mass eco tourism vs. eco mass tourism

7/27/2019 Mass Eco Tourism vs. Eco Mass Tourism

1/13


2/13

2 | P a g e

Mass ecotourism vs. Eco mass tourism

Introduction

Ecotourism and mass tourism are often considered as the two extremes of tourism

development. The main difference between them is seen in the number of tourists involved, as

well as their environmental impact on destination area. While ecotourism (Buckley, 1994) is

usually defined as a form of nature-based tourism that strives to be ecologically, socio-

culturally, and economically sustainable while providing opportunities for appreciating and

learning about the natural environment or specific elements thereof (Weaver, 2001:105), its

opposite, the so called mass tourism (Gonzalez Tiradoz, 2011), is associated with traditional

sea, sun, sand and winter ski tourism, deriving a number of negatives upon tourist

destinations, due to the high volume of tourists flows. In this dichotomy ecotourism is almost

always perceived as the more acceptable and desirable option for development of any tourist

destination. Yet, there are voices, identifying some disadvantages of ecotourism and its pre-

exploitation as another sort of marketing effort to attract new tourists (Sirakaya et al., 1999).

Therefore, it is probably time to revisit the traditional perceptions of the eco- and mass

tourism.

Both extremesecotourism and mass tourismhave received a lot of attention in academics

but only a few of the researchers presume that there may some hybrid versions exist in

between. The idea of combining advantages of mass tourism and ecotourism has been

discussed in several papers, although not with the same terms. Weaver (2001) is one of the

first to identify the common features of both extremeshe argues that in fact they are not so

far away, but rather, two sides of a coin. For example, even in the mass tourism can be found

sustainable elements, and if these elements are increased/multiplied, the mass tourism could

be converted into a hybrid of ecotourism (Weaver, 2001) (considered as mass ecotourism in

this paper). In his further research Weaver reconfirms his ideas that the only sustainable future

for tourism lies in sustainable mass tourism (Weaver, 2012, 2013). Other researchers support

the idea of transforming mass tourism into ecotourism by presenting examples of classical 3S

destinations that took the sustainable way of development. Vera Rebollo & Ivars Baldal

(2003), for example, present case study of Torrevieja, Spain a mature destination that

needs a qualitative change in order to reconcile the urge for economic growth and sustainable

development. In the same vein, Aguilo et al. (2005) show how the Balearic Islands restructuretheir product in sustainable direction, so that to avoid the final decline stage of the destination


3/13

3 | P a g e

life cycle. Both case studies emphasise on the natural way the municipalities and local

communities came to this fundamental change.

At the other end of the axis, Hitchneret al. (2009) summarise several challenges, faced by

ecotourism development in Borneo. Most important of them include: lack of communication

and connections among all ecotourism participants; infrastructure limitations; lack or unfair

legal and regulation issues, concerning local indigenous communities; non-equitable

distribution of benefits; need for education and motivation of local people, etc. all of these

challenges deriving mainly from the individualistic and small scale approach of ecotourism.

Similar problems are faced by other indigenous communities, practicing ecotourism, where

social and economic disadvantages surpass environmental benefits (Coria & Calfucura, 2012).

The latter appear as a major motive for local tourist businesspeople to reject application of

sustainable practices, simply because they are not economically efficient (Frey & George,

2010).

In the context of the above discussion, current paper aims to: i) present a theoretical

framework of ecotourism and mass tourism in the context of sustainable development; ii)

analyse the ecotourism-mass tourism continuum through lens of the three dimensions of

sustainability (environmental, social and economic); and iii) on this basis to conceptualise two

intermediate forms of tourismmass ecotourism and eco mass tourism.

The SDEF grid

We analyse the various types of tourism in a destination on the basis of two dimensions

scale of development and ecological footprint of the respective type of tourism. They form a

two-dimensional grid, which we name SDEF grid (Scale of Tourism Development /

E

cologicalF

ootprint) see Figure 1.


4/13

4 | P a g e

The scale of tourism development shows the number of tourists that can be served within the

destination simultaneously and within specific period of type (e.g. one calendar year) for this

type of tourism. Low scale of tourism development would mean that the number of tourists

which could be served within the destination by this type of tourism is low due to different

reasons: limited bed capacity, short tourist seasons, inaccessibility of the destination and so

on. On the other hand, high scale of tourism development would mean that large number of

tourists could be served during the year, by either extending the seasons, and/or increasing thebed capacity and the accessibility of the destination. The ecological footprint is the measure of

the human impact on the environment associated with the particular type of tourism.

Obviously, ecotourism and mass tourism form the two extreme cases of the grid. Ecotourism

has low scale of tourism development and, naturally, low ecological footprint. Mass tourism

is associated with high scale of development, but also high level of ecological footprint. Often

tourism policies consider only this dichotomy as options for tourism development in the

destination. However, we state that there are many intermediate types of tourism between the

two extremes. Mass tourism can become more environmentally friendly and be transformed

into eco mass tourism. This would require some limitations on the number of tourists within

the destination (e.g. undertaking various macro- and micro-techniques for managing visitor

flows to the destination as suggested by Ryan (2003)) and improvement of the environmental

performance of tourist companies (e.g. the use of renewable energies, water reuse, waste

separation etc., as discussed in details by Ivanov, Ivanova, Iankova (2012)). On the other

hand, ecotourism might involve more people in order to create more jobs, which would

Figure 1. Scale of tourism development / ecological footprint grid

Scale of tourism development

Ecologicalfootprint

Low High

Low

High

Ecotourism

Mass ecotourism

Eco mass tourism

Mass tourism


5/13

5 | P a g e

transform it into mass ecotourism. Of course, the price for this transformation is the higher

ecological footprint.

Sustainability vectors

The choice among the various types of tourism in the SDEF grid is not easy. It requires a

preliminary analysis of their sustainability. Usually sustainability is associated with 3

dimensions environmental, social and economic (Swarbrooke, 1999). Sustainability is a

state of tourism, not a type of tourism. In fact, every type of tourism could be developed in a

sustainable or unsustainable way, including mass and ecotourism. We can present the

sustainability of each type of tourism into a 3-dimentional space with three axes level of

environmental, social and economic sustainability of the specific type of tourism see Table

1.

We say that a type of tourism performs high in terms of environmental sustainability if its

ecological footprint is very low, i.e. the pressure of the territory is low, consumption of non-

renewable resources is low, renewable energy is used, waste is separated, tourists value the

nature of the destination and follow the principle Leave nothing from you, take nothing with

you. Put in other words, high environmental sustainability implies very low or negligible

negative impacts on the environment by tourism.

Social sustainability is usually associated with the corporate social responsibility of the tourist

companies and the opportunities and benefits they create for their employees and the local

community. In practice, it includes activities related to the fair treatment of employees by

employers, provision of services and proper attitude towards people with various disabilities,

regardless whether they are part of the hotels employees or its guests, donations (provision of

such by the tourist companies and stimulating the donations by the tourists).

The economic dimension of tourism sustainability is connected with the economic impacts of

tourism to the destinationhow well tourist companies are integrated into the local economy,

the use of local labour, food and materials, own production of food products by

accommodation establishment and F&B outlets, etc. When tourist companies use local labour

and buy from local producers their expenditures generate sales, jobs, incomes and other

economic impacts for the local community (for a detailed discussion of local economicimpacts of tourism see Ivanov, 2005).


6/13

6 | P a g e

Usually the literature emphasises the environmental dimension of sustainability and neglects

the other two. However, a more balanced approach should be considered as all three

dimensions are important, although different stakeholders could put different weights on each

of them. For simplicity and illustrative purposes we consider all three dimensions of

sustainability to be of equal importance.

Table 1 presents the conceptual sustainability vectors of the four types of tourism

individually, while Figure 2 combines them together.

Table 1. Individual tourism sustainability vectors

Economic

sustainability

Social

sustainability

Environmental

sustainability

Ecotourism:Economic: 1

Social: 1Environmental: 5


7/13

7 | P a g e

Economic

sustainability

Social

sustainability

Environmental

sustainability

Eco mass tourism:Economic: 4Social: 4Environmental: 3

Economic

sustainability

Social

sustainability

Environmentalsustainability

Mass ecotourism:

Economic: 2Social: 2Environmental: 4


8/13

8 | P a g e

Obviously, ecotourism performs quite high in terms of environmental sustainability.

Companies involved in ecotourism are usually small, many times family owned, but the very

Ecotourism

Mass ecotourism

Eco mass tourism

Mass tourism

Economic

sustainability

Social

sustainability


Tourism sustainability vector

Tourism sustainability change path

Figure 2. Tourism sustainability vectorscombined

Economic

sustainability

Social

sustainability


Mass tourism:

Economic: 5Social: 4Environmental: 2


9/13

9 | P a g e

small scale of development eliminates any opportunities for significant economic and social

impacts (either positive or negative). The local destination could not benefit properly from

this type of tourism low number of employees, low amount of investments going into the

economy, low absolute value of the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts. Similarly,

the small scale could not make some activities (like crafts) economically viable. The low

revenues of the companies do not allow them to be highly involved in corporate social

responsibility activities. There is also the danger that the development of ecotourism creates

purposive limits on the tourism development of the local destination (the small is beautiful

concept), which directly hinders the increase of the economic welfare of local population. A

sense of elitism (and why not eco-imperialism!) is generated, by charging higher prices for

assumingly bio-/eco- and ecotourism products which further decreases the social

sustainability of ecotourism.

Mass tourism is the opposite case. It provides enormous economic and social benefits as a

result of the economies of scale:

Low prices leading to democratisation of travel Enormous savings from/for infrastructure construction, usage and maintenance Large number of jobs created Diverse knowledge and skills of tourism employees High tax revenues in the government and municipal budgets Inclusion in tourism supply of tourist resources that would otherwise not be profitable

for use/visitation

Possibilities to influence tour operators via increased bargaining power of hoteliers Increased possibilities for innovations Transforming the concept of sustainable development into economic benefits

Of course, there are threats of mass tourism development, like disregarding the interests of

local population, acculturation, creation of cultural cocoon around the resorts, crimes, etc.

Nevertheless, some of these economic and social costs (e.g. crimes) are inevitable for the

development of any type of tourism or any economic activity. Therefore, we evaluate highly

the economic and social sustainability of mass tourism in general.

From an environmental perspective, mass tourism leads to high consumption of resources,gradual conquest of new territories through the expansion of resorts, pollution, etc.


10/13

10 | P a g e

However, the spatial concentration of visitor flows through mass tourism helps in their

diversion from sensitive destination areas, which would otherwise be visited. In ecotourism,

the human ecological footprint on the destination is decreased by limiting the scale of

development and the special dispersion of tourists. Mass tourisms environmental

sustainability follows the opposite philosophy deliberately sacrificing a small share (1-5%)

of the territory for massive tourism development and high concentration of tourist flows and

activities, in order to keep the other 95-99% away from the tourists visitation, thus

decreasing the ecological footprint there. Furthermore, Weaver (2001) points out that large

tourist companies are in many ways inherently better positioned to implement sustainable

practices because of their internal economies of scale. Therefore, mass tourism although in

general has low environmental sustainability, it does in some ways contribute positively to it.

The two extremes (eco- and mass tourism) clearly show that there is a trade-off between the

environmental dimension of sustainability, on one hand, and the economic and social

dimensions, on the other. One could increase the positive contribution of tourism to the

economy and society, but this might be at the expense of the environment, and vice versa

the increase of the environmental sustainability would require some loss of economic and

social sustainability, due to limitations imposed on tourist companies or tourists, higher

operation costs, etc. Achieving highest scores on all three sustainability dimensions is very

difficult, if not impossible in practice.

Mass tourism could increase its environmental sustainability and be transformed into eco

mass tourism, by deliberate limit on the number of tourists that the destination can serve (i.e.

destinations carrying capacity), and by adoption of various activities that increase the

environmental sustainability of tourist companies waste separation, use of renewable

resources/energies, development of corporate policies for reduced consumption of resources

by both tourists and employees, hydro- and thermo-insulation of the buildings, greening of

surrounding areas, etc. While some of these activities do not require additional financial

resources and would decrease the operational expenses (e.g. policies for saving resources),

others would increase the investment costs but decrease the operational expenses (e.g. hydro-

and thermo-insulation of the buildings, energy-saving bulbs and appliances, water tap

aerators, photocells in bathrooms and common areas, etc.), and third would increase costs

(e.g. natural bath cosmetics). Considering the predominant price competition in mass tourism,companies would not be always able to transfer these expenses to the customers through


11/13

11 | P a g e

higher prices, and would be forced to cover them by lower profit margins. In general, we

assume that the increase of the environmental sustainability of the mass tourism would not

influence its social dimension but would decrease the economic benefits. Therefore, eco mass

tourism scores higher on the environmental sustainability than mass tourism, but slightly

lower on the economic dimension.

Ecotourism could increase its contribution to the economy and the social sphere by expanding

its scale of development and transforming into mass ecotourism, thus benefiting from

potential economies of scale. This could happen by various means increased capacity of the

guest houses; construction of more guest houses within the destination; improved transport

accessibility of the destination allowing for more tourists to visit it; inclusion of ecotourism

guesthouses in hotel reservation systems to increase their market visibility; inclusion of

ecotourism routes into the product portfolios of tour operators. By increasing the number of

tourists that visit the ecotourism destination, local tourist companies would generate higher

revenues and would be able to hire more people, buy more from local producers and,

therefore, be better integrated into the local economy and generate higher economic benefits.

Furthermore, by increasing the bed capacity of the destination, ecotourism helps people from

more social strata to visit it, thus contributing to the democratisation of travel. Of course, the

negative environmental impacts of (mass) tourism start to appear. Therefore, the expansion of

ecotourism into mass ecotourism would decrease its environmental sustainability but improve

the economic and social ones.

Figure 2 combines the sustainability vectors of the four types of tourism discussed in this

paper into one diagram. It shows the path of sustainability change when ecotourism expands

into mass ecotourism and mass tourism undertakes more environmentally friendly activities.

From theoretical perspective, while mass ecotourism is less sustainable in environmental

terms, it could be regarded as more sustainable than ecotourism when all three dimensions of

sustainability are taken into consideration. Similarly, eco mass tourism might be perceived as

at least as sustainable as mass tourism, if not more sustainable than it, when all three

dimensions of sustainability are evaluated. Therefore, one could argue whether destinations

have to choose between eco- and mass tourism, but between mass ecotourism and eco mass

tourism.

Conclusion


12/13

12 | P a g e

The paper conceptualised the hybrid versions of eco- and mass tourism in a sustainability

context, and presented them as additional worthy alternatives to the extremes. In the era of

accelerated technology development and change of environmental perceptions, tourist

destinations are forced to reconsider their attitude towards traditional and new values.

Most of the destinations have reached their peak of life cycle and need urgently a way to

rejuvenate or would be doomed to decline. In the process of tourism development and

destination positioning the choice ecotourism or mass tourism is no longer a dichotomic

trade-offdestinations could choose intermediary forms like mass ecotourism or eco mass

tourism. Although it is impossible to directly convert traditional mass tourism product into an

environmentally friendly ecoproduct, there are still opportunities to utilise most of the

advantages of both extremes. Furthermore, the ecotourism itself suffers some negatives in

social and economic aspects that could be overthrown by including some elements of mass

tourism in it. Of course, the choice of type of tourism is specific for each destination and

would depend on its level of development.

References:

Aguilo, E., Alegre, J. & Sard, M. (2005). The persistence of the sun and sand tourism model.

Tourism Management, 26(2), 219-231.

Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 661-

669

Coria, J. & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous

communities: The good, the bad and the ugly.Ecological Economics, 73, 47-55

Frey, N. & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between

business owners attitude and behaviour in the Cape Town tourism industry. Tourism

Management, 31, 621-628

Gonzalez Tiradoz, R.M. (2011). Half a century of mass tourism: evolution and expectations.

The Services Industries Journal, 31 (10), 1589-1601.

Hitchner, S., Lapu Apu, F., Tarawe, L., Galih, S., Aran, S. & Yesaya, E. (2009). Community-

based transboundary ecotourism in the heart of Borneo: a case study of the Kelabit

Highlands of Malaysia and the Kerayan Highlands of Indonesia. Journal of

Ecotourism, 8(2), 193-213


13/13

13 | P a g e

Ivanov, S. (2005). Measurement of the macroeconomic impacts of tourism. Unpublished Ph.

D. thesis, University of Economics Varna, Bulgaria.Available in SSRN at

URL:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1539443

Ivanov, S., Ivanova, M. & Iankova, K. (2012). Sustainable tourism practices mountain vs.

non-mountain accommodation establishments in Bulgaria. Paper presented at the

International Conference Changing Paradigms in Sustainable Mountain Tourism

Research: Problems and Perspectives, Forum Brixen/Bressanone, Italy, 25th28th

October 2012. Available in SSRN at URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2161586

Ryan, C. (2003).Recreational tourism. Demand and Impacts. Cleverdon: Channel View.

Sirakaya, E., Sasidharhan, V. & Sonmez, S. (1999). Redefining ecotourism: The need for a

supply-side view.Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 168-172

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. London: CABI Publishing.

Vera Rebollo, J.F. & Ivars Baldal, J.A. (2003) Measuring sustainability in a mass tourism

destination: pressures, perceptions and policy responses in Torrevieja, Spain. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2-3), 181-203.

Weaver, D. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 104-112.

Weaver, D. (2012). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism

convergence. Tourism Management, 33, 1030-1037.

Weaver, D. (2013). Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: Toward enlightened mass

tourism.Journal of Travel Research (forthcoming), DOI: 10.1177/0047287513491335

mass eco tourism vs. eco mass tourism

Documents