, in recent years, ecotourism, environ-mental tourism, nature-based tourism andsustainable tourism have become morecommonly available minor or major studyoptions for students undertaking tradi-tional tourism, hospitality and marketingdegrees.

Since the publication of the EcotourismEducation Directory in 1996 (CDOT, 1996)the number of courses which are eitherfully or fractionally devoted to ecotourismstudy in the post-secondary and tertiarysectors appears to have grown rapidly.Hence, it would be difficult to determinewith any accuracy the number of studentsinvolved and the number of graduates whohave found their way into the industry.What is evident is that courses in the eco-tourism, nature-based tourism and sustain-able tourism fields range from 1-dayintensive workshops and seminars to 3years of full-time study with the full rangegiving certification. What is also evident isthat ecotourism subjects are becoming acommonly available option as elective orminor streams for a variety of environmen-tal/tourism courses.

While the number of students undertak-ing ecotourism or related studies acrossAustralia has increased rapidly since 1994,the fact that courses are so differentiated interms of depth, breadth and duration of

study poses a dilemma for the professionalbody and the industry. This dilemma stemsfrom an unclear understanding of thenature of the education acquired by thediversity of graduates from the differentcourses and institutions. In relation to theissue of ecotourism education, Box 40.3shows the issues that need to be addressed.

The University Sector

In general, the degree courses offered bythe 36 Australian universities are studiedfull-time and normally take 3 years to com-plete by full-time mode and 6 years bypart-time mode (depending on the amountof credit awarded for previous tertiary orpost-secondary study). Provision is madefor part-time, including evening study, andsome universities have well-establishedsystems of external studies in the samecourses as those offered full-time. Coursesaim to develop knowledge, skills and atti-tudes through subjects that incorporate the-oretical, conceptual and practical elements.

All courses are internally developed,assessed and reviewed. However, becausethe system in place requires an assessmentof the need and demand for the course ini-tially, as well as the development of up to24 subjects, the course developmentprocess can take in excess of 1 year beforebeing offered for study. Universities, there-fore, find it difficult to react quickly tochanges in vocational markets. In order tobe able to react more quickly to changes inthe market, universities, in recent years,have made a number of changes. Theseinclude:

632 N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

Box 40.3. Ecotourism education.

Are tourism operators aware that university training exists in ecotourism, and are they aware of the skillswhich graduates might possess?Are tourism operators aware of the different skills that TAFE and university trained graduates mightpossess, and the different ways in which these skills could be put to use?How can a stronger link be made between educational institutions and the industry to ensure that theyare providing the education and training needed, that the industry has access to a steady supply ofquality graduates, and that graduates are aware of the opportunities existing in the marketplace forthem?

• allowing students to study individualsubjects at a set fee without beingenrolled in a course;

• developing niche market minors (foursubjects) as an option for studentsenrolled in established degrees;

• providing industry training workshops; • offering summer schools to niche mar-

kets; and • providing non-accredited short courses

to industry and professional groups.

The TAFE Sector

TAFE colleges in Australia (similar in pur-pose and function to US community col-leges) are a significant provider of industrytraining. Delivered through a network ofsome 215 major colleges (91 metropolitanand 124 non-metropolitan colleges) initialskills in vocational and preparatorycourses reach in excess of 1 million stu-dents each year (Noordhoorn, 1990, p. 27).Most of the courses are aimed at providingvocational education. TAFE has been andis the most accessible tertiary provider,both in geographical and educationalterms. In addition, it has strong links withthe labour market and is directly affectedby changes in labour market conditions. Asfar as leisure/recreation/tourism is con-cerned, TAFE has been primarily aprovider of programmes and courses to thepublic. More recently, however, courses totrain personnel in outdoor tour guiding,resource and environmental management,and outdoor education have emerged inresponse to a demand from the tourism andecotourism industry. Tourism training andeducation, and related courses, largelyconsist of single-entry post-secondary

courses (pre-employment courses, certifi-cates, advanced certificates and associatediplomas from 6 weeks’ to 2 years’ dura-tion) which provide access, through articu-lation, into a university programme.

The perception and knowledge that theindustry has regarding the diversity of edu-cation and training opportunities available,and its suitability for meeting employmentrequirements, need to be discussed byaddressing certain questions (Box 40.4).

Current ecotourism training is actuallycharacterized by both top-heavy and entry-level courses. Career paths have not beendeveloped in this industry and the numberof management-level jobs is restricted,unless you start your own business. At theother extreme, entry-level training is fre-quently deemed inappropriate given thatthe industry demands a great deal ofsophistication and wealth of experiencefrom both guides and operators. Respond-ents to a recent survey of ecotourism grad-uates (R. Thwaites, unpublished) ontraining needs suggested that lifetime ex-periences and practical skills were oftenconsidered more important than formaleducation or qualifications. Ecotourismemployers are often far more concernedabout appropriate licences and industry-based skills to ensure ‘duty of care’, andworkplace health and safety requirementsand practical experience, than any evi-dence of environmental or cultural contentknowledge or interpretation skills pickedup through a formal training course (nomatter how ecotourism specific). Multi-skilling is a necessity, not a luxury foremployment in the ecotourism industry;most operators are small businesses andmultiple-functions and cross-industry com-petencies are the norm. A guide may need

Education and Training 633

Box 40.4. Diversity of education opportunities.

Are university graduates competing for the same jobs with graduates from 6-week short courses andTAFE certificate courses?What are employers looking for, in terms of formal education and training, for ecotourism positions?In the eyes of ecotourism operators and employers is there a difference between university and TAFEqualifications?Which certification carries with it a competitive advantage in terms of employment?

to hold appropriate activity-specific skills,qualifications or licences (e.g. languageskills, coxswain’s certificate, bus driver’slicence, swift water rescue) as well as themore routine skills of a guide. An owner-operator will have to juggle business-related functions and skills (marketing,accounting, etc.) with the operationalaspects of running an ecotour.

Because of the rather eclectic range ofskills that ecotourism employment demands,the student choosing an appropriate stand-alone training course is in a difficult, if notimpossible position because not all stand-alone courses provide all the skills andknowledge required by employers. Oppor-tunities, however, do exist for upskillingand continued development. A range ofalternative training providers (e.g. adulteducation organizations, continuing educa-tion programmes at university, privateproviders, non-profit organizations andothers) offer a variety of programmes thatsupply content on specific knowledgeareas, environments or cultural groups.Industry-based qualifications are also avail-able. Training not geared specifically toecotourism, but to a number of relatedfields (outdoor education, parks and wild-life management, etc.) can be adapted tospecific needs. Potential students andtrainees are well advised to do carefulresearch and to approach training pro-viders directly to ensure that the educationand training offered serves, or can beadapted to serve, their particular needs.There is, however, now a burgeoning num-ber of more relevant courses and educationpackages that offer both entry-level trainingand upskilling and are good examples of‘training designed by industry for theindustry’ (Haase, 1995, p. 163).

The Industry/Academia Link

Within Australia, as in other parts of theworld, the need to establish closer linksbetween ‘business’ and ‘academia’ is wellrecognized. The Business/Higher Educa-tion Round Table established in 1990, hasseveral goals of which the establishment of

such links is deemed to be of primaryimportance. In this context an implicit goalis to enhance the relevance of the educa-tion provided to the needs of the businesscommunity.

Educational institutions are quick toadopt mechanisms to involve employersand professional associations in coursedesign and delivery. However, this practiceclearly continues to be an issue for those inthe industry who have ‘achieved’ in theirbusiness development without tertiaryqualifications and who regard businessexperience as being more relevant than atertiary education. In relation to the con-tent of tertiary courses, educational institu-tions could certainly be doing more tomake students aware of the requirements ofthe industry to which they are aimingbeyond those attributes provided by theircourse. In addition, educational institu-tions could often do more to provide thesupport to facilitate work experience pro-grammes and give more emphasis to thedevelopment of business management andpersonal communication skills. At theindustry level, tertiary educational institu-tions are well placed (and is a growingexpectation) to be offering seminars, train-ing workshops, consulting services, shortcourses, conference involvement, facilita-tion, committee involvement, ongoing liai-son and industry-specific research: allmechanisms for fostering links andinvolvement with the industry. Whileopportunities in regard to these activitiesare yet to be fully realized, there is a needalso for closer links to be driven by theindustry.

Formal education and training for tourguides and tour operators is still relativelynew to institutional programmes. Whilethe tourism industry has well-establishededucation and training programmes andawards for the management and hospital-ity/travel consultant sectors, tour guideand tour operator standards remain out-dated with a focus on service-related func-tions. Tour guide standards have recentlyundergone a much needed review (EAA,1998) reflecting the dramatic changes thathave occurred in the tourism industry in

634 N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

the last decade, with the market becomingincreasingly sophisticated, increasinglyknowledgeable on environmental and cul-tural issues and demanding more authenticexperiences.

The Ecotourism Association of Australia,while encouraging educational institutionsto develop programmes of study to servicethe ecotourism industry (by being repre-sented on course accreditation boards),have instituted an industry accreditationprogramme (NEAP) in an endeavour toincrease the service delivery standards (seeChapter 37). The programme ‘is designedto provide a range of benefits for eco-tourism businesses, potential ecotourismclients, natural areas where ecotourismoperations occur, natural area managersand local communities where ecotourismcould or does occur’ (EAA, 1996, p. 3). The‘self-assessed’ programme is comprehen-sive in identifying the accreditation criteriaand bringing industry closer to its profes-sional association. However, it places verylittle emphasis on the need for operatorsand/or guides to have attained a recom-mended level of education and training,and does not differentiate in any way thevalue of the numerous levels of educationand training available. A clear and pur-poseful link between education and indus-try, and between education/industry andthe professional/industry associationwould seem therefore, to be a mutuallybeneficial issue to discuss. Box 40.5 showsthe questions which could form the basisof such discussion.

An important issue not addressed to date

in forums that combine educators and busi-ness operators, is the need for both groupsto be realistic about their expectations ofnew graduates. While students do matureduring a 2- or 3-year period in an educa-tion/training institution, and while field-work/placements provide some experientiallearning, it should not be expected that thegraduate who emerges from a course is afully fledged professional. As in any profes-sion, the industry must recognize that theexperiences gathered during early years ofemployment, complementing previous edu-cation and training, are a necessary aspect ofprofessional development for graduates. AsProsser (1990, p. 5) points out, ‘the potentialfor misunderstanding on both sides there-fore, contributes to the importance of devel-oping effective mechanisms for liaisonbetween the parties. It also illustrates theimportance of institutions tracking the desti-nation and career path of graduates to pro-vide performance indicators’.

Similarly, there has long existed a per-ceived schism between academic learning(regardless of the level) and the learningthat is gained by actually performing themultiple tasks required of any positionwithin the workplace. In response toexpressed concerns regarding the lack ofcorrespondence between theory and prac-tice, educators have devised models of, andmethods to provide, experiential learning.Definitions and explanations of what com-prises experiential learning are diverse butthey appear to have in common a concernthat students are actively involved and areable to apply relevant learning to seek

Education and Training 635

Box 40.5. Education/industry/professional association links.

How can educational and training institutions make employers more aware of the benefits of employinggraduates?How can educational/training institutions establish and develop flexible and responsive training systemsthat involves the industry, the professional association?Do educators and employers need to develop a relationship which enables a more detailedunderstanding of each other’s functional attributes and requirements?Are ‘continuing education’ courses an essential part of career development?How can courses better reflect industry requirements?Should the professional body be doing more to bridge the gap between educators and the industry?If the industry and the professional association is serious about ecotourism accreditation (NEAP), is there aneed to include the levels of education and training (qualifications) desirable for operators and guides?

flexible solutions to immediate practicalproblems. Relevant objectives of experien-tial learning may include: developing anunderstanding of the interactive nature ofthe relationship between theoretical con-cepts and practice; consideration of theperceptions and professional assumptionsof an occupational group; flexibility inresponding to situations; and awareness ofthe demands of professional practice (Weiland McGill, 1990). From an industry andinstitution’s perspective, this is best gainedby being actively involved in the industrythrough industry placements during thetraining course. The understanding of thetheoretical and practical relationship incourse development and employmentpreparation for both educational institu-tions and the industry forms the basis ofanother issue from which further questionscould be posed (Box 40.6).

Now that there are education and train-ing institutions providing ecotourism-specific courses with ‘ecotourism’ as partof the certification, for some institutionsthere is a growing concern for qualificationflexibility and portability. Because gradu-ates do not always end up in the industryfor which their qualification is aimed, areinstitutions providing a disservice to grad-uates by including ecotourism in the nameof the qualification? While there has been agreat deal of debate among academics andcertain sectors of the industry over the useof the term ‘ecotourism’ and its role indescribing and marketing certain types oftourism activities, is it a useful ‘marketing’tool for graduates to have ‘ecotourism’ as apart of the title of their qualification? The

experience of graduates from Charles SturtUniversity might suggest that for a smallnumber of jobs, and employers, it may beuseful, but for a large group of employers,and greater number of jobs, it has littlemeaning or importance, or may even elicitnegative responses. A further question fordiscussion therefore could be: What does itmean to the industry to have graduatestrained specifically in ‘ecotourism’?

Conclusion

Some of the issues raised in this chapterhave arisen from responses to question-naires and discussions with students andgraduates of the Bachelor Applied Sciencedegree in Ecotourism at Charles SturtUniversity, Australia, a world pioneer inthis sphere. The first intake of students intothis 3-year course began in 1995, and inearly 1999, all past and present studentswere surveyed to gauge the progress of thecourse, and the expectations and experi-ences of the students. While this coursewas developed with the assistance ofindustry and government representativesand offers a diverse range of theoreticaland practical subjects, the survey raisedsome interesting questions about thecourse, and the suitability of such a qualifi-cation in the ecotourism marketplace.Students identified one of their strongestlikes of the course as its practical orienta-tion, and the opportunities provided togain industry experience. However, theyalso described unmet expectations relatedto a similar range of practical issues associ-

636 N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

Box 40.6. Graduate employment.

What are the expectations of graduates in relation to the course they have studied and its ability toprepare them for a role in the industry?What role should industry be playing in the training and education of those preparing to enter theindustry? (Work experience during study and ongoing professional development after employment?)How can this role be further facilitated?Is it possible to develop career paths for graduates?How can the relationship between theory and practice be better understood: a closer workingrelationship between educational institutions and the industry?

ated with the connection between the uni-versity, the industry and the professionalassociation. A perception that a universityeducation was not valued by the industry,that its relevance was questioned by theindustry, and the difficulty graduates facemeeting job selection criteria based onTAFE (non-university training institutions)training curricula, were real issues forgraduates. These individuals also cited thelack of awareness within the industry ofuniversity courses, and of the skills pos-sessed by university graduates. The experi-ence of university graduates seekingemployment in a competitive market,therefore, raises questions about the role ofeducation in the ecotourism industry, andthe relationship between education institu-tions and the industry.

Educational institutions have been quick

to react to the notion of rapid growth inthis sector of the tourism industry oftenwithout any real understanding of thenature of the industry and its capacity anddesire to absorb graduates from theplethora of courses now available. Thischapter has presented a number of issuesand many more questions about educationand training which seriously need to beaddressed if educational programmes are toremain viable and the industry credible.We have not endeavoured to resolve theissues or provide the answers to the ques-tions. Rather, by expressing what are veryreal concerns for educational providers, theprofessional association and the industry,we hope that in some future education-spe-cific forum the process of discussion,debate and resolution will take place.

Education and Training 637

References

Allcock, A., Jones, B., Lane, S. and Grant, J. (1994) National Ecotourism Strategy. AustralianGovernment Publishing Service, Canberra.

Blamey, R.K. (1995a) Profiling the ecotourism market. In: The Ecotourism Association of Australia,National Conference, Taking the Next Steps, Alice Springs, November.

Blamey, R.K. (1995b) The Nature of Ecotourism, BTR Occasional Paper No. 21. Bureau of TourismResearch, Canberra.

Blamey, R. and Hatch, D. (1998) Profiles and Motivations of Nature-based Tourists Visiting Australia,BTR Occasional Paper No. 25. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.

Bowden, D. (1991) Ecotourism – the implications for the environmental movement for tourism. In:Ward, B., Wells, J. and Kennedy, M. (eds) Tourism Education in Australia and New Zealand,Conference Papers. BTR, Canberra, pp. 198–202.

Buckley, R. and Pannell, J. (1990) Environmental impacts of tourism and recreation in national parksand conservation reserves. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1), 24–32.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism (CDOT) (1996) Directory of Ecotourism Education.Commonwealth Department of Tourism, Canberra.

Cotterill, D. (1996) Developing a sustainable ecotourism business. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. andCrabtree, A. (eds) Taking the Next Steps. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane.

Department of Tourism, Small Business and Industry (1997) Queensland Ecotourism Plan. QGP,Brisbane.

Ecotourism Association of Australia (EAA) (1996) National Ecotourism Accreditation Program.Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Ecotourism Association of Australia (EAA) (1998) Australian Ecotourism Guide 1998/99. EcotourismAssociation of Australia, Brisbane.

Haase, C. (1995) Tourism training – so? In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A. (eds) Takingthe Next Steps. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane.

McKercher, R.D. (1998) The Business of Nature-based Tourism. Hospitality Press, Elsternwick,Victoria.

Noordhoorn, U. (1990) The role of TAFE in recreation education and training. In: Prosser, G. (ed.)The Challenge for the Future. Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism andTerritories, AGPS, Canberra.

Office of National Tourism (ONT) (1998) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism. TourismFacts No. 11. Office of National Tourism, Canberra.

Prosser, G. (ed.) (1990) Recreation Education and Employment: the Challenge of the Future.Department of the Arts, Sport, The Environment, Tourism and Territories, AGP, Canberra.

Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (1998) Ecotrends, September.Reingold, L. (1993) Identifying the elusive ecotourist. In: Going Green, a supplement to Tour and

Travel News. 25 October, 36–39. Cited in Blamey, R.K. (1995) The Nature of Ecotourism, BTROccasional Paper No. 21. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.

Richins, H., Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A. (1995) Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association ofAustralia National Conference, Taking the Next Steps, Alice-Springs.

Tourism Forecasting Council (TFC) (1999) Forecast: the Ninth Report of the Tourism ForecastingCouncil, Vol. 5, No. 1, August, Tourism Forecasting Council, Canberra.

Weil, S. and McGill, I. (1990) A framework for making sense of experiential learning. In: Weil, S. andMcGill, I. (eds) Making Sense of Experiential Learning. The Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press, Bury St Edmunds, UK, pp. 3–24.

Wight, P.A. (1996) North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences and destinations.Journal of Travel Research 35(1), 3–10.

638 N. Lipscombe and R. Thwaites

Chapter 41

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research

D.A. FennellDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation,

Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Research Needs: Beyond the Basics

In 1997 I had the opportunity to attend alarge international ecotourism conference,which attracted many researchers, govern-mental representatives, and industry exec-utives from around the world. Knowingthat this would probably be the only majortourism meeting that I might be attendingover the course of the year, I had highexpectations. However, as the conferenceprogressed, I felt more and more jaded bythe fact that the conference did not seem toliving up to its billing as ecotourism’s ‘wayto the future’. Sessions were not wellattended nor were they well conceived,and unfortunately, as the conference woreon, my patience wore out. Yes, I wastreated to a good display of slides on newand old ecotourism projects, trips, anddevelopments from around the world.Missing, however, was any hint of theorybuilding or development, empiricism, ornew conceptualizations that should formthe basis of a conference and the evolutionof a field of study.

The field of ecotourism has a goodexcuse for this lack of academic rigour:infancy. Having been around for only 15years or so is reason enough to warrant aperiod of grace to enable the field to orga-

nize or develop a body of knowledge. Whilesome may argue that the research that cur-rently exists is consistent with the progres-sion of the tourism field in general, others,as I do, suggest the need for less descriptiveresearch using many of the same old meth-ods, principles and ideas. Are we becomingstale? Perhaps. Do we need to broaden ourhorizons in order to generate some new per-spectives? Yes. Let me briefly outline someobservations regarding the state of eco-tourism research before venturing into adiscussion of potential areas of research,which is the topic of the next section.

1. Ecotourism has a shortage of soundempirical data. This sentiment is mirroredby Lindberg et al. (1996), who suggest that‘little quantitative analysis of ecotourism’ssuccess in achieving conservation anddevelopment objectives has been reported’(p. 544). A good example of new researchthat makes a significant empirical contribu-tion to the field is the work of Sirakaya andMcLellan (1998) on tour operator compli-ance with ecotourism principles. Anotheris Bookbinder et al. (1998), whose empiri-cal research near Royal Chitwan NationalPark in Nepal established that the eco-nomic benefits of ecotourism are not asgreat as the community assumed.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism(ed. D.B. Weaver) 639

2. Closely linked to the first point is thesense that the field would greatly benefitfrom research methods and analyses thatare more sophisticated in nature (e.g. con-firmatory factor analyses on, for example,tourism impact scales). In particular thereis a dearth of experimental (pre- and post-test analyses), quasi experimental, andcomparative research in the literature.Consequently, most of the research to dateis exploratory and descriptive.3. Researchers are quick to note in theirstudies that ecotourism is the fastest grow-ing sector of the largest industry in theworld; we see this time and time again inthe literature. Possibly as a result of its rel-ative importance as an income earner, eco-tourism research has been given a highpriority for funding in some countries. Notso in other countries, however, where thesector continues to be misunderstood andmisrepresented by both government andindustry (perhaps because they are eitherunaware or unmoved by the supposedgrowth of ecotourism). In the latter case,researchers must continue to demonstratethe need for funding in order to carry outecotourism research. This demands betterlinkages with government and industry,and the employment of solid researchmethodologies in securing these monies, aswell as in demonstrating the allegedgrowth rates of ecotourism.4. Until recently there has been whatmight be termed an ‘insularity’ in the focusof ecotourism research which, if continued,will do very little to further the field. Assuch, strong growth within the field will beachieved by diversifying the theoreticalrepertoire that researchers have conven-tionally relied upon (as suggested earlier).Because a strong theoretical foundation isvirtually non-existent in ecotourism research,researchers will be forced to draw uponother fields. The long-established disci-plines of psychology, sociology, anthropol-ogy, economics, ecology and geographywill provide answers to some of eco-tourism’s most pressing questions, as theyhave been doing for tourism in general. Inexploring these, researchers may gainrecognition both within the field and in

other disciplines, by testing the work ofothers.

In general, based on the points set outabove (the need to build theory, empiri-cism and conceptual frameworks in eco-tourism research), the suggestions thatfollow may help to stimulate more discus-sion on research methods and techniques.While some theories happen to be older,the feeling is that rather than simply ignorethese perspectives, we need to, in thewords of Einstein, ‘think in a radically oldway’.

Areas of Research to Explore

This section concentrates on specific areasof research, principally from outside therealm of tourism studies. The reader willnote the absence of a discussion on eco-tourism definitions. While it is true that auniversally accepted definition does notexist, there is some consensus on the prin-ciples that ought to be included in a defini-tion of ecotourism. These include, but arenot limited to, the fact that it is a part of abroader nature-based or natural resource-based tourism; it contributes to conserva-tion or preservation of natural areas; itprovides benefits to local people; it facili-tates learning; it should be sustainable andethically based, and it should be effectivelymanaged. Not coincidentally, many of thetheoretical perspectives outlined beloweither directly or indirectly relate to someof the principles set forth in a comprehen-sive definition of ecotourism, especiallysustainability, education and responsibility(see Chapter 1). In doing so, they, in myopinion, relate to many of the most impor-tant underlying issues confronting the eco-tourism industry. As such, the discussionon ethics, values, attitudes, impacts andcarrying capacity, for example, have notonly social and economic implications, butalso ecological ones. Finally, while manycase studies have been included in thechapter, constraints on length preclude in-depth analysis of any one area.

640 D.A. Fennell

Social traps

The social trap theory posits that thechoices open to an individual depend onthe system of which one is a part. If thesechoices are unacceptable or limited, theymay require the individual to act on deci-sions that are self-defeating for the personor for society as a whole (Platt, 1973).Individual behaviours (i.e. resource con-sumption) are rewarding in the short run(to the individual), but lead to negativeoutcomes for the collective – the commons– in the long run (Edney, 1980) (see alsoHardin’s (1968) tragedy of the commons).For example, a chronic problem in thecommercial fishing industry is the deple-tion of fish stocks. While fishermen oftenunderstand the importance of viable popu-lations, their immediate need is to sustainthemselves economically year after year,despite the dwindling supply of fish. Thesame holds true with tourism in that thestructure of the industry often does notwork to the advantage of the individualworker, especially in developing worldeconomies due to multinational domina-tion of resources (airlines, hotels, food,etc.). In cases where local people have noother employment alternatives, they mustsubmit to the policies and procedures ofthose who control the industry. Much likethe case of overfishing, ecotour operatorsmust often compete for a share of a finitenatural-resource base. Too many operatorsaccommodating too many tourists canbecome somewhat self-defeating. (TheGalapagos Islands is a good example of thesocial trap phenomenon, whereby the deci-sions by policy makers to periodicallyincrease visitation undermine initial attemptsto control the impacts of tourism in thissensitive region. The lure of tourists andassociated tourist spending is too powerful.)According to Platt, morality and greed arenot the central problem in this phenom-enon, but rather the arrangement in time ofcosts and rewards of those involved.

While self-enhancement and greed arenot central to Platt’s social trap theory,Edney (1980) explores a number of theorieswhich may be used to examine problems of

resource allocation within society. Heunderscores the philosophy of Hobbes insuggesting that a person’s basic drives arebuilt on self-interest, egotism and competi-tion. People in an open-market system areruled by competition, and these aggressivetendencies are thought by some to be bio-logically driven (see Ardrey, 1970).Similarly, Dawkins’ (1976) selfish gene the-ory posits that social behaviours are a func-tion of biological selection. Selfishness isthought to be necessary and basic to one’ssurvival. Conversely, universal love andwelfare of the group ‘are concepts whichsimply do not make sense’ (p. 2). The influ-ence of competition and selfishness are soinvasive, according to Dawkins, that asso-ciations of mutual benefit within thecommunity are often unstable becausestakeholders continually strive to obtainmore out of the association than they putin. Sharing and openness are concepts thathave been described as critical to the suc-cess of community development. One won-ders, however, whether ecotourism can beused as a vehicle to secure social and eco-nomic equity within a community, as manyauthors are wont to illustrate (Sproule,1996). Is, therefore, the desire to secureeconomic well-being too strong for theindividual ecotourism operator, or is thephilosophy and spirit of ecotourism per-suasive enough to counter individuality?

As much of the social psychological lit-erature has demonstrated, there are settingand situational factors that strongly influ-ence the behaviour of individuals, whichmay in part explain tendencies that someindividuals have towards competition andgreed, beyond the biological perspective.

Values

One of the very timely conclusions of thework of Edney is the realization that theexamination of values should prove to be amore fruitful way of exploring conflict thatexists within human systems. The rationalefor this is that effective decision makingcan only occur if we understand the under-lying principles – equity, freedom of

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 641

choice, competition – that help shape thefabric of the system in question. Madrigal(1995) suggests that because of the link to aperson’s cognitive structure, values may beinstrumental in predicting human behav-iour. As defined by Schwartz (cited inOishi et al., 1998), values are ‘desirable,transitional goals, varying in importance,that serve as guiding principles in people’slives’ (p. 1177).

Although Oishi et al. (1998) illustratethat the study of values has been overshad-owed throughout the 1970s, 1980s, andpart of the 1990s by attitudes, attributions,social cognition and group processes, a fewpioneering studies have emerged. One ofthe first was based on the work of Mitchell(1983), who undertook a comprehensivestudy of values in American society. Hisresearch culminated in the development ofthe values and lifestyles typology (VALS),which comprises four main groups, subdi-vided into nine lifestyles, each outlining aunique way of life within American societyon the basis of values, beliefs and drives. Asecond typology that was developed toexamine people’s values is the list of val-ues (LOV) scale, initiated by Kahle (1983).The nine values included in this scale areself-respect, security, warm relationshipswith others, sense of accomplishment, self-fulfilment, sense of belonging, being wellrespected, fun and enjoyment in life, andexcitement. Kahle feels that this scale,while being more parsimonious thanVALS, also has the advantage of havinggreater predictive utility. Finally, Schwartz(1994) developed a scale of values (SVS) onthe basis of ten value types: power,achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradi-tion, conformity, and security. Thesevalues are organized in a circular structurewith individuals pursuing adjacent values(e.g. power and achievement) over oppositeor conflicting values (e.g. power and benev-olence). For example, individuals who arehigh on universalism are also high onbenevolence and self-direction. They tendto pursue goals related to equality and pro-tection of the natural world.

Tourism researchers have only recentlybegun to investigate the role of values and,as outlined by Madrigal (1995), most of thisresearch has related to segmenting thetravel market. Madrigal and Kahle (1994)used the LOV to establish a value-systemsegmentation of tourists visiting Scandin-avia. They examined whether vacationactivity importance ratings differed acrosssegments comprising tourists who weregrouped on the basis of their selection ofpersonal values. However, Madrigal’s(1995) more recent work, also using theLOV scale, demonstrates the importance ofvalues in exploring personality type andtravel style. In addition, while tourismresearchers have developed tourist typolo-gies, these have generally not been hingedupon a values-based philosophy. As such,given the importance of values as a poten-tial for understanding human nature, it isworthwhile to consider the merits of theVALS, LOV and SVS typologies in explain-ing and predicting the behaviour of eco-tourism stakeholders.

Machiavellianism

The work of Machiavelli spawned a social-personality theory that examines how peo-ple are manipulated, and the tactics whichare employed by those who are influentialversus those who are not. Christie and Geis(1970) developed a Machiavellianism scalefor the purpose of differentiating people onthe basis of power, influence and control.In general, the scale is organized aroundthe following three substantive areas: tac-tics, views of human nature and morality;and contrast the High Mach (those who areself-interested and who feel the end justi-fies the means) against the Low Mach(those who promote common good).

TacticsHigh Mach: ‘A white lie is often a good thing’Low Mach: ‘If something is morally right,compromise is out of the question’Views of Human NatureHigh Mach: ‘Most people don’t really knowwhat’s best for them’

642 D.A. Fennell

Low Mach: ‘Barnum was wrong when hesaid a sucker is born every minute’MoralityHigh Mach: ‘Deceit in conduct of war ispraiseworthy and honourable’Low Mach: ‘It is better to be humble andhonest than important and dishonest’

People fall along a continuum of stan-dards of behaviour based on theirresponses to the scale. High Machs haverelative standards of conduct (‘Never tellanyone the real reason you did something,unless it’s useful to do so’), while LowMachs are said to have absolute standards(‘Honesty is always the best policy’). Inaddition, High Machs flourish under thefollowing conditions: (i) when interactionis face-to-face; (ii) when rules and guide-lines are minimal; and (iii) when emotionalarousal is high, contributing to poor taskperformance for Low Machs. In essence,the High Mach demonstrates a cool detach-ment, which enables them to keep an emo-tional distance from other people andsituations.

In related research, Hegarty and Sims(1979) found that High Machs behaved sig-nificantly less ethically than Low Machs,while Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990)reported that High Mach marketers tendedto be more reluctant to punish unethicalbehaviour. In another study by theseauthors (Vitell and Singhapakdi, 1991), itwas concluded that ‘Since Machiavellianstend to value their personal interests butnot their clients’ interests, the implicationfor management is to make the self-interestof these individuals intertwined with theclients’ interests’ (p. 67). This statement iscertainly illuminated in the followingexample related to the environmentalethics of tour operators. Masterton (1992)found that almost all tour operators inter-viewed agreed that the abuse of the planetis a bad thing, in theory. In practice, how-ever, most operators did not want to dis-cuss their environmental responsibilities,and one went so far as to say the following:‘I have to make a living, and if people wantto go to polluted, or overcrowded, or dis-gustingly commercial tourist traps, then

they’re going to go. So why shouldn’t I getthe commission for the trip’ (Masterton,1992, p. 18).

One of the most significant problemsfacing the ecotourism industry is the prac-tice of eco-opportunism: tourism companiesusing the ecotourism label to sell their vari-ous products; products that may not actu-ally be ecotourism (however defined). Thenotion that people will quite naturally takecare of themselves before the needs of others,and manipulate them to meet their ownends, is indeed a very intriguing element ofthe tourism operator–tourist relationshipwhich certainly merits further consideration.In addition, the general theory of marketingethics proposed by Hunt and Vitell (1986)may have utility in providing further guid-ance in the analysis of decision making inmarketing situations involving ethical issues.

Ethics

An area of research that has recently (sincethe late 1980s) started to attract some atten-tion in tourism and ecotourism studies isethics (see Wheeler (1994) for an overviewof the emergence of ethics in tourism andhospitality). While some of this work isempirically based (see Hall, 1989; Whitney,1989; Wheeler, 1992), most is descriptive.Codes of ethics, in particular, have been afocus of tourism researchers, along withtheir use in attempting to curtail sociologi-cal and ecological impacts. Tourismresearchers may benefit from the general,empirically based literature on codes ofethics in business and marketing where, forexample, Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990)and Laczniak and Murphy (1985) write thatenforcement is a key component of theemployment of a code of ethics within anorganization. What seems to be mostimportant about the viability of the code isthat top level executives must be seen tosupport the document in order for others tofollow suit (see also Brooks, 1989). Whilesome of these issues have been addressedin the tourism literature (see Blangy andNielson, 1993), they have remained largelyuntested.

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 643

The concept of organizational culture(OC) is one that is strongly linked to thedevelopment of codes of ethics, in businessand tourism. OC is defined by Denison(1996, p. 6) as:

the deep structure of organizations, which isrooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptionsheld by organizational members. Meaning isestablished through socialization to a varietyof identity groups that converge in theworkplace. Interaction reproduces a symbolicworld that gives culture both great stabilityand a certain precarious and fragile naturerooted in the dependence of the system onindividual cognition and action.

Codes of ethics, therefore, may be the tacit,outward expression of the organizationalculture of a firm. The work of Schein(1985) stands out as prominent in this area,through his creation of the peeled onionconceptualization of OC. Malloy andFennell (1998) use this multi-layeredmodel to identify the basis of OC in eco-tourism businesses. The model and itsapplication to ecotourism is explained asfollows:

Artifacts (layer 1) encompass the physicalcharacteristics of the organization, such as itsreward and punishment structure, theadvertisements and brochures it produces,the tours it promotes, and the codes of ethicsit stipulates to employees and to clientele.The second layer, behaviors, consists of theactual behaviors that can be observed byemployees, clientele, and the public at large… The third layer includes the organization’svalues. These values can be internalized byemployees in a strong clan-like culture. Orthey may be less strongly held … The core ofthe model – basic assumptions – consists ofthe very basic ontological realities of theorganization. This core describes themetavalues (i.e., unquestioned tacit beliefs)that have come about as a result of the abilityof these concepts to traditionally assist in theresolution of organizational dilemmas.

(Malloy and Fennell, p. 48)

Malloy and Fennell argue that the needto address the ethical conduct of eco-

tourism firms from an organizational per-spective becomes increasingly more impor-tant as the sector matures and prospers intothe 21st century. As such, the sector maydemand further exploration in the future inthe same way that the general business lit-erature has attempted to do. However,while the principles inherent within codes of ethics and corporate values maybe easily conceived, researchers havewarned that they may be quite difficult tomeasure and study in organizations (Payne,1980).

In related work, Fennell and Malloy(1999) undertook a study to analyse a num-ber of different tourism operators (eco-tourism, adventure, fishing, cruise line andgolf) to determine ethical differencesamong these groups. They used the multi-dimensional ethics scale (MES) first devel-oped by Reidenbach and Robin (1988,1990), which employs the use of an eight-item scale based on the philosophies of justice, deontology and relativism.Respondents (in this case tour operators)were asked to respond to three tourism sce-narios – economic, social and ecologicalones – using the scale. The authors foundthat ecotourism operators were in fact moreethical than the other operators included inthe study, on the basis of the responses tothe scenarios. In addition, ecotourism oper-ators were found to: (i) use a corporatecode of ethics more often than othertourism operators; (ii) have higher levels ofeducation; and (iii) have smaller organiza-tional sizes than other operators. All threeof these measures have been found to relateto higher ethical standards in businesspractice. The MES is just one ethics scalethat has been used in the business andmarketing literature. Other scales whichhold potential in future ecotourismresearch include the ethical behavior scale,which Fraedrich (1993) used in gauging theethical behaviour of retail managers. Thisscale, like the MES, uses a number of moralphilosophy perspectives – rule and act util-itarianism, rule and act deontology, andegoism – to examine business ethics.Finally, the defining issues test developedby Rest (1979) has been used to measure

644 D.A. Fennell

moral reasoning of various stakeholders(usually in a business context), and maytherefore lend itself nicely to examiningthe moral stances of operators, local peo-ple, government officials and tourists.

All of the above-mentioned scales aredesigned to test moral viewpoints on thebasis of theoretical perspectives. Whilethese scales are some of the best in termsof the generation of empirical data,Fennell (2000a) has suggested that thetourism industry could benefit from thecreation of centres of applied ethics, in thesame way centres of business ethics andenvironmental ethics have benefited thosefields. These tourism centres would beresponsible for the collection of bothempirical and descriptive data, and pro-vide guidance to operators, for example,on the day-to-day issues related to theiroperations. Tourist input would also beencouraged in terms of the evaluation ofthe ethical behaviour of ecotour operators(see Appendix). Precedents for this type oftourist involvement have already been setby the national accreditation programmesof Australia and the Canadian TourismCommission. In both cases tourists areencouraged to provide feedback on ecotouroperators. Surveys, such as the example inthe Appendix, could easily be employedas a means by which to gather informationon both good (ethical) and bad (unethical)operators, and in doing so address the‘responsibility’ principle found in so manydefinitions of ecotourism. Furthermore,such information, along with the afore-mentioned scales could be used to furtherclassify operations on the basis of theirethical and organizational behaviour and,in doing so, provide a clear perspective onthe mission and intent of so-called eco-tourism businesses.

Benefits

Research on the benefits of participation inleisure activities has attracted the attentionof a number of leisure researchers over thepast decade. Benefit, as defined by Driveret al. (1991), refers to any improvement in

one’s condition (or a group or society) thatis viewed to be advantageous, and suchbenefits may be categorized as social, psy-chological, spiritual, emotional, physiolog-ical and environmental. Driver and hiscolleagues set out to identify a series ofhuman needs that could be gratified by par-ticipation in leisure pursuits. Through anumber of adjustments, these authorsdeveloped the recreation experience prefer-ence (REP) scales. As of the early 1990s,over 40 REP scales had been developed tomeasure the benefits of leisure experiences.One of the key features of the REP, overother leisure scales, is its focus on outdoorrecreation environments, hence its applica-bility to ecotourism. This can be seen inthe following examples of REP scales andthe preference domains into which thescales are grouped.

• Enjoy nature: scenery; general natureexperience

• Share similar values: be with friends; bewith people having similar values

• Outdoor learning: general learning;exploration; learn about nature

• Escape physical stressors: Tranquility/solitude; privacy; escape crowds; escapenoise

• Achievement: seeking excitement; socialrecognition; skill development

• Risk reduction: risk moderation; riskprevention.

Many of these domains have been dis-cussed in the ecotourism literature, andespecially those related to the enjoymentof nature and outdoor learning, which cor-respond to the ecotourism literature ondifferent types of ecotourists (see Laarmanand Durst, 1987; Lindberg, 1991).Furthermore, there is evidence to supportthe fact that some dedicated ecotouristsand adventure tourists appear to prefer thecompany of like-minded or similarlyskilled individuals in their experiences(‘Share similar values’). For example,Ewert (1985) found that beginner climberswere more extrinsically motivated to par-ticipate in mountain climbing activity,whereas experienced climbers did so forintrinsic reasons.

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 645

Other domains of the REP, i.e.‘Achievement/stimulation’ and ‘Riskreduction’, may also provide a theoreticalbasis from which to analyse the differ-ences that exist between adventuretourists and ecotourists. Although there isa strong intuitive sense that ecotourists aredifferent from adventure tourists in termsof motivation and benefits sought (seeDyess, 1997), there is really only anecdotalevidence explaining how they differ.While the literature on adventure pursuitsfocuses on risk, skill and competence,Fennell (2000b) suggests that naturalresource-based tourists, such as adventuretourists and ecotourists, may be differenti-ated on the basis of consumptive values,impact, focus of learning and reliance ontechnical skills.

Finally, the ‘Seeking excitement’ expe-rience preference may help to furtherdifferentiate adventure tourists and eco-tourists. Zuckerman’s (1979) sensationseeking scale (SSS) has been employed toidentify a personality trait defined as a‘need for varied, novel, and complex sen-sations and experiences and the willing-ness to take physical and social risks forthe sake of such experience’ (p. 10). Whilethe scale has recently been applied togroups such as international travellers(Fontaine, 1994), it can be argued that amodified form of the SSS may be appropri-ate for individuals currently engaging in anumber of types of adventure and eco-tourism holidaying (both nationally andinternationally). This would allow for anassessment of whether the type of excur-sion they actually experienced is consis-tent with their need for sensation. Forexample, results of the SSS might indicatewhether an individual is more suitedtoward an adventure holiday, an eco-tourism-based holiday, or a cultural holi-day, or a combination of the three. Furtheranalysis of individual responses to ques-tionnaires would then allow researchers todetermine what the above categories areperceived to be by holiday travellers. FormV of the SSS contains 40 questions in apaired comparison format. Examples ofsome of these comparisons are as follows:

A. I like to explore a strange city or sectionof town by myself, even if it means gettinglost.B. I prefer a guide when I am in a place Idon’t know well.

A. I would like to take up the sport ofwater-skiing.B. I would not like to take up water-skiing.

A. I prefer the surface of the water to thedepths.B. I would like to go scuba-diving.

Research on benefits, therefore, in the man-ner outlined above, would help further ourunderstanding of different educational ben-efits that appeal to ecotourists and othertypes of tourists.

Attitudes

The development of a more progressiveenvironmentalism in the 1970s led to thebelief that global ecological problemsderive from a dominant social paradigm(DSP) that influences the way we do busi-ness, develop policy, and approach scienceand technology. Dunlap and Van Liere(1978) suggested that a new environmentalvalue was taking hold in society thatopposed the largely anthropocentric waysof the DSP. This new environmental para-digm (NEP), an ecocentric way of thinking,was described as being more supportive ofa holistic, integrative view of humanity,and is one that places humanity into thecontext of nature and not above nature.Dunlap and Van Liere developed a NEPscale, consisting of 12 items, designed togauge how accepting the public was of theNEP (Table 41.1). Their initial study foundthat the scale was reliable, valid and unidi-mensional; however, subsequent researchdetermined that the scale is in fact multi-dimensional (see Albrecht et al., 1982;Geller and Lasley, 1985). Geller and Lasley(1985), for example, in their study of farmersand urbanites confirmed a three-factormodel on the basis of nine of the 12 itemsfrom the original scale. The three dimen-sions included ‘Balance of nature’ (items 1,

646 D.A. Fennell

2, 3, 4), ‘Limits to growth’ (items 6, 7, 8),and ‘Man over nature’ (items 9, 10).

While historically the NEP has beensubject to some debate, researchers haveshown renewed interest in the scale. In astudy of visitors to Biscayne Bay NationalPark, USA, Jurowski et al. (1995) foundthat it was the younger visitors to the parkthat maintained more ecocentric attitudes.This group favoured allocating parkresources to protecting the park environ-ment, while the older and more anthro-pocentric clientele, in contrast, favouredefforts to develop the park environment.The authors concluded by suggesting thatpark managers may wish to include alter-native management practices for the twogroups. In related research on attitudes,Jackson (1986) found evidence that indi-viduals who prefer what may be termedappreciative outdoor pursuits (e.g. hiking)maintain stronger pro-environmental atti-tudes than those who are more consump-tive in their outdoor recreational pursuits(e.g. hunting and trail biking). Also, thework of Kellert (1985) suggests the exis-tence of a typology of attitudes toward ani-mals and the natural environment. Theserange from positive attitudes (e.g. ecologis-tic and naturalistic), to negative attitudeswhere there is a primary concern for thematerial value of animals, the control ofanimals, or the avoidance of animals. Hedeveloped a number of scales to measurethe attitude types, and found that commit-

ted birdwatchers were among the mostknowledgeable of a number of animal-ori-ented groups.

Attitude research will help to furtherdifferentiate between ecotourists and non-ecotourists, and soft and hard path eco-tourists. In regard to the continuum ofecotourists, the results of attitude-basedanalyses may be used for the purpose ofstructuring different programmes and expe-riences for these disparate groups. Theassumption to be made is that differenttypes of ecotourists want different types ofexperiences.

Impacts

Mayur (1996) wrote that environmentalistsoften focus too strongly on the symptomsof environmental deterioration, rather thanon their underlying causes. He likened thisto administering cough medicine to atuberculosis patient. While the cough mayabate, the untended disease may yet kill.This is certainly also true of the tourismindustry, which by many accounts is one ofthe worst representations of unfettered cap-italism. Our predisposition as tourismresearchers is to focus on the impacts ofthe sector, and this has left us with littlemeans by which to mitigate and controlsuch impacts. This is most emphaticallystated by Meadows et al. (1972, p. xi):

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 647

Table 41.1. The new environmental paradigm scale.

1. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset2. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences3. Humans must live in harmony with nature to survive4. Mankind is severely abusing the environment5. We are approaching the number of people the Earth can support6. The Earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources7. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand8. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a ‘steady-state’ economy where industrial

growth is controlled9. Mankind was created to rule over nature

10. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs11. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans12. Humans need not adapt to their natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs

It is the predicament of mankind that mancan perceive the problematique yet despitehis considerable knowledge and skills, hedoes not understand the origins, significanceand interrelationships of its manycomponents and is thus unable to deviseeffective responses. This failure occurs inlarge part because we continue to examinesingle items in the problematique withoutunderstanding that the whole is more thanthe sum of the parts, and that change in oneelement means change in the others.

Some researchers (see Dowling, 1993;McKercher, 1993) cite a fundamental lackof sound models and data to aid in the con-tinuing struggle to overcome the impactdilemma (impacts are often identified butnot controlled). Now, at the turn of the cen-tury, it is painfully apparent that there isstill an abundance of unresolved issuesthat confront the tourism industry, somewhich may prevail despite our best reme-dial efforts. The recent development oftourism impact scales may help in ourattempts to better understand the pressurethat tourism exerts on various regions. The35-item tourism impact scale developed byAp and Crompton (1998), for example(based on a number of domains, includingsociety and culture, economics, crowdingand congestion, and environment) is anexample of such a measure. A predecessorto this scale is the tourism impact attitudescale which Lankford (1994) developedand implemented in Oregon andWashington, USA, for the purpose of gaug-ing attitudes and perceptions towardtourism and rural development.

Impacts will continue to play a signifi-cant role in determining what is/is notacceptable in terms of appropriate andresponsible tourism development. Thisholds true for the tourism industry as awhole but also ecotourism where theimpact scales, as discussed above, may beutilized to examine the perceptions ofdevelopers, local inhabitants, and tourists.In particular, ecotourists may be contrastedagainst other types of tourists in order togain an understanding of the pressure thateach exerts in different environments of adestination.

Carrying capacity and norms

A closely related concept to impacts is car-rying capacity. Since the mid-1960s,researchers in outdoor recreation havelooked closely at issues related to numbersof participants in outdoor settings and theireffects on the natural world (see Lucas,1964; Wagar, 1964). An assumption wasmade that by controlling numbers to thesesettings, many of the effects would simplydisappear. (Carrying capacity can bedefined as the amount of use a particulararea can absorb over time before there is anunacceptable impact to either other usersor the resource base.) In one of the earlieststudies on the concept, Wagar (1964, p. i)wrote that:

The study … was initiated with view that thecarrying capacity of recreation lands could bedetermined primarily in terms of ecology andthe deterioration of the areas. However, itsoon became obvious that the resource-oriented point of view must be augmented byconsideration of human values.

From this study and others, researchershave learned not only that biological envi-ronments are dynamic in reference to car-rying capacity, but so too are humanvalues, needs, benefits, expectations andlevels of satisfaction. The setting of specificnumerical limits in outdoor settings, there-fore, is often not the best course of actionin controlling the effects of outdoor recre-ational use. As such, according to Lindberget al. (1997), the focus has shifted awayfrom ‘How many is too many?’ to one of‘What are the desired conditions?’. Inresponse to the shortcomings of carryingcapacity, a number of preformed planningand management frameworks have beendeveloped with the purpose of balancingbiological and social components of out-door recreation settings, experience, anduse. These include the recreation opportu-nity spectrum (ROS), limits of acceptablechange (LAC), visitor impact management(VIM) and the visitor activity managementprocess (VAMP). All are USA-developedexcept VAMP, which was developed forParks Canada (an excellent overview of

648 D.A. Fennell

these models can be found in Payne andGraham, 1993). In general, these modelshave been virtually untouched by tourismresearchers. Exceptions include the workof Butler and Waldbrook (1991) whoadapted the ROS into a tourism opportu-nity spectrum model, and Harroun (1994),who discussed VIM and LAC as modelsappropriate for analysing ecologicalimpacts in developing countries. In addi-tion, Dowling (1993) developed his owntourism-specific model, the environmen-tally based tourism planning framework,which links tourism development andenvironmental conservation.

The value of ROS, LAC, VAMP andother preformed planning and managementmodels is that they lend an element ofsophistication to the management of peo-ple in protected areas, such as nationalparks. As such, there is merit in usingthese models or re-fitting or creating newmodels, as Dowling, and Butler andWaldbrook have done, in order to betterplan and manage the tourism industry. Aconstraint to their use is the fact that bothexpertise and resources are needed toimplement these models, and given theircomprehensiveness, the models may havethe potential of intimidating individualsand/or agencies lacking social and ecologi-cal planning backgrounds.

Finally, and briefly, a strong theme inoutdoor recreation research over the pastfew years is the adoption of encounternorms or crowding norms as a means bywhich to objectively and systematicallydetermine levels of use in outdoor settings.As outlined by Lewis et al. (1996),encounter norms (there is a differencebetween personal norms and group norms)are viewed as ‘visitors’ individual orshared beliefs about appropriate use levelsand social situations’ (p. 144). Acceptablelevels of other users and user groups maytherefore differ within and between groups.For example, canoeists may feel morecrowded, even though they encounterfewer other parties during the day, thanwhite-water rafters. The assumption is thatcanoeists want a much different experiencefrom rafters, and expectations of the setting

will probably differ between the twogroups (see Roggenbuck et al., 1991;Shelby and Vaske, 1991; Heywood, 1996).

Animal–human interactions

By nature, ecotourism is an activity thatinvolves an interaction between peopleand nature (plants and animals). At timesthis interaction can be antagonistic. Forexample, Burger et al. (1995) reported thatdifferent bird species have different levelsof tolerance, and are not consistent in theirresponses to ecotourists. In this study theresearchers found that birds have distinctbehavioural patterns at different times ofthe year (breeding, migration, feeding andso on). In general the authors felt that man-agers need to consider the use of separatemanagement techniques for differentspecies in various settings. It was suggestedthat the following needed to be consideredin understanding human–bird interactions:

1. Response distance. The distancebetween the bird and the intruder at whichthe bird makes some visible or measurableresponse.2. Flushing distance. The distance atwhich the bird actually leaves the sitewhere it is nesting or feeding.3. Approach distance. The distance towhich one can approach a bird, head-on,without disturbing it.4. Tolerance distance. The distance towhich one can approach a bird withoutdisturbing it, but in reference to passing bythe bird tangentially.

Blane and Jackson (1994) further acknowl-edge the importance of strict environmen-tal monitoring and management in order tosafeguard the ecotourism industry andwildlife. On the basis of some 370 observa-tions of ecotourism boat–whale interac-tions, they discovered a series of differentwhale behaviour patterns. These includedavoidance behaviour (increasing theirspeed and surfacing less often), interac-tions between whales and boats (investigat-ing the boats), pre-disturbance behaviour(in 75% of cases, whales resumed their pre-

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 649

disturbance behaviour), location (whalesreacted differently in different settings),and boat variables (boat type, speed, rangeand angle of approach). While otherresearch supports the fact that killerwhales do not seem to be affected by regu-lated boat traffic (see Obee, 1998), theredoes appear to be the need to further docu-ment animal–human interactions amongdifferent species, and in different settings.It is the environment and the level andtype of use which may determine theresponse patterns of animals like whales.

Another area of research on human–wildlife encounters that has potentialrelates to the concept of habituation. Thisdoctrine, which has long been a topic ofinterest for psychologists, involves learninghow not to respond to a stimulus. When anindividual is exposed to some type of stim-ulus, there is often an immediate and vig-orous response. However, after repeatedand sustained exposure to the stimulus,responses typically lessen and may disap-pear altogether. Habituation may providethe needed explanation as to why animalsin zoos remain indifferent to the overturesof visitors on a day-to-day basis, and alsoexplain the lethargy demonstrated by apride of lions at the arrival of several vehi-cles. The extent to which ecotourismaffects these species, in various settings,should also be further explored in anattempt to ameliorate any negative effects.Variables such as frequency of interaction,numbers of tourists, time, spatial patternsand sensitivities with respect to predatorand prey relationships could be consideredin the decisions of whether to include aspecies on an ecotourism itinerary or not.

As a final note, funding bodies, at leastin Canada, have consistently shown a pref-erence for financing the work of biologistsand other natural scientists in natural areasover social research. Perhaps in our effortsto understand and manage ecosystems wehave spent too much time and moneyradio-collaring bears and snakes, when weought to be radio-collaring tourists. Theoft-quoted adage that ‘bear management is90% people management’ should be takenseriously. It means that the real problem in

parks and protected areas is tourists, notbears. Park management has recognized theimportance of the social sciences in manag-ing natural areas over the past 15 years, butthere is still a great deal of work required.This includes obtaining an understandingof the spatial and temporal movement oftourists (and different tourism groups), andthe pressure that they exert on differentregions of a destination, as stated earlier.

Consequently, there is a moral issue athand which ought to be considered indeciding what qualifies as acceptablehuman–wildlife interactions. As eco-tourism continues to expand in how it isinterpreted and practised, ecotourism pol-icy makers and leaders will be forced totake a closer look at current definitions ofthe term. Activities such as fishing qualifyas ecotourism under some broad defini-tions of ecotourism (see Holland et al.,1998). However, Fennell (2001) argues thatsuch pursuits, which intentionally harmand physically and emotionally stress ani-mals or resources, are more anthropocen-tric in nature and lie outside the realm ofacceptable ecotourism practice.

Conclusion

There is a myriad of research theories,techniques and approaches that have beendeveloped in the social and natural sci-ences which, if pursued, will add value toecotourism investigations. The intriguingthing about the field of ecotourism is that itbridges the gap between these social andnatural science realms. While this is excit-ing, it also presents itself as a challenge tofind common ground and to bring meaningand direction to this new field of study.While advocates of ecotourism argue that itis a more responsible form of tourism, thetheories and philosophies stated abovemay be used to empirically demonstratewhether a particular ‘ecotourism’ productor activity can be considered responsible(whatever ‘responsible’ means). It shouldfurther be noted that some of the pointsmade in this paper are open to debate, andhave been raised to stimulate much-needed

650 D.A. Fennell

discussion on where ecotourism researchperhaps should go in the future. Hopefullyresearchers will continue to address manyof the most pressing issues that confront

the ecotourism industry and find common-alities between applied and theoreticalresearch, using natural and social inves-tigative means.

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 651

References

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E. and Nowak, P. (1982) The new environmental paradigm scale.Journal of Environmental Education 13, 39–43.

Ap, J. and Crompton, J.L. (1998) Developing and testing a tourism impact scale. Journal of TravelResearch 37, 120–130.

Ardrey, R. (1970) The Social Contract. Dell, New York.Blane, J. and Jackson, R. (1994) The impact of ecotourism boats on the St Lawrence beluga whales.

Environmental Conservation 21(3), 267–269.Blangy, S. and Nielson, T. (1993) Ecotourism and minimum impact policy. Annals of Tourism

Research 20(2), 357–360.Bookbinder, M.P., Arun, E. and Arup, H. (1998) Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity conservation.

Conservation Biology 12(6), 1399–1404.Brooks, L.J. (1989) Corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 8, 117–129.Burger, J., Gochfeld, M. and Niles, L.J. (1995) Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: contrasting

responses to birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22(1), 56–65.Butler, R.W. and Waldbrook, L.A. (1991) A new planning tool: the tourism opportunity spectrum.

The Journal of Tourism Studies 2(1), 2–14.Christie, R. and Geis, F.L. (eds) (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press, New York.Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, New York.Denison, D.R. (1996) What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational cli-

mate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review21, 619–654.

Dowling, R. (1993) An environmentally based planning model for regional tourism development.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1), 17–37.

Driver, B.L., Tinsley, H.E.A. and Manfredo, M.J. (1991) The paragraphs about leisure and recreationexperience preference scales: results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of theperceived psychological benefits of leisure. In: Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. and Peterson, G.L. (eds)Benefits of Leisure. Venture, State College, Pennsylvania.

Dunlap, R.E. and Van Liere, K. (1978) The ‘new environmental paradigm’. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 9(4), 10–19.

Dyess, R. (1997) Adventure travel or ecotourism? Adventure Travel Business April, 2.Edney, J. (1980) The commons problem. American Psychologist 35, 131–150.Ewert, A. (1985) Why people climb: the relationship of participant motives and experience level to

mountaineering. Journal of Leisure Research 17(3), 241–250.Fennell, D.A. (2000a) Tourism and applied ethics. Tourism Recreation Research 25(1), 59–69.Fennell, D.A. (2000b) What’s in a name? Conceptualising natural resource-based tourism. Tourism

Recreation Research 25(1), 97–100.Fennell, D.A. (2001) Ecotourism on trial: the case of billfish angling as ecotourism. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism 8, 341–345.Fennell, D.A. and Malloy, D.C. (1999) Measuring the ethical nature of tourism operators. Annals of

Tourism Research 26(4), 929–943.Fontaine, G. (1994) Presence seeking and sensation seeking as motives for international travel.

Psychological Reports 75, 1583–1586.Fraedrich, J.P. (1993) The ethical behaviour of retail managers. Journal of Business Ethics 12,

207–218.Geller, J.M. and Lasley, P. (1985) The new environmental paradigm scale: a reexamination. Journal of

Environmental Education 17(1), 9–12.Hall, S. (1989) Ethics in hospitality: how to draw your line. Lodging Sept., 59–61.Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248.

Harroun, L.A. (1994) Potential Frameworks for Analysis of Ecological Impacts of Tourism inDeveloping Countries. WWF, Washington, DC.

Hegarty, W.H. and Sims, H.P. (1979) Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related tounethical decision behavior: a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3),331–338.

Heywood, J.L. (1996) Conventions, emerging norms, and outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 18,355–363.

Holland, S.M., Ditton, R.B. and Graefe, A.R. (1998) An ecotourism perspective on billfish fisheries.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2), 97–116.

Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1986) A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing 6(1),5–16.

Jackson, L.E. (1986) Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. LeisureStudies 5, 1–23.

Jurowski, C., Muzaffer, U., Williams, D.R. and Noe, F.P. (1995) An examination of preferences andevaluations of visitors based on environmental attitudes: Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 3(2), 73–86.

Kahle, L.R. (1983) Dialectical tensions in the theory of social values. In: Kahle, L.R. (ed.) SocialValues and Social Change. Praeger, New York.

Kellert, S.R. (1985) Birdwatching in American society. Leisure Sciences 7(3), 343–360.Laarman, J.G. and Durst, P.B. (1987) Nature travel and tropical forests, FPEI Working Paper Series,

Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research, North Carolina State University, NorthCarolina.

Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (1985) Incorporating marketing ethics into the organization. In:Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (eds) Marketing Ethics: Guidelines for Managers. LexingtonBooks, Lexington, Massachusetts, pp. 97–105.

Lankford, S.V. (1994) Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development.Journal of Travel Research 32, 35–43.

Lewis, M.S., Lime, D.W. and Anderson, D.H. (1996) Paddle canoeists’ encounter norms inMinnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Leisure Sciences 18, 143–160.

Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximising Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits.World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996) Ecotourism questioned: case studies from Belize.Annals of Tourism Research 23(3), 543–562.

Lindberg, K., McCool, S. and Stankey, G. (1997) Rethinking carrying capacity. Annals of TourismResearch 24(2), 461–464.

Lucas, R.C. (1964) Wilderness perception and use: the example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.Natural Resources Journal 3(3), 394–411.

Madrigal, R. (1995) Personal values, traveller personality type, and leisure travel style. Journal ofLeisure Research 27(2), 125–142.

Madrigal, R. and Kahle, L.R. (1994) Predicting vacation activity preferences on the basis of value-sys-tem segmentation. Journal of Travel Research 32(3), 22–28.

Malloy, D.C. and Fennell, D.A. (1998) Ecotourism and ethics: moral development and organizationalcultures. Journal of Travel Research 36, 47–56.

Masterton, A.M. (1992) Environmental ethics. Island Destinations (a supplement to Tour and TravelNews) November, 16–18.

Mayur, R. (1996) Earth, Man and Future. International Institute for Sustainable Future, Mumbai,India.

McKercher, B. (1993) Some fundamental truths about tourism: understanding tourism’s social andenvironmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1), 6–16.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. (1972) The Limits to Growth. NewAmerican Library, New York.

Mitchell, A. (1983) The Nine American Lifestyles. MacMillan, New York.Obee, B. (1998) Ecotourism boom: how much can wildlife take? Beautiful British Columbia 40(1),

6–17.Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E. and Suh, E.M. (1998) The measurement of values and individu-

alism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24(11), 1177–1189.Payne, R.J. and Graham, R. (1993) Visitor planning and management in parks and protected areas. In:

652 D.A. Fennell

Dearden, P. and Rollins, R. (eds) Parks and Protected Areas in Canada. Oxford University Press,Toronto, pp. 185–210.

Payne, S.L. (1980) Organizational ethics and antecedents to social control processes. Academy ofManagement Review 5(3), 409–414.

Platt, J. (1973) Social traps. American Psychologist 28, 641–651.Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1988) Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of

ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics 7, 871–879.Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1990) Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for

improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 9, 639–653.Rest, J.R. (1979) Development in Judging Moral Issues. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Roggenbuck, J.W., Williams, D.R., Bange, S.P. and Dean, D.J. (1991) River float trip encounter norms:

questioning the use of the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research 23(2), 133–153.Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Schwartz, S.H. (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?

Journal of Social Issues 50, 19–45.Shelby, B. and Vaske, J.J. (1991) Using normative data to develop evaluative standards for resource

management: a comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research 23(2), 173–187.Singhapakdi, A. and Vitell, S.J. (1990) Marketing ethics: factors influencing perceptions of ethical

problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing 12, 4–18.Sirakaya, E. and McLellan, R.W. (1998) Modelling tour operators’ voluntary compliance with eco-

tourism principles: a behavioral approach. Journal of Travel Research 36, 42–55.Sproule, K. (1996) Community-based ecotourism development: identifying partners in the process.

Paper presented at the Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts Conference. School ofForestry and Environmental Studies. 12–14 April.

Vitell, S.J. and Singhapakdi, A. (1991) Factors influencing the perceived importance of stakeholdergroups in situations involving ethical issues. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 10(3),53–72.

Wagar, J.A. (1964) The carrying capacity of wildlands for recreation. Society of American Foresters,Forest Service Monograph 7, 23.

Wheeler, M. (1992) Applying ethics to the tourism industry. Business Ethics – a European Review1(4), 227–235.

Wheeler, M. (1994) The emergence of ethics in tourism and hospitality. Progress in Tourism,Recreation, and Hospitality Management 6, 46–56.

Whitney, D.L. (1989) The ethical orientations of hotel managers and hospitality students: implica-tions for industry, education and youthful careers. Hospitality Education and Research Journal13(3), 187–192.

Zuckerman, M. (1979) Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal. Erlbaum, Hillsdale,New Jersey.

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 653

Appendix: Evaluation of Ecotour Operator Ethics

This evaluation form includes many of the most frequently cited aspects and concernsrelated to an ecotour experience. Please rate your ecotour operator’s ethical behaviour onhow well they satisfied each of the criteria below, from a ‘Superior’, ‘Adequate’ or‘Inferior’ perspective.

Operator: Tour dates:

Tour description:

Evaluation criteria Operator’s ethicalbehaviour

Superior Adequate Inferior N/A

General ethics:

Respect shown to animals

Respect shown to plants

Operator’s treatment of financial mattersrelated to the tour

Respect shown to local people

Operator following a code of ethics

Respect shown to ecotourists

Local people:

Operator employing local/indigenouspeople as guides or front-line personnel

Operator efforts to employ local/indigenous people in middle or uppermanagement positions

Local people were in control of thedecision making in relation to ecotourismin their community

Local people owned and ran the ecotouroperation

Environmental education:

The interpretation of the natural world

654 D.A. Fennell

Areas and Needs in Ecotourism Research 655

Evaluation criteria Operator’s ethicalbehaviour

Superior Adequate Inferior N/A

Knowledge of plant and animal life

Level of pre-trip information provided tothe client

Level of on-site information providedto the client

Operator/guide had formal education inecotourism or ecotourism-related fields

Operator professionalism:

Operator/guide was accredited or certified

Knowledge of land use and park policies

Knowledge of the site or region itself(e.g. location, history, weather)

A low guide-to-participant ratio

Language proficiency of guides

Degree of safety of the experience

Understanding of the importance ofminimizing tourism impacts

Contribution to conservation:

Monetary (e.g. park fees, support of localnature groups)

Physical (e.g. removal of garbage, treeplanting)

Accommodation and transportation:

Reliance on ‘green’ hotels

Use of hotels that are locally owned

Use of hotels that are built with localmaterials

Use of hotels that have a low carryingcapacity

Use of vans/buses that use cleanerpetroleum

Over reliance of vehicles at ecotour sites

Glossary

(Bold terms within definitions are listed elsewhere as glossary main entries)

ACE tourism: a hybrid form of tourism that combines Adventure, Cultural and Ecotourism; recog-nizes that many tourism products, such as trekking, combine a variety of experiences, attrac-tions and motivations, and therefore cannot be neatly placed within a single category.

Accreditation: a quality control mechanism that formally recognizes businesses or products thatmeet nominated industry standards, usually associated with sectoral best practice; the NationalEcotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) of Australia is a world leader in ecotourism accredi-tation, but most countries are far behind, indicating the relative immaturity of this sector over-all.

Adaptancy platform: a view of tourism popular during the 1980s which put forward options such assustainable tourism and ecotourism that were perceived to be more benign and appropriatethan mass tourism for most kinds of destinations; it was a logical continuation of the caution-ary platform, and adhered to a similar set of ideological assumptions about tourism and devel-opment.

Adventure tourism: usually a form of nature-based tourism that incorporates an element of risk,higher levels of physical exertion, and the need for specialized skills; often hybridizes with eco-tourism and other forms of tourism, as in ACE tourism.

Advocacy platform: a capitalist perspective, dominant prior to the 1970s, in which tourism is per-ceived as a great benefit for virtually any kind of community; more tourism equates with morebenefits, and hence mass tourism is the best possible scenario.

Alternative tourism: tourism that is deliberately fostered as a more appropriate small-scale, commu-nity-controlled option to mass tourism in environmentally or socio-culturally sensitive destina-tions; ecotourism was originally conceived as an environmentally based form of alternativetourism during the era of the adaptancy platform.

Auditing: a process that a business undergoes to identify and confirm benchmarks, provide accredi-tation with reliability and validity, and measure and verify best practice; to be credible, audit-ing must be carried out by a third party, though businesses can and should conduct their owninternal audits as a prelude to the latter.

Benchmarking: a quality control mechanism in which the performance of an operation in specifiedareas is evaluated through comparison with similar operations, and usually those that adhere tosector best practice; the implication is that the sector constantly improves as businesses striveto meet and exceed existing best practice standards.

Best practice: a set of operational standards that are considered to be the most effective and efficientwithin a sector with respect to certain desired outcomes, such as environmental sustainabilityand effective interpretation in the case of ecotourism; accreditation of businesses and products

657

is usually based on adherence to best practice standards, which are commonly recognizedthrough awards.

Buffer zone: an area, usually surrounding a high order protected area, that acts as a cushion betweenthe latter and external spaces that are unprotected; buffer zones usually have the status of a loworder multi-use protected area, and often provide accommodations and other services and facili-ties for ecotourists.

Carrying capacity: the amount of tourism-related activity that a site or destination can sustainablyaccommodate; often measured in terms of visitor numbers or visitor-nights over a given periodof time, or by the number of available accommodation units; management techniques such assite hardening can be employed to raise a site’s carrying capacity.

Cautionary platform: a left-leaning ‘anti-tourism’ perspective that emerged in the late 1960s as areaction to the perceived excesses of unrestricted mass tourism, especially within the ThirdWorld.

Code of ethics: a list of recommended practices intended to effect environmentally and/or socio-cul-turally sustainable behaviour and outcomes within the targeted group, such as the InternationalAssociation of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO); often criticized for being vague, voluntary andbased on a system of self-regulation, codes of ethics are considered to be a weak type of qualitycontrol mechanism.

Constant capital rule: an outcome of sustainable development, wherein one generation leaves thesame amount of ‘capital’ to the next generation that it inherited from the previous generation;there is considerable disagreement about the extent to which man-made and semi-natural capi-tal can and should be substituted for natural capital.

Consumptive tourism: commonly refers to hunting and fishing, which extract or ‘consume’ resourcesfrom the natural environment; the term is contentious, since it can be argued that all forms oftourism have both a consumptive and non-consumptive element; the common tendency toequate consumptive with unsustainable is also unwarranted.

Demonstration effect: process whereby local people, through direct exposure to tourists, begin toimitate their behaviour, often resulting in the modification or shunning of their own culture;usually associated with mass tourism, though the intrusion of ecotourists into the host commu-nity may induce a similar effect.

Dominant social paradigm: a view of man’s technological and scientific supremacy that has domi-nated Western society for the past 300 years, and is commonly regarded as the underlying causeof many contemporary environmental and social problems, including unsustainable masstourism; accordingly, is now being challenged by the new environmental paradigm.

Ecolodge: a specialized form of accommodation that caters specifically to ecotourists; usually asmall, upmarket facility located in or near a protected area or wilderness setting; ecolodges area high profile form of ecotourism accommodation, but account for only a small proportion of allecotourist visitor-nights.

Ecoresort complex: a hybrid form of accommodation/attraction that incorporates features of a con-ventional resort and an ecolodge; that is, these are responses to changing market trends thattend to be large, managed in an environmentally sustainable way, and designed to provide avariety of recreational opportunities, including ecotourism.

Ecotourism: a form of tourism that is increasingly understood to be: (i) based primarily on nature-based attractions; (ii) learning-centred; and (iii) conducted in a way that makes every reasonableattempt to be environmentally, socio-culturally and economically sustainable.

Ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS): a model, incorporating elements of the recreationalopportunity spectrum (ROS) and the tourism opportunity spectrum (TOS), that identifies theviability of potential ecotourism sites by assessing these against various criteria, and rating themon a scale ranging from an eco-specialist to an eco-generalist orientation.

Ecotourism organization: a membership-based, non-government organization that is focused on thepromotion and enhancement of ecotourism within a particular jurisdiction; these occur at aglobal (The International Ecotourism Society), national (e.g. Ecotourism Association ofAustralia) and sub-national scale.

Endemism: the degree to which the flora and fauna of a place occur naturally only in that place; ahigh level of endemism is associated with isolated locations such as islands and rainforest val-leys; the implication for ecotourism is that those wishing to see these species in their naturalenvironment can only do so by visiting the place where these endemic species are found.

658 Glossary

Hard ecotourism: ecotourism that tends toward longer, specialized trips by small groups within awilderness or semi-wilderness setting mediated by minimal services; also called active, deep oreco-specialist ecotourism, this constitutes only a very small portion of the total ecotourism sec-tor.

Host community: a group of people in a small-scale destination, usually permanent residents, whoare thought to have a common interest and bond in maintaining a high quality of life for them-selves; support by the host or local community is now widely considered crucial for tourism orecotourism in particular to be successful, and this is often achieved through community controland involvement in tourism.

Iconic attraction: an attraction that symbolizes and dominates a destination; iconic ecotourismattractions include the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and Kruger National Park of South Africa.

Indigenous people: a term that is open to some interpretation, but generally referring to the originalinhabitants of an area; they often form a dominant and increasingly assertive population groupin peripheral and relatively undisturbed areas, and hence are growing in importance as a stake-holder in the ecotourism sector.

Input–output (IO) analysis: a class of statistical techniques that are used to calculate the economicimpacts of tourism within a destination; several empirical studies have focused on ecotourism.

Interpretation: in ecotourism, the process whereby the significance and meanings of natural andassociated cultural phenomena are revealed to visitors, usually with the intent of providing asatisfying learning experience while at the same time inducing and encouraging more sustain-able behaviour among those experiencing this interpretation.

Inter-sectoral realm: other sectors, especially agriculture, fishing, forestry, and various conventionalforms of tourism, that use the same resource base as ecotourism; the relationship between thesesectors and ecotourism can range from conflicting to complementary; the inter-sectoral realm ispart of the broader external environment surrounding ecotourism, which also includes govern-ment.

IUCN classification system: a system put forward by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) thatdivides protected areas into seven basic categories, according to the types of human interven-tion that are permitted in each; this system eliminates the confusion arising from each jurisdic-tion establishing its own protocol, and as a result has become the international standard forprotected area classification.

Knowledge-based platform: a tourism perspective appearing in the early 1990s that attempted totranscend the ideological biases of earlier platforms by emphasizing the importance of applyingsound scientific techniques to obtain knowledge about tourism; attempted to divorce the associ-ation between scale and value judgements about tourism.

Limits of acceptable change (LAC): a land management philosophy that identifies specific indicatorsof environmental quality and tourism impacts, and defines thresholds within which the conser-vation goals of a protected area are met.

Marine protected area (MPA): an area of sea or ocean that has been designated as a protected area;the global MPA system is regarded as being in an incipient state of development compared withthe terrestrial system.

Market segmentation: the division of a larger consumer market into smaller, homogeneous groups onthe basis of geographical, socio-demographic, psychographic and/or behavioural characteristics,in order to better effect target marketing and management strategies; ecotourists are commonlysegmented into hard ecotourism and soft ecotourism sub-groups.

Mass tourism: large-scale tourism, typically associated with 3S (sea, sand, sun) resorts and character-istics such as transnational ownership, high leakage effects, seasonality, and package tours; eco-tourism can conceivably be a form of mass tourism under the logic of the knowledge-basedplatform, whereas previously the two were considered mutually exclusive.

Multiplier effect: the amount of ongoing indirect and induced economic activity that is generatedwithin a destination as a result of direct tourist expenditures; ecotourism is commonly assumedto generate a high multiplier effect because of the involvement of local communities.

National park: often used synonymously with protected area, and used by various jurisdictions as aformal designation to describe a range of protected area arrangements; the term is most effec-tively employed, however, as the name for an IUCN category II protected area, that is, a highlyprotected space that is managed to accommodate a sustainable level of visitation; this is themost important type of protected area from an ecotourism perspective.

Glossary 659

Nature-based tourism: any form of tourism that relies primarily on the natural environment for itsattractions and/or settings; incorporates ecotourism as well as substantial portions of adventuretourism and 3S tourism, neither of which are necessarily sustainable or learning-centred.

New environmental paradigm (NEP): a biocentric or ecocentric way of thinking that advocates aholistic, integrative view of humanity, and places people within and not above nature; thisview, also called the green paradigm, is challenging the dominant social paradigm that placesman above nature; ecotourism can be seen as one manifestation of the NEP.

Non-government organization (NGO): an association or body that is not tied to a government, andusually operates in relation to a specific sector; membership-based ecotourism organizations,for example, focus on ecotourism, while environmental NGOs such as ConservationInternational are also involved in this sector as an adjunct to their broader conservation man-date.

Plan: a document that articulates the planning process through which a given policy is implemented;a few countries, such as Australia, have well-articulated and well-supported ecotourism plans,as do some sub-national jurisdictions such as the states of Australia.

Policy: a course of action, usually by government, that provides the broad guidelines for shaping thedevelopment of a particular sector or sectors in a way deemed desirable; some countries such asAustralia have a focused ecotourism policy, though in most cases ecotourism is indirectlyaffected by broader government policies.

Protected area: a designated portion of land or water (i.e. marine protected areas) to which regula-tions and restrictions have been applied, thereby affording a given degree of protection againston-site activities that threaten the environmental integrity of the area; protected areas are usu-ally described as being either public or private, and are most commonly categorized accordingthe IUCN classification system.

Qualitative paradigm: a theoretical and methodological framework for research in ecotourism andother areas that builds a complex and holistic knowledge base through the analysis of words;sometimes said to derive detailed information about a small sample of subjects.

Quantitative paradigm: a theoretical and methodological framework for research in ecotourism andother areas that measures phenomena with numbers, and analyses these with appropriate statis-tical techniques to derive predictive generalizations; sometimes said to derive limited informa-tion about a large number of informants.

Rainforest: a closed canopy, layered forest that results in tropical, subtropical or humid temperateenvironments from high levels of precipitation; these are considered one of the most attractivesettings for ecotourism, although deforestation and degradation are steadily reducing theamount and quality of the world’s rainforests.

Restoration ecotourism: ecotourism that focuses on the rehabilitation or reconstruction of degradedenvironments; provides an incentive for such efforts, and offers opportunities for volunteer par-ticipation.

Safari tourism: refers to a wildlife-viewing expedition, usually undertaken by small groups in thesavannah regions of sub-Saharan Africa by way of four-wheel drive or other motorized trans-port; in the past, also referred to as a hunting expedition.

Savannah: an area of subtropical open woodland, shrubs and grass; as an ecotourism venue, theseoccur mainly in southern and eastern Africa, where the presence of numerous big game animalshas attracted a thriving safari tourism sector in countries such as Kenya and South Africa.

Site hardening: the implementation of site modifications, such as the paving of a hiking trail or theconstruction of a sewage treatment system, that increase the carrying capacity of that site toreceive visitors.

Soft ecotourism: ecotourism that tends toward shorter, multi-purpose trips within well-servicedareas frequented by large numbers of soft ecotourists; also called passive, shallow, popular oreco-generalist ecotourism, this accounts for most ecotourism activity.

Sustainability indicators: variables that provide information about the extent to which a particulardestination is environmentally, socio-culturally and/or economically sustainable; the identifica-tion of appropriate indicators and their critical thresholds is a major challenge for operationaliz-ing the concept of sustainable tourism, and ecotourism specifically.

Sustainable development: development carried out in such a way as to meet the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; an elusive andcomplex concept popularized in 1987 by the Brundtland Report, and since used as an

660 Glossary

underlying principle and objective within many sectors, including tourism and ecotourism; theconstant capital rule is an example of the underlying complexity of this concept.

Sustainable tourism: as a direct follow-up to the concept of sustainable development, sustainabletourism is tourism that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising theability of future generations to meet their own needs; more commonly perceived as tourism thatdoes not negatively impact the environment, economy, culture and society of a particular desti-nation; ecotourism is a form of sustainable tourism.

3S tourism: sea, sand and sun tourism, usually equated with mass tourism in a coastal resort setting;ecotourism complements 3S tourism in destinations such as Costa Rica, Kenya and Australia,and overlaps with 3S tourism in activities such as scuba-diving.

Tour operator: a critical intermediary in the tourism system that is responsible for the design, organi-zation, packaging, marketing and operation of vacation and other tours at the outbound,inbound or local level; these are becoming increasingly important as ecotourism becomes largerand more formalized.

Trekking: a form of ACE tourism that incorporates elements of long-distance walking and exposureto local cultures and the natural environment; commonly associated with the Himalayas andnorthern Thailand.

Whale-watching: a specialized form of marine-based ecotourism that also includes other cetaceanssuch as dolphins.

Wilderness: a subjective concept, but generally regarded in Western culture as a relatively extensivearea of mainly undisturbed natural environment; considered to be an important venue for hardecotourism.

Zoning: a management technique, commonly used within protected areas, whereby certain areas aredesignated to accommodate specific kinds of tourism and other activity; in part, these designa-tions are based on inherent carrying capacity, though once designated, measures such as sitehardening may be implemented to raise the area’s carrying capacity.

Glossary 661

Index

Abruzzo National Park 160ACE tourism 75, 115

see also TrekkingAdventure tourism 74–75, 110

see also The Adventure Travel SocietyThe Adventure Travel Society 109

see also Adventure tourismAfrica 89–93, 258–261

ecotourism plans 475tourism 89–92see also Cameroon; The Gambia; Kenya;

Madagascar; Namibia; Parc National desVolcans; Safari corridor; South Africa;Tanzania; Uganda; Zambia; Zimbabwe

Alaska 109see also Glacier National Park, Katmai

National ParkAlice Springs Desert Park 254Alpine National Park (Australia) 296Alps 161–162Alternative tourism 18, 25–26, 77–80

see also Ecotourism (hard ecotourism)Amazon basin 180–183Amboseli National Park 100, 261Andes 183, 207–210Angling 17, 81, 108, 112, 113–114, 435, 470,

471see also Consumptive tourism

Annapurna Conservation Area Project 130, 215Antarctica 219–233, 388

Antarctic Treaty System 225–226, 231shipborne tourism 226, 227, 228, 231–232,

598Arctic 219–233

see also Indigenous people (Inuit; Sami)Argentina 183, 208–209

see also Patagonia; Puerto PiramideAsia 123–136, 468

mountain ecotourism 207

tourism 123–125see also Annapurna Conservation Area

Project; Balicasag; Bhutan; Himalayas;Indonesia; Mongolia; Thailand; Turkey

Australia 139, 140–144, 198, 199–200, 319,439–440, 465–467, 510, 569, 605, 606,607, 623, 628–629

business planning for ecotourism 566–568domestic ecotourists 40, 41–42, 43, 48, 53,

54, 55education and training 629–637

TAFE 631–632, 633–634university 631, 632–633

inbound ecotourists 39, 44, 46–47, 49, 51National Ecotourism Accreditation Program

143, 467, 553, 560, 584–586, 588–589, 635National Ecotourism Program 142National Ecotourism Strategy 6, 143, 144,

465, 466–467, 583, 629national park visitors 292quality practices in ecotourism 579, 582,

583, 584–586, 587, 588–589, 590–591tour guides 559–560, 634–635tour operators 536, 559see also Alice Springs Desert Park; Alpine

National Park; Dorrigo National Park;Ecotourism Association of Australia;Heron Island; Indigenous people(Aborigines); Kakadu National Park;Queensland Ecotourism Plan

Austria 162

Balicasag 277Belize 179, 278, 306, 364, 369–370, 371–372,

401, 492, 515, 542, 598see also Community Baboon Sanctuary;

Mundo Maya; Rio Bravo Conservationand Management Area

663

Bhutan 130, 469Bolivia 516Bonaire 271–272, 513, 517Brazil 68, 180–182, 183, 471–472

ecotourism plan 472, 473see also Amazon basin

Buffalo Commons 319

Cameroon 329–330see also Korup National Park

CAMPFIRE 102, 318Canada 46, 50, 107–108, 110–120, 589, 618

domestic ecotourists 41–42, 45, 47, 48, 52,54, 613, 617

ecotourism plans 469, 470national park visitors 292see also Arctic; Indigenous people (British

Columbia; Haida; Inuit); Manitoba;Mingan Island Cetacean Study; Ontario;Saskatchewan

Caribbean 173–177, 186–187, 317, 514tourism 173see also Bonaire; Dominica; Islands; Maho

BayCentral America 177–180, 186–187, 441,

601–602ecotourism plans 469see also Belize; Guatemala; Indigenous

people (Zapotecs); Mundo MayaChile 183, 208–209, 210China 127–128Chumbe Island Coral Park Project 279Churchill (Manitoba) 116, 321Coasts 235–247, 338–339

financing of ecotourism 240–241growth of ecotourism 238impacts of ecotourism planning of ecotourism 244–245

Colombia 208, 308–309Community Baboon Sanctuary 306, 516Conservation 23–24Conservation International 109, 482, 501, 516Consumptive tourism 80–82

see also Angling; HuntingCoral Cay Conservation 277–278Coral Reef Alliance 280Coral reefs 236, 272, 384

see also Chumbe Island Coral Park Project;Coral Cay Conservation; Coral ReefAlliance

Costa Rica 177–178, 374, 402–403, 509, 512,516

private protected areas 305, 307, 308, 309,310

see also Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve,Tortuguero National Park

Council of Europe 167–168Cuba 176

Daniel’s Head (Bermuda) 529–530, 531–534Death Valley 119Deserts 119, 251–256, 262

ecotourism 254–256protected areas 253–255

Dominica 175, 516–517Dorrigo National Park 372

Eco-Escuela (Guatemala) 501Ecotourism

accommodation 48–51, 381, 525–534,543–544, 565, 615

accreditation 560, 580, 582–587, 619–620activities 27, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 381–382

birdwatching 107–108, 244, 443–444hiking 43, 48, 379–380, 382–383, 647sea kayaking 274–275, 387

see also SeaCanoesnorkelling/scuba-diving 40, 43, 76,

243–244, 268, 269–272underwater observation 275–277whale watching 25, 184, 268,

273–274, 386, 649–650see also Kaikoura Whale Watch

auditing 580, 581, 589–592benchmarking 559, 580, 581–582best practice 580, 581, 587–589certification 494, 560codes of conduct and guidelines 405, 421,

559, 581, 643–644convergence with mass tourism 77–80definitions 5–6, 7, 24–25, 29, 109, 112, 146,

156–157, 327, 413, 467, 472, 612–613demand 38–40economic impacts 363–375, 389, 538, 598,

622cost–benefit analysis 14employment 363–364, 401–402, 515input–output analysis 371–375money flows 366–369, 514

educational outcomes 8–10, 554, 556, 558environmental impacts 31, 379–390, 598,

622–624accommodation 381management 387–389soil impacts 382transport 380–381, 615–616vegetation impacts 382–383wildlife impacts 383–386, 649–650

external environments 464–465, 497–506funding 69–70, 86, 241growth 39, 565, 628

664 Index

hard ecotourism 28, 288–292, 294, 453,571–572

information sources 611–624interpretation 8–10, 56, 200, 549–561, 614

principles 554–556monitoring 424–425, 428–429organizations 453–454, 479–496, 540–541,

543form and structure 487–491formation 485–487, 488–490funding 491–493international 480–482national 481, 482–484roles 493–495sub-national 481, 484–485see also The Ecotourism Society

origins 5, 24, 441other sectors 497–506

coalitions with ecotourism 499–503planning 403, 421, 451–460, 463–476plans 463, 465–476principles 11, 27, 335, 379, 419–421, 549,

565, 627–628, 640policy 112, 463–476quality processes 579–593

see also Ecotourism (accreditation;benchmarking; certification; codesof conduct and guidelines)

research methodologies 597–608destinations researched 604, 605

research needs 403–404, 455, 538–539,558, 601, 606–608, 639–651

size 39, 66–67, 569socio-cultural impacts 395–407, 552–553,

599, 620–622, 648acculturation 404demonstration effect 404loss of access to land 402–404

soft ecotourism 28, 77–79, 288–292, 294,442, 443, 453, 557, 571–572

values and ethics 641–645, 649–650Ecotourism Association of Australia 143, 487,

494, 559Ecotourism businesses 406, 455, 464, 494–495,

521, 565–576, 579–580, 629business planning 536, 537–538, 566–576,

588, 592, 618–619ecolodges 516, 526–534, 543–544, 615marketing 567–568, 575, 589, 616–618product-market nexus 574–575tour guides 549–561, 614–615tour operators 389, 535–545, 550–551, 567travel agents 553, 567see also Ecotourism (accommodation;

accreditation; auditing; benchmarking;certification; codes of conduct andguidelines)

Ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS)452–453

see also Recreation opportunity spectrum;Tourism opportunity spectrum

The Ecotourism Society 109, 479, 482, 487–491,492–493, 494, 495

Ecotourism Society of Kenya 483, 494Ecotourism Society of Saskatchewan 485, 488,

494Ecotourists 37–60, 568–574, 616–617

accommodation preferences 48–51age 41, 43club membership 57–59destinations 46–47education 40, 41expenditures 45–46gender 41, 43, 56–57, 570–571household characteristics 41income 40motivations 52, 53, 552, 572, 573occupation 40, 42origins 46–48publications read 57–58satisfaction 53, 54, 457–458, 525, 551–552,

557–558, 572–573, 613–614trip characteristics 43–46trip purpose 51–53values 56–57

Ecuador 542see also Galapagos Islands; Napo region

Education and Training 67, 404–405, 487, 495,613–614, 627–637

Environmental movement 412, 646–647Europe 155–169

ecotourism plans and policies 474–475mountain ecotourism 206–207protected areas 158–160, 440rural tourism 160–161, 440–441tourism 156, 161, 162see also Finland; Indigenous people (Sami);

Spain; UKEuropean Commission 166–167Everglades National Park 119–120

Fiji 147–148, 438–439, 468, 482–483, 511see also Fiji Ecotourism Association

Fiji Ecotourism Association 483, 489, 494Finland 165, 572

see also Indigenous people (Sami)Florida 109, 471

see also Everglades National Park

Galapagos Islands 237, 240, 242, 246–247, 295,384, 512, 513, 515, 641

The Gambia 102–103

Index 665

German Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development 483, 484

Glacier National Park 372Gower Peninsula 335–338, 339, 340Grasslands 118–119, 256–258

ecotourism 256–258see also Buffalo Commons

Great Smoky Mountains National Park 118Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail 118Guatemala 179–180, 306

see also Eco-Escuela; Mundo MayaGuyana 472–474

Hato Pinero (Venezuela) 305Hawaii 109

see also Hawaii Ecotourism AssociationHawaii Ecotourism Association 490, 494Heron Island (Australia) 30–31Himalayas 130, 207, 213, 214Honduras 179

see also Mundo MayaHunting 81, 96, 98, 108, 115, 256, 316–317, 385,

435, 647

India 130–131Indicators 411–416, 420Indigenous people 197, 253, 345–355, 399, 542

Aborigines 144, 347, 399, 400, 542Arctic 225British Columbia 213–214Haida 349, 350Inuit 347land claims 346Karen 348Kuna Indians 243Maasai 332Maori 146, 273–274, 349, 350, 351, 353, 542Moken 352motivations for adopting ecotourism

348–350Sami 353significance of land 346–348Zapotecs 215see also Local communities

Indonesia 129see also Indonesian Ecotourism Network;

Komodo National ParkIndonesian Ecotourism Network 483, 492The International Ecotourism Society see The

Ecotourism SocietyIran 132–133Islands 235–247

financing of ecotourism 240–241growth of ecotourism 238impacts of ecotourism

planning of ecotourism 244–245transportation 239–240see also Caribbean; South Pacific

Japan Ecotourism Society 490, 494

Kaikoura Whale Watch 273–274, 280, 349, 353Kakadu National Park 261Katmai National Park 116Kazakhstan 133Kenya 93, 94–100, 101, 258–261, 318, 329–332,

335, 512, 621protected areas 97–100, 260, 330–331,

333–334, 511tourism 90–92, 94–95, 330, 334see also Amboseli National Park;

Ecotourism Society of Kenya; KenyaWildlife Service; Maasai Mara NationalReserve

Kenya Wildlife Service 482Komodo National Park 246, 247Korup National Park 329, 332, 333, 334, 335Kruger National Park 99, 260Kyrgyzstan 133

Leslie Street Spit (Toronto) 322Limits of acceptable change (LAC) 340–341,

388–389Living Prairie Museum (Winnipeg) 257Local communities 12–13, 14, 395–407, 419,

425, 541–543, 552–553, 620–621

Maasai Mara National Reserve 100, 261, 330,332–334

Madagascar 516Madre de Dios region (Peru) 369Maho Bay (USVI) 530–531Malaysia 129Mana Pools Lodge 368Manitoba 470

see also Churchill; Living Prairie MuseumMarine environments 265–280

see also Coral reefs; Ecotourism (activities);Protected areas (marine protected areas)

Mass tourism 18, 24, 25–26, 77–80, 176, 267,297, 299, 512, 516

‘greening’ trend 79, 627see also Ecotourism (soft ecotourism); 3S

tourismMexico 173, 176–177, 441–442

see also Indigenous people (Zapotecs);Mundo Maya; Yucatan Peninsula

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 257

666 Index

Milford Sound Underwater Observatory 275Mingan Island Cetacean Study 116Modified spaces and ecotourism 8, 315–325

agricultural lands 316–319, 434–435, 437,442–443

artificial reefs 323devastated landscapes 324rationale for ecotourism 315–316service corridors 323–324urban and peri-urban areas 319–323

cemeteries 320golf courses 320–321high-rise and other structure 322landfill and waste disposal sites

321–322parks 320sewage lagoons and stormwater

control ponds 321zoos and botanical gardens 322–323

Mongolia 257Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve 311, 513Mountains 205–218

management of tourism 211–215seasonality 213see also Alps; Himalayas

Mundo Maya 180

Namibia 255, 491Napo region (Ecuador) 369Nature-based tourism 6, 7–8, 26–27, 66, 73–74,

109The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 482, 506NEAT tourism 76New Zealand 139, 144–146, 274, 468

see also Indigenous people (Maori);Kaikoura Whale Watch; Milford SoundUnderwater Observatory; TiritiriMatangi Island

Non-consumptive tourism 80–82

Oceania 139–151see also Australia; New Zealand; South

PacificOntario 111, 505

see also Leslie Street Spit; Point PeleeNational Park

Panama 179Pantanal 183Papua New Guinea 150, 402, 405Parc National des Volcans 294, 511Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) 398–399PATA 134Patagonia 184–185, 208–210

Peru 182–183, 210, 215see also Madre de Dios region

Point Pelee National Park 118Polar environments 219–233

impact of tourism on soil 229–230management of tourism 231–233see also Antarctica; Arctic; Indigenous

people (Inuit; Sami)Portugal 162–163Protected areas 8, 48, 116, 158, 287–300, 389,

402, 435, 515, 553, 569, 623–624carrying capacity 292–295, 648community relations 299–300compatibility with ecotourism 288–292configurations 296–297marine protected areas 277–279, 288private protected areas 303–312, 506

competition with public protectedareas 310–311

conflicts of interest 309–310profitability 307–308reasons for establishment 304–305

privatization 299see also Abruzzo National Park; Alice

Springs Desert Park; Alpine NationalPark; Amboseli National Park;Annapurna Conservation Area Project;Chumbe Island Coral Park Project;Community Baboon Sanctuary; DorrigoNational Park; Everglades National Park;Glacier National Park; Gower Peninsula;Great Smoky Mountains National Park;Kakadu National Park; Katmai NationalPark; Komodo National Park; KorupNational Park; Kruger National Park;Living Prairie Museum; MidewinNational Tallgrass Prairie; MonteverdeCloud Forest Reserve; Parc National desVolcans; Point Pelee National Park;Redberry Pelican Project; Rio BravoConservation and Management Area;Tortuguero National Park; YellowstoneNational Park; Yosemite National Park

Public policy and ecotourism 502–503, 509–518dependency 514–515fiscal policy and incentives 515–517infrastructure 512–513politics and administration 509–511security 511–512

Puerto Piramide 273

Queensland Ecotourism Plan 467–468, 629

Rainforests 193–203artificial rainforests 202

Index 667

Rainforests continuedattitudes toward 197–198interpretation 200–202tourism 198–203types 195–196

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)339–340, 388

Redberry Pelican Project 485Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area

306Rural development and ecotourism 160–161,

433–444

3S (sea, sand, sun) tourism 76–77, 176see also Mass tourism

Safari corridor 258–261, 475Samoa 147, 468Saskatchewan 112, 317, 318, 484–485, 486

protected areas 297, 298see also Ecotourism Society of

SaskatchewanSavannah 119, 258–261

ecotourism 258–261Scandinavia 164–165SeaCanoe 266–267, 274–275Seaprobe Atlantis 276Siberia 126Solomon Islands 147, 150, 241, 480–481South Africa 68, 89–100, 318, 475, 618

private protected areas 100, 310protected areas 97–100tourism 94–96see also Kruger National Park

South America 180–185, 186–187ecotourism plans 469mountain ecotourism 207–209see also Andes; Argentina; Bolivia; Brazil;

Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; Guyana; HatoPinero; Peru

South Carolina 109South Pacific 139–140, 147–150, 468, 514

see also Fiji; Hawaii; Islands; Papua NewGuinea; Solomon Islands; SouthPentecost

South Pentecost 399Spain 441Subarctic 117Sustainable development 6, 10–17, 412, 416,

417constant capital perspective 15–17see also Sustainable tourism

Sustainable tourism 12, 16, 69, 80, 156–157, 416certification 71indicators 416–429planning 413principles 12–13, 623see also Sustainable development

Tanzania 101, 260–261, 506, 512, 621see also Chumbe Island Coral Park Project

Texas 109, 118, 323Thailand 128, 468–469, 510

see also Indigenous people (Karen; Moken)Tibet 127Tiritiri Matangi Island (New Zealand) 31–32Tortuguero National Park 517Tourism 63–65, 363–365, 411Tourism opportunity spectrum (TOS) 340Tourism platforms 77–78Trekking 75–76Tundra 116–117, 221–222, 223Turkey 132, 165

Uganda 512UK 158, 164, 317

domestic ecotourists 40, 41–42, 43, 49, 52,55, 58

tour operators 536see also Gower Peninsula

United Nations 70, 135see also United Nations Development

ProgramUnited Nations Development Program (UNDP)

480USA 107–109, 113–120, 316, 319, 323, 515

desert ecotourism 254–255domestic ecotourists 37, 39, 40, 41–42, 43,

44–45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56–57,613, 617

grassland ecotourism 257interpreter training 560national park visitors 291–292tour operators 536, 543wilderness areas 328, 329see also Florida; Midewin National Tallgrass

Prairie; Yellowstone National Park

Vietnam 468

Wilderness 221, 327–341World Tourism Organization 134–135, 480

Yellowstone National Park 119, 287, 506Yosemite National Park 119Yucatan Peninsula 513Yukon 111Yunnan 127–128

Zambia 101–102Zimbabwe 102, 260

see also CAMPFIRE; Mana Pools Lodge

668 Index