ECOTOURISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSERVATION:

A Case Study of Nacula District, Fiji A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TOURISM STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

LORAINI CEVA SIVO

THE FACUALTY OF ISLANDS AND OCEANS THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

SUVA, FIJI JULY 2006

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I, Loraini Ceva Sivo declare that this thesis is of my own work except for those texts

that have been explicitly acknowledged otherwise and it contains no materials that

have been previously submitted for the award of a degree at any other university.

……………………

Loraini Ceva Sivo

ABSTRACT

Ecotourism on a global scale is becoming the fastest growing segment within the

tourism industry. Initially, it was adopted to save the environment as tourism develop

over time at its expense. There is no standard definition of ecotourism, and so it has

been open to interpretation in terms of theory and practice. Generally the definition of

ecotourism, as commonly described by many theorists, considers the environment a

primary concern and so it attempts to minimize negative impacts. Many tourism

operators, instead, have used ‘ecotourism’ as a catch phrase to make business, rather

than to protect the environment.

This research examines the operation of ecotourism in Nacula District, as a case

study, to build an understanding of the emphasis placed on environmental

conservation in the operation of ecotourism. The findings of the research show that,

the differences in the interpretation of ecotourism both to communities and operators,

can affect the practical approach of ecotourism in environmental conservation.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to personally thank the many people who have contributed to the

completion of this thesis.

Firstly, this study would not have been possible without the supervision of Dr

Stephen Doorne who has helped and assisted me in every way and especially as an

adviser and for this, I am very grateful.

To my very close friends, Litea Save, Louise Isimeli, Jone Amoe and Hung Lit Sue,

for their great support throughout the years. To my workmates and friends, Alex

Patrick, Ingrid Qauqau, Wayne Moy, Cagi Tokataa, Moala Tokataa, Naushad Yakub,

Alice Heffernan and Betani Salusalu, who have made me, believe that I could handle

the pressure of work and study. To my former boss and personal friends, David Olson

and Linda Farley, for their support towards my study from the very beginning. To

Greg Buxton, and Heidi Williams for their time to review my thesis. Personally to

Thomas Tui and Viliame Bula for having spent most of their free time with me. And

to my father and mother, Mataiasi and Keleni Sivo, for their educational upbringing

and words of encouragement.

I would also like to thank the staff of the Tourism and Hospitality Department of the

University of the South Pacific for their assistance especially to Dr Tracy Berno, Dr

David Short and Dawn Gibson. To the European Union Scholarship Program, for

offering me the scholarship to pursue my Masters Program especially to John

Stunnenburge. And to the hotel operators and communities of Nacula District for

their hospitality during my visit and for allowing me to interview them and especially

to Miliana Vukunisiga and Joana Waqali for their hospitality and kind help. I am

indebted to all of you.

And finally to those I did not mention, I also thank you for all your kind help and

support which I will always remember.

ii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my former bosses and personal friends David Olson and

Linda Farley who have inspired me to understand and learn about the challenges

faced in the world of conservation. I will always remember everything you have both

taught me and most importantly to make me believe in myself as an indigenous that

can make a difference in conservation.

To my father and mother who have been patient with me all these years and whose

many dreams I will still continue to achieve while they are alive. And finally to my

grandmother Anaseini Raiyawa for her prayers which has been a strengthening

component of my life.

iii

List of Appendices

Appendix 1.0 Operators and Community Preliminary Visit Questionnaire

Appendix 2.0 Operators In-depth Interview Questionnaire

Appendix 3.0 Community Questionnaire

Appendix 4.0 Tourist Questionnaire

Appendix 5.0 List of Compiled Definitions of Ecotourism used for Operators

Interview

Appendix 6.0 Graphical Analysis and Discussion of Community Questionnaire

Appendix 7.0 Graphical Analysis and Discussion of Tourist Questionnaire

Appendix 8.0 List of Operators Interviewed

Appendix 9.0 List of Villages Interviewed

Appendix 10.0 Map of Nacula Fishing Boundary

Appendix 11.0 NTTA Coral Friendly Snorkeling Guidelines

Appendix 12.0 Oarsman’s Bay Ecotourism Activities Pamphlets

Appendix 13.0 Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program- Workshop

Notes

Appendix 14.0 Nacula Tikina Tourism Association (NTTA) Code of Conduct

iv

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Name and location of the tourism operators in the Yasawa Islands

Table 5.1 Analysis of definitions identified by individual operator interviewed.

Table 5.2 Frequency of operator selection of provided definitions as applicable

to their operation

Table 5.3 Summary of the responses made to Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the

Operators Questionnaire

Table 5.4 Summary of the responses made to Questions 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14

of the Operators Questionnaire

Table 5.5 Summary of the responses made to Questions 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23

and 24 of Operators Questionnaire

Table 5.6 The definitions of ecotourism as identified by the communities

Table 5.7 Summary of the responses made to Question 4 of the Communities

Questionnaire- Reasons why communities were Satisfied and

Dissatisfied at Operators for using Community’s fishing grounds

Table 5.8 Descriptive reasoning stated by respondents in regards to the benefit

hotel operators gain from using the community’s marine environment.

Table 5.9 Mean score on the ranking of different factors on importance of trip to

Nacula

Table 5.10 Mean score on the ranking of different factors of importance ‘why

tourists wish to return to Nacula in the future’

Table 5.11 Mean score on the ranking of different factors of importance ‘why

tourists wish to return to Nacula in the future’

Table 5.12 Mean scores on the rankings of different types of knowledge expressed

by tourists

Table 5.13 Mean score on the ranking of environmental information provided

v

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 A summary map of the four districts in Yasawa

Figure 3.2 A summary map of hotel distribution in Nacula Tikina

Figure 5.1 Percentage distributions of the different areas defining ecotourism as

identified by communities

Figure 5.2 The reasons why there was no involvement between communities and

operators regarding how the local qoliqoli was utilized for tourism

activities

Figure 5.3 Reasons for community satisfaction with operators making use of

fishing sites

Figure 5.4 Reasons for community dissatisfaction

Figure 5.5 The types of pollution observed in the marine environment

Figure 5.6 The age groups of tourists interviewed

Figure 5.7 Reasons why tourists travel to Nacula

Figure 5.8 Types of activities tourists were engaged in while visiting Nacula

Figure 5.9 Factors tourists found interesting during their trip to Nacula

Figure 5.10 Tourists supporting monetary contribution towards conservation

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements i

Dedication ii

List of Appendices iii

List of Tables iv

List of Figures vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

The Chapters 4

CHAPTER TWO: ECOTOURISM AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Introduction 6

Tourism

a) Brief Background of the Tourism Industry 7

b) Impacts of Tourism on the Natural Environment: A Call for Ecotourism 8

Ecotourism

a) What is Ecotourism: Moving towards a Definition 10

b) The Nature of Ecotourism 14

c) Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism Development 18

d) Ecotourism on a Global Scale: Opportunities, Challenges and Threats 19

e) Ecotourism as an Attractive Option for Island Communities 24

Ecotourism and Environmental Conservation

a) Ecotourism and Environmental Conservation: Can it Be Achieved? 27

Conclusion 33

CHAPTER THREE: THE RESEARCH CONTEXT-ECOTOURISM IN FIJI

Introduction 37

A Reflection of the Tourism Industry in Fiji 38

Fiji’s Tourism Product 39

The Legislative and Statutory Context of Ecotourism in Fiji 40

The Development and Adoption of Ecotourism 43

Other Current Initiatives In-Line to the Future Development of Ecotourism

a) The Proposed Return of Ownership Rights of the Usage of the Qoliqoli to the

Indigenous Fijians 46

b) The Environment Management Act 47

Tourism in Yasawa Islands: A Brief Background of the Study Area

a) Location 49

b) The Development and Involvement of Tourism within the Area 50

The Issues of Tourism Development in the Yasawa Islands 53

Nacula District as the Focus of the Study 54

Conclusion 56

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY

Introduction 59

Justification of the Research Paradigm and Methodology

a) Qualitative Methodology 61

b) Quantitative Methodology 64

c) Methodological triangulation 65

d) The Research as a Case Study 66

The Research Methods 67

a) Interviews 68

b) Questionnaire Survey 70

c) Observation 72

The Sampling Design 73

a) Sampling Population

b) Sampling Method

Data Collection, Recording and Analysis 75

Limitations 76

Ethical Consideration 77

Summary 78

CHAPTER FIVE: THE FINDINGS

Introduction 80

The Operation of Ecotourism in Nacula Tikina

a) The Tourism Operators 81

i) Background

ii) Interpretation and Understanding of ‘Ecotourism’

iii) The use of the Marine Environment

iv) Environmental Education and Awareness Programs

v) Contribution to Conservation

vi) Business Set-up

vii) Experiences

b) The Communities 103

i) Background Summary

ii) Research Findings Made 106

Overview

Local understanding: Defining Ecotourism

Networking: Ecotourism Operators and Communities

Changes Observed in the Marine Environment

c) The Tourists 120

Research Findings Made

i) Demographic Features

ii) Travelling Preferences

iii) Activity Engagements

iv) Shared Experiences

v) Environmental Information

vi) Contribution to Conservation

Summary 129

CHAPTER SIX: THE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE

FINDINGS

Introduction 132

What is Ecotourism? 134

a) The Interpretation of Ecotourism to Operators and Communities 136

Putting Ecotourism into Practice

a) The Practicality of Ecotourism for the Operators 139

b) The Involvement and Participation of Communities in Ecotourism 143

c) The Tourists as the Users of Ecotourism 146

d) Individual Efforts made Towards Conservation 148

Conclusion 152

CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS 161

For the Development of Ecotourism in Fiji

a) Recommendation to Government 162

b) Recommendation to Operators 163

c) Recommendation to Communities 164

REFERENCES 167

APPENDICES 180

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

For many years, tourism has projected itself as one of the greatest earners of

foreign exchange (WTO 1996, 1997, 2005) and it has also boosted many

economic developments at the local level. Because of this, tourism development

has always been continuously promoted worldwide and as a result, it has also

contributed to the increasing pressure on the use of the natural environment and

its resources (Inskeep 1991; Baumol and Oats 1979; Ondicho 2000; Hunter and

Green 1995). In many reported cases, tourism development has posed both

positive and negative impacts to the environment and this has been felt either

directly or indirectly (Madan and Rawat 2000; Swarbrooke 1999; Onchicho 2000;

Henry 1980; Visser and Njuguna 1995).

In many efforts to protect the environment but at the same time promote tourism

development, various alternative forms of tourism had emerged between the late

1970s and the early 1980s. Ecotourism was then identified as one of the options

that would help enhance benefits and reduce damage to the environment and most

importantly, to help maintain and protect the very interest of the environment and

its resources (Boo 1990; Stem et al. 2003; Brandon 1996; Wearing and Neil 1999;

Wood 2002). This would mean that in the practice of ecotourism the protection of

the natural environment is emphasized. Evidently, the development of ecotourism

over the years has provided some forms of associated benefits in not only

protecting the environment but it has also helped draw in economic profits at a

national level (ICT 1993; Lindberg et al. 1998; Wood 2002) and it has provided

economic benefits at community level (Wearing and Neil 1999; Ziffer 1989)

because of all these, the practice of ecotourism has been continuously encouraged

to local resource owners.

1

The practice or operation of ecotourism follows a set of principle and if they are

not followed, a tourism operation simply cannot be identified that it is ecotourism.

There are cases where tourism practices have been focused on nature and so it has

been debated if they also can be identified as ecotourism. Some theorists say ‘yes’

while some say ‘no’. It is only reasonable that, for tourism to benefit from the

environment, it should also help return the benefit as a two-way process. If

tourism that is focused on nature is not managed well, the environment on which

it depends will be in danger. Tourism is known to dependent on the environment

and can therefore increase pressure on its use. In cases where local communities

recognize ecotourism only as an alternative form of easier cash flow, the interests

towards caring and protecting the very natural resources used and owned by locals

are often driven away. Because understanding the potential of ecotourism towards

environmental conservation can be sometimes unpredictable, the general goal of

this research therefore is to examine the operation of ecotourism in an area of Fiji

(as a case study) where ecotourism is, as claimed, actively practised. In this way,

the analysis would help build an understanding of the relationship between

ecotourism and its emphasis on environmental conservation.

Ecotourism in Fiji was introduced locally by government as a policy initiative.

Initially, it was introduced to help assist rural development in the undeveloped

rural areas that can play a role in helping host some of the nature-based activities

(Bricker 2003). The Fiji Government also saw it as an option that would prevent

further rural–urban migration, by means of which the benefits of tourism would

be spread more widely across Fiji rather than being confined to specific regions.

Most importantly according to Bricker (2002), it was the growing concern over

environmental degradation in Fiji that led the tourism industry to promote

sustainability in its entire sector so that the development of tourism was sensitive

to the environment and cultural aspects of the country. Ecotourism therefore in

this case was identified as one of best option forward. In 1999, the Ministry of

Tourism clarified the meaning of ecotourism and adopted it under the National

Ecotourism Policy as:

2

A form of nature-based tourism which involves responsible travel to relatively

undeveloped areas to foster an appreciation of nature and local cultures, while conserving

the physical and social environment, respecting the aspiration and traditions of those

visited, and improving the welfare of the local people (Harrison 1999: 5).

The term, however, was also documented in the policy to refer to activities that:

ventures into operating on a small scale and with relatively low capital; caters for

tourists motivated by the desire to learn; is owned and operated by locals; is

village-based; and that it will have fewer ‘leakages’ than large-scale tourism

(Bricker 2003). Based on the benefits these activities would provide, Fiji

Government over the years has continuously encouraged locals to participate

actively in the development of tourism. As a result, the numbers of registered

local tourism operators within Fiji have continued to increase as well (Ministry of

Tourism 2004) with many of them especially using the term ‘ecotourism’ as an

icon for their operation, with little understanding of the true concepts associated

with ecotourism and its approaches, particularly in the area of environmental

conservation. Ecotourism means different things to different people and as a result

it is also practised differently, which we will learn more about in this study.

The increased use of the term ecotourism by many of these operators leaves us

with uncertainties of not knowing exactly how their operation emphasises

environmental conservation. Possibly, the word ‘ecotourism’ has been utilized as

a marketing ploy or as an ecotourism light. Therefore, in order to achieve the

general objective of learning and understanding more about the practices of

ecotourism in Fiji, four specific objectives have been highlighted in this research:

1. to examine the interpretation and understanding of ecotourism for both the

tourism operators and the communities

2. to examine the practical approach to ecotourism adopted by the tourism operators

relative to environmental conservation

3

3. to examine community’s understanding of and participation and involvement in

the operation of ecotourism with regard to the use of the natural environment and

its resources

4. to examine the motives of travel for tourists travelling to the area studied and

further determine if they can be potential contributors towards future

environmental conservation.

To meet these objectives, this study has been approached as a case study focusing

on Nacula Tikina, which is a district within the Yasawa Islands that is located in

the western side of Viti Levu.

The Chapters…..

In Chapter 2, the literature is reviewed briefly in order to understand firstly the

link between ecotourism and the natural environment. Specifically, this chapter

critically analyzes the various definitions of ecotourism as highlighted by various

theorists. Because the study focuses on ecotourism and the conservation of the

environment, this chapter restricts its discussion to those definitions relating to

environmental conservation and has used them as guidelines to assess the

practicality of ecotourism in Fiji. This chapter also looks into ecotourism on a

global scale, to provide an understanding of the opportunities, challenges, and

threats realistically encountered in the ecotourism world. Most importantly, this

chapter also explores the possibilities of ecotourism and environmental

conservation–is it achievable?

Having established an understanding of ecotourism and environmental

conservation from a global perspective, the focus changes in Chapter 3, to

consider the case of ecotourism in Fiji. This chapter describes the process of how

ecotourism is developed, adopted and defined in Fiji’s context as a step towards

sustainable tourism development. Added to this, the chapter also addresses the

issues directly and indirectly relating to the long-term development of ecotourism.

4

A summary on the background of the study site is also provided to give readers an

idea of its involvement in Fiji’s tourism industry.

Chapter 4 describes the different methodologies used to approach this research.

The chapter discusses theoretical justification of the different research

methodologies and methods used, the design of the sampling methods, the process

of data analysis, the ethics of the research and the various limitations encountered

while conducting the research.

Chapter 5 presents the findings made from the study and the discussion and

conclusion of these findings constitutes Chapter 6. The discussion and conclusion

of the findings are analyzed to the literature review of Chapter 2. Finally

recommendations have been made in Chapter 7 for the future development of

ecotourism in Fiji. This research acknowledges and recognizes that environmental

conservation is an important component that needs to be actively practised in the

operation of ecotourism. Discussion in the last three chapters (Chapter 5, 6 and 7)

explores the factors that have hindered the operation of ecotourism towards

environmental conservation in Fiji based on the case study of Nacula Tikina.

5

CHAPTER TWO

ECOTOURISM AND THE NATURAL

ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

As the environment is tourism’s main resource, tourism and the environment are

to a large extent interdependent, and one would expect strong support from the

tourism industry to ensure preservation and protection of those resources. This

chapter addresses the relationship between ecotourism and the environment and

therefore provides a brief background of the tourism industry on a global scale. It

considers the impact tourism places on the environment in relation to its

development and how ecotourism has been called for to enhance the symbiotic

relationship of tourism and the environment. The definitions and philosophies of

ecotourism differ a lot in many areas and there has been considerable debate

around the issues that constitute ecotourism. An attempt is made to identify key

elements suitable to the component of this research by reviewing the concepts or

definitions highlighted by some literature on what ecotourism is all about and

should address. Also the opportunities, challenges and threats faced in the

operation of ecotourism are further elucidated to provide an overview of

situations happening in some countries around the world where the operation of

ecotourism has been addressed. We then consider how ecotourism can be an

attractive option to island communities such as Fiji. Because ecotourism in the

past has pushed its way to the forefront as one of the preferred tools for

community development and conservation in many island communities, further

discussion is also made on how ecotourism can achieve conservation goals.

6

TOURISM

a) A Brief Background of the Tourism Industry

Tourism has played an important role in many economies today presenting the

first or second most important industry sector and generating a large portion of

the country’s domestic product (Chin et al. 2000). It is alone valued highly by

many countries and often holds a very prominent position in development

strategies. Because tourism has the potential to bolster foreign exchange earnings

and domestic product, it is therefore actively promoted.

The World Tourism Organization (WTO) predicts that by the year 2010,

international tourism will grow by approximately 4% per year (WTO 1996) and

that by the year 2020, it is estimated to reach at least 1.6 billion international

arrivals worldwide (WTO News 1997). In the late 1990s, the travel and tourism

industry topped the list of the world’s largest industries, reaping US$5.3 trillion in

export earnings in 1998 alone (WTO 2005), equivalent to 11% of the global gross

domestic product (GDP) (UNEP 1999) and accommodating more than 664

million international tourist arrivals in 1999 (this is over 10% of the world’s

population). A record made in 1996 showed that there were 594 million

international tourist arrivals generating a total of US$423 billion in tourist

receipts, representing an increase of 64% and 142% respectively since 1986

(WTO 1997). During the same period, arrivals in developing economies grew by

80%. Between 1992 and 2000, the number of international tourist arrivals

worldwide grew from 463 million to 689 million, a jump of nearly 50% (WTO

2005). Healy observed in 1989 that the revenues received from tourism receipts

had accounted for more than 10% of the value of gross domestic product in 47

developing countries and more than 50% of the comparable amount received from

export revenues in 17 countries. Three years back (2003), in Mauritius, a well-

known tourist destination, tourist arrivals in the first six months reached 335,306,

7

a 3.9% increase on the same period in 2002, while in India a record increase of

42% during the first six months of 2003 was highlighted (IEU Views Wire 2003).

This not only indicates the great increase in tourism over the last 10 years but also

illustrates why revenue from tourism has captured the attention of many countries.

Because of the willingness to promote economic development in most places

around the world, tourism has pushed itself as a ‘high-speed highway’, to

prosperity (Nianyong and Zhuge 2001).

b) Impacts of Tourism on the Natural Environment: A Call for

Ecotourism

Over the last two decades, there has been growing concern about the relationship

between tourism and the environment (Mihalic 2003). Because of the rapid

increase in tourist travel, the number of studies on tourism and environment has

greatly increased. While the tourism industry no doubt represents a huge boon to

the global economy, it also has an enormous and a lasting impact on the natural

environment. As the tourism industry increases and develops over the years, the

dependency level on the use of the environment will also increase, because all

tourist attractions are to some extent environmentally based, linked either directly

or by association with a specific area or location and each appealing within the

context of that setting (Pigram 1989). In most cases, the physical and natural

environments of a destination are often the key attractions. Governments, having

heard about the potential economic returns from tourism jump into tourism

development wholeheartedly, with little analysis of the potential impact on their

economies, on their environment or on the people.

There is a complex relationship between tourism and the environment, which is

yet to be understood, but because there has been little study conducted to address

environmental management issues (Butler 1991) opinions on the environmental

implications of tourism has frequently tended towards a negative perspective.

8

According to Puczko and Ratz (2000), the relationship between tourism and its

physical environment is not a one-way system, i.e. we cannot presume that the

physical environment would not influence tourism. Instead, the two are

interrelated. Environmental factors form the basic resource upon which the

tourism industry depends to thrive and grow, and threats to the environment can

affect the viability of the tourism industry. The natural environment is crucial to

the attractiveness of most tourist destinations and recreational areas, which serve

as a natural ‘backdrop’ for many tours and justify the need for natural resource

management (Farrell and Runyan 1991). There is no doubt that tourism and the

environment are interdependent; however, this has often been taken for granted.

Given its scale and global extent, tourism has important environmental impacts,

which are unavoidable when tourism development occurs (Inskeep 1991;

Mathieson and Wall 1982; Pigram 1996; Swarbrooke 1999). These impacts are

related to high levels of resource consumption, and the pollution and waste

generated by the development of tourism infrastructure and facilities, transport

and tourist activities, which can result in adverse environmental impacts

(Dimitrios and Westlake 2001). In many places around the world, these factors

have had great impact either directly or indirectly as reported by Madan and

Rawat (2000), Swarbrooke (1999), Ondicho (2000), Henry (1980), and Visser and

Njuguna (1995) and by many others.

In searching for ways to minimize tourism’s impact on the environment, many

alternative forms of tourism began to emerge in the early 1990s that embraced the

concept of sustainability (Charters 1993; Klemm 1992; Wheeller 1992; Valentine

1991; Wild 1994; Inskeep 1991). Prior to this, there was a broad consensus that it

was not easy to find clean green, industries that were truly environmentally

benign or had positive outcomes over the long haul. According to Wearing and

Neil (1999) this was especially true for developing countries where nature had its

stronghold but where short-term economic drivers often saw natural lands and

wildlife disappearing fast to satisfy both the needs for survival and resource

9

industries. Even scientists and environmentalists began to notice that there was

little hope of saving these lands and wildlife unless some income was generated

from it to meet the needs of the people. It was then that the concept of ecotourism

became seen as an answer to all this. Ecotourism appeared to offer a sustainable

development option for countries, regions, and local communities, which would

provide an incentive to retain and manage wild lands and wildlife and hence the

crucial biodiversity of life (Blamey 1995; Boo 1990; Carter 1994; Charters 1996;

Hall and Wouters 1994; Lindberg et al. 1997). According to Hashimoto (1999),

trends of the tourism-environment relationship have shifted from more orthodox

concerns about the natural resource management and planning, environmental

features and recreational opportunities, to newer areas of ecotourism in which

tourism is regarded as a part of sustainable development.

ECOTOURISM

a) What is Ecotourism: Moving towards a definition….

Since ecotourism first appeared in the early 1980s, it has been defined in many

ways. Historically, the term ‘ecotourism’ was adopted by writers who began to

document the phenomenon of nature tourism but later focused on the attempt to

mitigate associated negative impacts (Wallace and Pierce 1996). The term was

frequently referred to as responsible, sustainable, conservation or low impact

tourism. Since its introduction, ecotourism was always considered mostly as a

form of tourism likely to achieve the potential benefits to the environment without

the negative impact (Australian Conservation Foundation 1994). In most cases,

ecotourism has been used synonymously with terms such as environmental,

responsive alternative, nature, soft, sustainable, gentle, appropriate, resource-

based, and green tourism (Ayala 1995). Regardless of this, an explicit comparison

based on their central dimension was still not available (Higgins 1996) and

therefore different researchers began to stress different dimensions in their

definition (e.g. Valentine 1991; Carter 1994; Ross and Wall 1999; Weaver 1999)

10

to understand more of the term. To some point, the term ecotourism was applied

to all tourism activities that allowed the enjoyment and understanding of natural

and/or cultural heritage and at the same time, produced economic benefits and

actively promoted environmental conservation (Ayala 1995).

According to Beaumont (1998), ecotourism was generally accepted and defined

as a normative concept according to a number of principles, the key ones being

that it should be ecologically sustainable and that it includes some form of

environmental education or interpretation. The ‘eco’ as a prefix according to

Wearing and Neil (1999) was derived from the word ‘ecology’. Thus, to be

considered as ecotourism, the activity or experience offered must positively

contribute to the environment if the environment has not at least achieved a net

benefit towards its sustainability and ecological integrity (Butler 1992). However,

the ‘environment’ here was referred not only to the natural environment-flora,

fauna, landforms and atmospheric considerations-but also to the social, economic,

scientific, managerial and political elements.

Although the definitions of ecotourism had been widely debated over the last 20

years (Ceballos-Lascurain 1987; Godwin 1996; Lindberg and McKercher 1997;

Blamey 1997; Ross and Wall 1999; Weaver 1999; Black et al. 2001; The

International Ecotourism Society 2003) no consensus was ever reached as to what

the term really meant (Buckley 1994; Orams 1995).

One of the earliest definitions of ecotourism was introduced by Ceballos-

Lascurain in 1987 in which he defined it as traveling to a relatively undisturbed or

uncontaminated natural areas with the specific object to study, admire and enjoy

the scenery of its wild plants and animal together with any existing cultural

aspects found in these areas (cited in Honey 1999). The Ecotourism Association

of Australia (1992) also defined ecotourism as an ecologically sustainable tourism

fostering environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and

conservation. Valentine (1991, 1993) defined it as a kind of tourism based on

11

relatively undisturbed natural areas; is non-damaging and non-degrading;

provides a direct contribution to the continued protection and management of

protected areas used; and is subject to an adequate and appropriate management

regime. Wood et al. (1991), also defined ecotourism as a purposeful traveling to

natural areas to understand the culture and natural history of the environment;

taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem; and producing economic

opportunities that makes the conservation of the natural resources beneficial to the

local people.

Ross and Wall (1999) defined ecotourism as an activity that could contribute to

both conservation and development and promoting a positive synergistic

relationship between tourism, biodiversity and local people, facilitated by

appropriate management. Bjork (as cited in Bjork 2000) defined it as an activity

where the tourists were traveling to natural areas in order to admire, study and

enjoy the existing nature and culture in a way that does not exploit the resources,

but contributes to the conservation of the genuine environment. According to

Young (1992) ecotourism was defined as tourism to natural areas that fosters

environmental understanding, appreciation and conservation and sustains the

culture and well being of local communities. Scace (1993) also defined it as a

nature travel experience that contributes to conservation of the environment while

maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the natural and social-cultural

elements. Wight (1993) defined ecotourism as an enlightening nature-travel

experience that contributes to conservation of the ecosystem, while respecting the

integrity of host communities. Wearing and Neil (1999) defined ecotourism as a

tourism activity that could contribute to conservation by providing environmental

education or interpretation to participants, leading to awareness and understanding

of the natural environment and promoting pro-environment attitudes, support for

conservation and responsible environmental behaviour. For Valentine (1993), it

was a kind of tourism, based on relatively undisturbed natural areas; non-

damaging, non-degrading; a direct contributor to the continued protection and

management of the natural area used; and subject to adequate and appropriate

12

management regimes. To Boo (1990), it was an activity that could stimulate the

economy and generate direct funding for conservation, as well as provide

employment and entrepreneurial opportunities to justify conservation of the

natural areas and the protection of the assets upon which the industry depended

on.

Defining the term ecotourism did not end there; many more definitions were

being identified and modified over time in order to meet the increasing demands

of tourism on the use of the environment. Writings on ecotourism have diversely

interpreted its meaning and therefore different researchers have stressed different

dimensions in their definition. However, the majority of these definitions, as

expressed by various authors, seem to say much the same thing, with common

viewpoints that relate ecotourism to (1) travelling to undisturbed areas; (2) nature-

based; (3) education; and finally (4) environmental conservation or protection.

In the context of production and consumption, tourists and the environment are

symbiotically related. The environment acts as producer, providing the experience

for the tourists, who use (consume) the environment to gain and appreciate the

experience. Without the environment, there is no experience gained by the

tourists, and without the tourists there is no appreciation for the environment.

Ecotourism can serve as a bridge for the two and therefore needs each other to

function sustainably.

In this study, the definition of ecotourism used as a foundation to the

understanding of ecotourism is the one highlighted by Wearing and Neal (1999),

who identified ecotourism as an activity that could contribute to the conservation

of the natural environment and pro-environment attitudes and could provide

support for conservation and responsible environmental behaviour.

13

b) The Nature of Ecotourism

Ecotourism’s focus on the natural environment has, in recent years, facilitated its

evolution into a catchphrase that encompasses numerous tourism forms including

‘nature tourism, wilderness tourism, low-impact tourism and sustainable tourism,

among others. These diverse forms of tourism all focus on the natural

environment to some extent but although closely aligned with and related to

ecotourism, they need to be distinguished from ecotourism as there are a number

of dimensions of nature-tourism. Therefore, since the introduction of ecotourism,

many writers and researchers have subjected ecotourism to criticism as to what

the nature of ecotourism is (summarized below). Much discussion has been given

to the conceptualization and definition of ecotourism and to whether or not the

term should apply to nature tourism in general or to a more specific type

(Ceballos-Lascurain 1988; Fennell and Eagles 1990).

Wight (1993), Western (1993), Valentine (1993), Hawkes and Williams (1993)

and Mc Avov (1990) posit that what distinguishes ecotourism from nature,

cultural or adventure tourism is not its degree of specialization or how hard or soft

the mode of experiencing a place is (Ruschmann 1992), as much as the emphasis

on its ethical value and principles. Based on the definition of ecotourism proposed

by the Wood et al. (1991) as described earlier, he simply expressed that

ecotourism can be applied to subsets of natural, cultural or adventure tourism and

can reflect the evolution of an ethical overlay.

In some literature, ecotourism is identified as a form of alternative tourism to

mass tourism (Wearing and Neil 1999; Dimitrios and Westlake 2001; Wood

2002). This is because alternative tourism has features or key characteristics that

are consistent with those of ecotourism (Wearing and Neil 1999). These features

generally include tourism activities where: (1) the endorsement of infrastructure

improves the local condition and thus it is not destructive of, nor does it exceed

the carrying capacity, of the natural environment or the limits of the social

14

environment in such a way that the quality of community life is adversely

affected; (2) the impacts on the environment are minimized, are ecologically

sounds and avoids the negative impacts of many large-scale tourism

developments undertaken in areas that have not previously been developed; (3)

there is attempted preservation, protection and enhancement of the quality of the

resource base which is fundamental to tourism itself; (4) there is fostering and

active promotion of development in relation to additional visitor attractions and

infrastructure, with the roots in the specific locale and developed in ways that

complement local attributes.

Alternative tourism as broadly defined by Wearing and Neil (1999), includes

forms of tourism that are in sympathy with natural, social and community values

allowing both host and guest to enjoy positive and worthwhile interactions and

shared experiences. Ecotourism in its simplest sense can therefore be generally

described as low-key, minimal impact, interpretative tourism where conservation,

understanding and appreciation of the environment and cultures visited are

sought.

Ecotourism has also been defined as tourism that is not adventure or nature-based,

but is much more demanding than other forms of tourism. Adventure tourism,

according to Scace (1993), is a leisure activity that takes place in an unusual,

exotic, and remote or wilderness destination and tends to be associated with high

levels of activity by participants, most of which takes place outdoor. Therefore,

the adventure traveller expects to experience varying degrees of risk, excitement

and tranquillity and to be personally tested or stretched in some way.

There are a number of dimensions to nature-based tourism. Ecotourism does not

necessarily include all forms of travel to nature tourism but it provides a useful

step in differentiating nature-based tourism from ecotourism.

15

Goodwin, differentiates ecotourism from nature-based tourism, thus defining

nature tourism as:

a kind of travel for the purpose of enjoying undeveloped natural areas of wildlife

and so nature tourism includes mass tourism, adventure tourism, low impact tourism and

ecotourism. Goodwin (1996:287)

Ecotourism by contrast was defined as:

as a low–impact nature tourism with contribution to the maintenance of species

and habitats through conservation and community development. Goodwin (1996: 288)

Nature-based tourism is tourism in the natural environment with the focus on

experiences of nature-based products (Hemmi (as cited in Bjork 2000); Valkama

(as cited Bjork in 2000); Wearing and Neil 1999). In other words, nature-based

tourism is centered on activities or experiences that are dependent and enhanced

by nature in which the natural setting is incidental (Wearing & Neil 1999).

In adventure and nature-based tourism, as well as in ecotourism, nature is in focus

and all these three tourism forms are nature-based. The difference between

ecotourism on one hand and nature and adventure tourism on the other hand is

that ecotourism by definition has a built-in sustainable dimension and a multi-

focus approach in which all actors involved have to benefit in the long run (Bjork

2000). Basically, the fundamental concerns of ecotourism, as highlighted by

Wearing & Neil (1999), include environmental degradation, impact on local

communities, and the need for high quality tourism management for achievable

sustainability. Clearly the overall definition of nature-based tourism is not totally

appropriate in defining ecotourism.

The natural environment is central to ecotourism, which is focused on biological

and physical features. The conservation of natural areas and sustainable resource

management is therefore essential to the planning, development and management

16

of ecotourism. Therefore, an essential feature of ecotourism is sustainability but

according to Wearing and Neil (1999), without progressive planning and policy

frameworks, the principles of sustainability will be difficult to implement on a

broad scale.

Bjork (2000) in his analysis of his selected ecotourism definition he stated that:

ecotourism is a form of tourism that does not exceed the carrying capacity of an

area, but contributes to sustainable development and conservation. (Brojk 2000:194)

Wight (1993) also goes on to explain the close ties that ecotourism has with

sustainable development and how that often means favouring supply (resource

constraints and the needs of local people) over demand.

Butler (1991) defines environmentally sustainable tourism as: (1) a form of

tourism that supports ecological balance thus suggesting a working definition of

sustainable development in the context of tourism; a form of tourism which

develops and maintains an area (community and environment) in such a manner

and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not

degrade or alter the environment. Wright (1994), on the other hand, defines

sustainable tourism as tourism that produces economic advantages, in addition to

maintaining environmental diversity and quality, thus ‘combining conservation

with economic development’. A primary means of maintaining sustainability is by

limiting tourist numbers and therefore the possibility for environmental

degradation (Inskeep 1991). In this way ecotourism is a supply-led approach that

involves determining visitor numbers based on the environment’s capacity (its

ability to support) rather than by the demand for it (Wearing and Neil 1999).

Achieving sustainable development in relation to ecotourism will therefore be

difficult because of the extraordinary expansion of demand for access to natural

areas. This is because ecotourism is more dependent on intact natural

environments and is concentrated in ecologically sensitive areas. Without

17

appropriate regulations, the problem of overexploitation, and in particular

ecological degradation, may be intensified with the development of ecotourism

(Mieczkowski 1995).

c) Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism Development

The concept of sustainable tourism development, like ecotourism, has also been

interestingly debated by many authors over the years.

Butler (1992) argues that ‘sustainable tourism’ and ‘tourism in the context of

sustainable development’ are different from each other. This is because

‘sustainable tourism’ makes no implication about the environment or sustainable

development while ‘tourism in the context of sustainable development’

incorporates key features that are common to the implication of the term

sustainable development. These features are based on tourism development that

implies control and management, addressing the types and scale of tourism as

important factors, developing tourism on a ‘long-term horizon’, and finally

understanding that the impacts imposed by tourism on a destination area should

be at a level or of such a type that it does not prohibit either economic activities or

natural processes.

Hunter (1995) on the other hand, expressed ‘sustainable tourism development’ as

a tourism activity that protects the immediate resource base and allows the

development of tourism to be sustained. Goodall and Stabler (1999) identified

five principles of sustainable tourism development. These five principles deal

with generating real net benefits to society; treating the environment as natural

capital; acting with caution in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence; and

using resources that do not alter environmental equity. MacGregor (1993) also

listed six principles used as guidelines for sustainable tourism development.

Again these principles focus on carrying capacity; maintaining biodiversity and

minimizing depletion of resources; promoting development that maintains natural

18

wealth; equitable distribution of costs, benefits and management responsibilities;

allowing effective participation of local communities and other interest groups in

decision-making processes; and finally encouraging others to help promote

sustainability.

How then does ecotourism link itself to sustainable tourism development?

Ecotourism, done well, can be a sustainable and relatively simple alternative

(Whelan 1991). This is because ecotourism can provide income for local

communities and increase foreign exchange on a national, governmental level

while allowing the continued existence of the natural resource base. In fact,

ecotourism cannot survive unless the resource on which it is based is protected. It

can empower local communities, giving them a sense of pride in their natural

resources and control over their communities’ development. Ecotourism can

educate travellers about the importance of the ecosystem they visit and actively

involve them in conservation efforts. Overall, ecotourism has the potential to

maximize economic benefits and minimize environmental penalties. Basically, the

implication of ecotourism as an exemplar to sustainable tourism has stemmed

largely from its potential to generate various economic benefits (Lindberg et al.

1998). Providing visitor satisfaction with the ecotourism experience is essential to

the long-term viability of the ecotourism industry, which will further generate

revenue for the management of natural areas and at the same time create

employment opportunities for the local population.

d) Ecotourism on a Global Scale: Opportunities, Challenges and Threats

While difficult to measure at this time, ecotourism on a global scale within the

tourism industry has been identified as one of the fastest growing tourism

segments (Buckley 1994; Deardon and Harron 1993; Wild 1994; Eagles and

Demare 1995) and has therefore been identified as a growing niche market within

the larger travel industry, with the potential of being an important sustainable

development tool (Wood 2002). In 1998, the World Tourism Organization

19

estimated ecotourism to be worth some US$20 million a year and together with

nature-based tourism to account for 20% of the global international travel.

Estimates by Fillion et al. (1994) suggest that in 1988 there were between 157 and

236 million international ecotourists, generating economic impacts of $93 billion

to $233 billion. In Costa Rico, a country that has increasingly tailored its industry

to fit the ecotourism niche (Evans-Pritchard 1993), foreign exchange receipts

from tourism have surpassed those brought by traditional export products (coffee

and bananas) to become the country’s most important economic activity (ICT

1993). In the Asia-Pacific region, ecotourism has grown faster than tourism

generally (Lindberg et al. 1998) thus signifying an attractive investment

proportion. The contributing popular assumptions regarding the sector’s potential

economic, environmental and socio-cultural benefits have increased the

widespread interest in the engagement of ecotourism operators among tourism

planners and marketers (Weaver 1999). With billions of dollars in its annual sales,

ecotourism has been regarded as a real industry that seeks to take advantage of

market trends (Wood 2002) but at the same time, it has frequently operated quite

differently from other segments of the tourism industry. This is because

ecotourism has been defined by its sustainable development results relating to the

conservation of natural areas, educating visitors about sustainability and above all,

benefiting the local people.

The potential of ecotourism as a mean to protect some of the world’s most

endangered ecosystems has created an opportunity for communities with valuable

biological resources to develop sustainable strategies, instead of pursuing

environmentally damaging patterns of resource use (Lindsay 2003). The

description of ecotourism as having the financial potential to maximize economic

benefits and minimize environmental costs has identified ecotourism as a viable

economic alternative to the exploitation of the environment (Whelan 1991).

According to Ziffer (1989) the goal of ecotourism is to capture a portion of the

enormous global tourism market by attracting visitors to natural areas and using

the revenues to fund local conservation and fuel economic development.

20

There are intense economic pressures on the people to make use of their natural

resources, and in many countries today, protected areas have been established to

conserve biodiversity and to halt the large-scale loss of natural ecosystems. As

last reported by Wearing and Neil (1999), there are approximately 8500 protected

areas globally, which cover about 5.17% of the earth’s land surface (over 773

million ha). The concept of ecotourism according to Drumm and Moore (2002),

is best suited to partner with protected area management that has fairly strict

conservation objectives and in the less developed countries ecotourism has often

been promoted in association with protected areas (Stem et al. 2003). This is

because ecotourism is reliant on the natural phenomena in relatively undisturbed

sites such as protected areas. The establishment of such protected areas is

primarily intended to preserve some type of biophysical process or condition such

as wildlife population and habitats. Tourists visit these protected areas to

understand and appreciate the values for which the area was established and to

gain personal benefits. Basically, protected areas can provide attractions for

ecotourism and in return ecotourism can help facilitate the objectives of protected

areas and can therefore support biodiversity conservation (Bookfinder et al.

1998).

The demand on the use of protected areas for ecotourism is increasing and

because of this protected areas are now faced with a lot of challenges. The

potential of ecotourism as a means of generating money has meant that many

countries now regard ecotourism mainly as source of financial gain instead of as a

tool for supporting conservation. Viewed in this light, it can be seen that although

ecotourism offers many potential benefits, it can also create new threats to

conservation efforts.

In China the use of ecotourism illustrates the difficulty operators and communities

have in interpreting and defining ecotourism in ways satisfactory to both. For

example, ecotourism has rapidly increased in popularity in China for some time.

Some scenic sites and forest parks have specifically targeted tourists and many

21

nature reserves have also been pushed onto the market as tourism products. In

1999, as reported by Nianyong and Zhunge (2001), China possessed a total of

1146 nature reserves covering 8.8% of its territory, 97% of which were

established over the past 2 decades, as part of the rapid development of national

conservation efforts. Further to the authors’ findings, the operation of ecotourism

in the area has revealed that most nature reserve managers have dealt with the

concept of ecotourism on the basis of their own understanding that it literally to

means nature sightseeing, without associating it with conservation or other related

aspects. Although most nature reserves claimed that they were carrying out

ecotourism, field investigations revealed that only a few reserves had met the

requirements of real ecotourism. Ecotourism in these nature reserves, to a great

extent, had meant ‘nature tourism’ as in Goodwin’s (1996) definition of nature

tourism. Added to this, the present management planning system in the

development of China’s nature reserves actually keeps environmental protection

and tourism operation separate in terms of economic flow. This system has

therefore blocked necessary inputs into environmental protection and created an

irrational situation where the nature reserves are responsible for covering the cost

of environmental protection but other agencies obtain the profit through tourism

business in the reserves. In many of the reserves, where tourism revenues were

put back into environmental protection, the amount made available was far below

the real cost. Less than 5% of the income received was used for conservation

management, with most taken by other stakeholders. Local community

participation was not encouraged and thus the protection of the environment was

separated from the interest of the local communities and local economic

development. China’s definition of ecotourism in this case has been according to

the local cultures and socio-economic contexts and environments.

A common shortcoming of ecotourism projects is that the local people are not

given any role in the planning process or implementation, (Whelan 1991;

Campbell 1999; Stem et al. 2003) and in some cases, they are forced off areas that

are traditionally theirs to use (Whelan 1991). Not surprisingly, they become

22

resentful of the rich tourists who supplant them, but more importantly, economic

needs make it difficult for them not to overexploit the resources of an area that is

protected. In Costa Rico, according to Whelan (1991), the planning associated

with the country’s spectacular parks system took place on a national level, not a

local level. This caused people to move off their land, often without being

compensated, and occasionally they were discouraged from entering the parks at

all. In many cases important sources of income were no longer available. This, not

surprisingly, caused many Costa Ricans living near the national park to cause

problems within park boundaries.

Over the years, areas protected for the purpose of ecotourism undergo crisis

because insufficient funds are being dedicated to their management and

protection. This is because countries often focus their attention on purchasing

lands, but then fail to follow up with adequate funds for infrastructure and

management. This is true in Costa Rica, where spending for parks (excluding

acquisition) has remained at the same level for ten years and in Kenya, where

until recently only $7 million of the $300 million generated by parks was returned

to them (Whelan 1991). In China, seven out of fifteen reserves that earned annual

income over one million Yuan actually use less than 5% of the income for

conservation management (Nianyong and Zhuge 2001). Because tourism can be

the very thing that threatens the survival of a protected area, it is very important to

consider a limited and aesthetic carrying capacity of the area. The ecological

capacity is reached when the number and characteristics of visitors start to affect

the wildlife and degrade the ecosystem. The aesthetic carrying capacity, on the

other hand, is reached when tourists encounter so many other tourists, or sees the

impact of other visitors (e.g. litter, deforestation etc.) that their enjoyment of the

site is spoiled. The rapid increase in the number of ecotourists has overloaded

fragile areas. For example, Thailand observed an increase in the number of

tourists visiting national parks and protected areas from 5 million in 1985 to 11.5

million in 1994 (Hvenegaard and Dearden 1998). This was identified as an

apparent growth during the 1980s and 1990s. In Nepal, tourist numbers increased

23

fivefold from 45,000 in 1970 to 223,000 in 1986. Over the same period, the

number of ecotourists (trekkers mostly) almost tripled from 12,000 to 33,600.

This increase has resulted in the rapid emergence of more than 200 mountain

lodges and the clearing of large areas in order to supply firewood for lodgers and

trekkers (Whelan 1991).

Protected or conserved areas supporting ecotourism are often managed by a

number of agencies with conflicting goals and objectives. In Costa Rica, agencies

often have conflicting needs for natural areas, ranging from logging to the

generation of hydroelectricity. Conflicting goals and needs are not only the

province of governmental agencies and therefore government, but also of

conservationists, local communities, tour operators and development agencies, all

of whom need to resolve their differences and work together, if ecotourism is to

be sustainable.

Ecotourists are vital players in the success or failure of ecotourism. Previous

studies have also found that a high proportion of ecotourists join conservation

groups and contribute financially to conservation causes (Hvenegaard and

Dearden 1998). They visit protected areas to understand and appreciate their value

while furthering conservation, but may also unwittingly contribute to their

destruction. In the Caribbean, tourists buy jewellery made from black coral and

other rare reef marine life. In Monteverde, the nesting of Quetzals is sometimes

disrupted by tourists, who rap on their nests and then wait, camera in their hand,

to capture their flight. Trekkers in Nepal and elsewhere leave behind the litter

from food and other items they have carried in (Whelan 1991). It is therefore

important that ecotour operators must instil their clients a conservation ethic for

environmentally sensitive travel in their clients if they are going to continue to

bring in visitors to fragile sites.

In short, ecotourism if done well has the capacity to bring employment and

income to local communities and needed foreign exchange to national

24

governments, while allowing the continued existence of the natural resource base.

In fact, it cannot survive unless the resource on which it is based is protected

(Whelan 1991). It can empower local communities, giving them a sense of pride

in their natural resources and control over their communities’ development. It can

also educate travellers about the importance of the ecosystems they visit and

actively involve them in conservation efforts.

e) Ecotourism as an Attractive Option for Island Communities

Island communities have limited resources and capacity for economic

development, and therefore many are seeking various forms of development to

allow income flow into their economy. Ecotourism represents an attractive means

of generating revenue for four important reasons.

Firstly, ecotourism is often regarded as nature-based and many island

communities possess a rich variety of natural attractions that can potentially

attract ecotourists. Also, little investment is required to develop such attractions,

so start-up costs are relatively low. Secondly, ecotourism can reduce dependency

on a particular resource (mostly agricultural products) that an island traditionally

depends on for generating money and in the long run can prevent the collapse of

that particular resource.

Thirdly, ecotourism strongly encourages the involvement of local communities on

the island both through local employment or having more locals buy a stake in

tourism operations. Because of this, the possibility of leakages of revenue from

tourism is reduced. Finally, because island communities are extremely vulnerable

to external influences and pressure from all forms of economic activity (Butler

1992), ecotourism can help buffer the environment from detrimental influences.

By directly connecting sound environmental management with maintenance of

environmental capital, in theory, ecotourism should provide a viable economic

alternative to exploitation of the environment.

25

Even though ecotourism is an icon for sustainable development, ecotourism is not

automatically a sustainable option (Charters 1996). Human activities such as

ecotourism are dependent on the consumption of ecological resources, and

therefore cannot be sustained indefinitely unless an important principle underpins

its organization. Without adequate understanding of the underlying factors and

careful planning and management, ecotourism may compromise prospects for

sustainable development not only for tourism in particular, but also for the islands

in general, because some of the issues raised earlier are magnified in small island

states. Ecotourism therefore should involve collective responsibility and a holistic

approach that involves governments, tourists, tourism enterprises and destination

areas. Satisfying the basic needs of the local population should be the focus of

responsibility by incorporating them more fully into the planning, development,

and the running of any ecotourism operation occurring within island communities.

Planning in ecotourism enables developers and managers to foster tourism in such

a way that it will not only protect the natural environment but will also bring

about a greater understanding of it. Involving locals as key stakeholders in the

planning process of ecotourism embraces the interest and input made by all.

Ecotourism can be sustainable in small island communities but as Charters (1996)

highlights, it will only be sustainable if it is recognized that adequate

understanding and careful planning of ecotourism is necessary if it to be a

success.

26

ECOTOURISM AND ENVIRONMANTAL CONSERVATION

a) Ecotourism and Environmental Conservation: Can it be achieved?

Conservation issues are now at the forefront of public concerns. The decline of

natural rainforest, losses of endangered species, global warming and increasing

land degradation have galvanized public support for conservation. Conservation,

according to Dunster and Dunster (1996), basically involves the management or

control of human use of resources (biotic and abiotic) in an attempt to restore,

enhance, protect, and sustain the quality and quantity of a desired mix of species,

ecosystem conditions and processes for present and future generations.

Ecotourism therefore has been described as an answer to this because of its

potential for supporting conservation of natural ecosystems and promoting

sustainable local development (Boo 1990; Buckley 1994; Wallace and Pierce

1996; Lindberg et al. 1997). Natural resource conservation is thus necessary

because ecotourism is a form of nature-based tourism and, as such, depends on

the natural environment for its existence. Tourism can be important to natural

resource conservation because part of the income from tourism can be re-invested

into maintaining natural areas (Budowski 1977).

The growth of ecotourism as an environmentally sustainable and economically

viable conservation strategy, scholars and practitioners have expressed concern

that opportunistic tourism operators are capitalizing an ecotourism’s appeal to

promote activities with little or no true attention to environmental and social

responsibility (Boo 1990; Honey 1999; Wright 1994). There are some examples

of ecotourism that have advanced conservation objectives by raising awareness

and creating jobs, while other cases illustrate that it can also jeopardize

environmental goals through unintended side effects or the adoption of the term

‘ecotourism’ by those hoping to capitalize on it (Stem et al. 2003). An example of

this is ecotourism development in Costa Rica, where ecotourism became more

centered on making money, once it was identified as an economic benefit to the

27

country, than its initial purpose, which was conserving the forest from agricultural

and pastoral alterations (Honey 1999).

The role of ecotourism in environmental conservation has raised the interest of

many writers, who have tried to address the question of how they can complement

each other at a sustainable level. Ross and Wall (1999) designed a model in order

to describe how this was viewed by Wood (1991) and Ceballos-Lascurain (1996)

in which their perspectives on ecotourism were analyzed as a means of protecting

natural areas through the generation of revenue, environmental education and the

involvement of local people (in both decisions regarding appropriate

developments and associated benefits) and in such a way, both conservation and

development will be prompted in a sustainable form. Ecotourism basically can

offer great conservation and development potential when it is a significant force

in the local economy and when it offers widespread benefits without

compromising a community’s sole economic base (Stem et al. 2003).

Again, according to Wearing and Neil (1999), the success of an ecotourism site

reflects the extent to which it is able to protect natural resources and biodiversity,

generate money to finance conservation and contribute to local the economy,

educate visitors and members of local communities, thereby encouraging

environmental advocacy and involving local people in conservation and

development issues. Here we see that, not only can ecotourism address

conservation, but that it has to be approached holistically with the generation of

income to support conservation, environmental education awareness and

interpretation, and above all community involvement. Ecotourism is also unlikely

to be an effective conservation strategy if it operates only through occupying

community members’ time or creating economic incentives to make an

ecotourism site more valuable. It is also important to increase general

understanding of ecotourism because without attention to creating awareness

and/or reinforcing respect for nature, questions will still remain about people’s

commitment to conservation (Stem et al. 2003). The provision of environmental

28

education and interpretation of ecotourism will foster awareness and

understanding of the natural environment and consequently promote pro-

environmental attitudes and responsible environmental behaviour (Nianyong and

Zhuge 2001; Beamount 2001).

Goudberg et al. (1991) also suggest that ‘those who are informed are more likely

to support conservation of natural resources because they can appreciate the full

range of natural resource values and identify with the resource at risk’ (pp. 30).

Although financial concerns are likely to play a role in resource management,

higher levels of awareness or appreciation could ensure greater potential for

favourable conservation practices over the long term. Salasfsky et al. (1999), for

example, allude to the importance of education and awareness in helping

conservation-based enterprises achieve their environmental goals.

To return to some of the definitions of ecotourism identified earlier in the chapter,

even though conservation of the natural environment is greatly emphasized in

ecotourism, and is identified as one of its key elements, the success of ecotourism

depends on the objectives it sets out to achieve (Ross and Wall 1999). Valentine

(1991) draws attention to the ‘two-way interaction’ between ecotourism and the

environment upon which it depends, by suggesting that one characteristic of

ecotourism is that it contributes both to conservation and to enjoyment of nature.

That is, ecotourism involves a focus on nature as the primary motivation for

travel, to expand knowledge and awareness of nature. It also involves the notion

that the activity of ecotourism must positively contribute to conservation in the

destination area or host-community.

Added to this, the participation and involvement of local communities in

ecotourism projects is also an important factor. This has its advantages and

disadvantages. Some advantages expressed by Drake (1991) are: it can function as

an early warning system, helping managers to avoid, or revise, decisions that

might otherwise cause conflict with the local population; it allows local

29

communities to become more informed about the purpose and benefits of the

project, thereby increasing support for the effort; it can foster better planning and

decision making, thus allowing conflicts to be brought out into the open and

resolved during the planning process; local input also legitimizes the decision-

making process and most importantly, local involvements are secured.

Local participation, in this case, is defined as the ability of local communities to

influence the outcome of development projects (such as ecotourism) that will

have an impact on them. Ecotourism is based on the conservation of natural

resources, resources that are often utilized by the surrounding communities. In

order for an ecotourism project to be successful, communities must be made a part

of it, and can only benefit from ecotourism by playing a greater role in the tourism

process (Wearing and Neil 1999). They need to help preserve the natural

resources for the tourists and must see a benefit for themselves in doing so (Drake

1991). Also, because local communities are often resource owners, the interest

towards protecting or even using their very own environment should not be

divorced from them. It is therefore important that local communities be involved

in the complete tourism development process, from the planning stage to

implementation and management of the ecotourism project, through avenues of

consultation and partnership (Wearing and Neil 1999). Participation in the

planning process, according to Drake (1991), includes tasks such as identifying

problems, formulating alternatives, planning activities and allocating resources.

However, for the planning process to be useful, it needs to be accessible and easy

to understand if the local communities are to assume ownership and control of the

process (McDonald and Wearing 2003). Drake (1991) also emphasizes the

importance of participation in the implementation stage, which may include

actions such as managing and operating a project. Local participation should

result in management strategies being developed at the local level, in conjunction

with stakeholders who have a vested interest in the project. Planning and

management therefore should evolve from bottom up (McDonald and Wearing

2003).

30

The characteristics of communities, according to Ross and Wall (1999), will

influence the extent to which ecotourism affects attitudes towards tourism and

conservation. The contribution ecotourism can make to biodiversity and integrity

of natural areas is as important as the potentially positive effects on adjacent

communities. Based on the definition of ecotourism provided by Wood et al.

(1991) and Ceballos-Lascurain (1987), the authors simply suggested that, in

ecotourism, the natural areas and local populations are united in a symbiotic

relationship through the introduction of tourism. Ross and Wall (1999), also

proposed that in an ideal ecotourism situation, local residents, protected resources

and tourism may benefit the others in an interrelated symbiotic fashion. While

providing an enjoyable experience in nature, the fundamental functions of

ecotourism are protection of natural areas, production of revenue, education, and

local participation and capacity building (Pederson 1991). Each of these functions

is basic to the overall success of ecotourism and together they can lead to the

fulfilment of more specific objectives such as conservation of the natural

environment. Ross and Wall (1999) also emphasized that there are significant

links between people, natural resources, biodiversity protection, and tourism and

that these links need to be fostered because the strengths and weaknesses of any

one link can have implications for the other links.

While ecotourism has the potential to create positive environmental impact, it can

unfortunately be as damaging as mass tourism (Butler 1990; Wheeller 1993;

Nelson 1994) if not done properly (Wood 2002). Therefore, the planning and

management of ecotourism or the environment in which ecotourism will take

place should also be a focus of interest in conservation and must therefore be

addressed. The goals of ecotourism management strategies are to protect the

environment and to provide the tourist with a great ecotourism experience.

Moreover, ecotourism should take an active form so activities contribute to the

health and viability of the environment where they take place (Orams 1995).

31

Planning for ecotourism is based on resource limitations, as ecotourism

opportunities will be lost if the resilience of an area and the ability of its

communities to adopt change are exceeded, or if its biodiversity and physical

appearance are altered significantly. Coral reefs, for example, are a very fragile

ecosystem and therefore only a little pressure is sufficient to push them out of

equilibrium. Once this happens it is virtually impossible to arrest decline, while

still exploiting the reef as an ecotourism resource. The whole ecosystem can,

within a decade, be damaged beyond repair and may even disappear altogether,

because the ecosystem has low resistance to impact and is not bounded by any

capacity to return to its natural state. Once coral, the key structural component of

the system, dies the ecosystem is lost. This is well illustrated by the Diani Reef,

south of Mombassa, which has been so damaged by tourists trampling on the reef

and picking corals that it is now virtually dead (Taylor and Dangerfield 1999).

Here we see that ecotourism requires that an entire ecosystem, or at least the

biological diversity that it contains, should be managed in relation to the tourism

experience.

Ecotourism on its own will not save disappearing ecosystems or liberate

communities from poverty. In fact, unless it is planned to minimize environmental

damage, maximize economic outcome and involve local communities, then it may

actually harm the environment and local peoples. But if ecotourism is to be

planned as a tool for sustainable development, one should include various

measures such as local participation generation of funds to manage areas

conserved or protected, carrying capacity and addressing conflicting management

objectives and ecotourists as activist (Whelan 1991).

32

CONCLUSION

The global tourism industry has played an important role in generating large

portions of the domestic product of many developing countries. As a result, many

less developed and undeveloped countries elsewhere in the world have turned to

tourism to improve their economic performance, resulting in further growth in the

global tourism industry. Increased dependency on tourism over the years has

resulted in increased dependency on the use of the natural environment. This is

simply because all tourist attractions are to some extent linked either directly or

by association with the natural environment of a destination.

Tourism should ideally form a symbiotic relationship with the environment.

Basically, tourism needs the natural environment as its attraction and in return the

natural environment needs tourism to conserve and preserve it. However, in many

places around the world, the development of tourism has taken a detour around

maintaining such a relationship. Tourism development has posed great threats to

the natural environment, thus raising issues regarding its future impact. In

response to these, the concept of ‘ecotourism’, which became a phenomenon in

the 1990s, was introduced in order to solve the problem and enhance the

symbiotic relationship of the environment and tourism, thus providing

environmental benefits.

Since the introduction of ecotourism in the 1980s, the term has defined and

redefined by many theorists, thus resulting in the development of many debating

issues regarding what the concepts and principles of ecotourism are believed to be

or should achieve. In the continuous battle to define the meaning of ecotourism,

many theorists in the 1990s began to stress various dimensions of their definition

so as to understand its nature and concept better, in order to apply them

realistically. Even though many theorists were conveying similar ideas in their

definition of ecotourism, the commonality of perspective towards the definition

relates to four key components of ecotourism and what ecotourism should be.

33

Ecotourism, therefore, should (1) be about travelling to undisturbed areas; (2) be

nature-based; (3) be educational; (4) be primarily concerned with environmental

conservation or protection. The normative nature of the debate, as described by

many of the theorists, which this case study has taken into account of, are based

on the fact that ecotourism be environmentally educative, meaning that the

environment used should provide a learning experience to the users. It should be

sustainably managed meaning that tourism activities should be well managed and

maintained so that that they it do not alter the well being of the local people and

the way in which they use their resources. Also ecotourism should be

conservation led, meaning that it should contribute to the protection of the natural

environment in order to foster conservation of natural resources by informing

local communities about the importance of their natural resources. In the long run,

not only should the environment benefit from ecotourism, but communities

should also be able to use it as an opportunity to draw economic benefits from a

tourist attraction. Overall, the most important priority of ecotourism is that it

should safeguard the environment used. All of these factors are incorporated into

the four key components of ecotourism as have described above.

In many developing countries today, ecotourism is adopted simply because it is an

alternative form of tourism focused on environmentally sound practices that

contribute to the protection and conservation of the environment as tourism takes

its course towards development at the expense of the environment. Ecotourism’s

potential to create sustainable tourism development has also encouraged its

adoption. Adoption of ecotourism is also attractive because it maximizes

economic benefits and minimizes environmental cost on both a local and a

national level, although this is only achievable with careful planning and

management.

The practice of ecotourism globally creates many opportunities, challenges and

threats as it develops rapidly within the tourism industry. The experience of China

illustrates the difficulty of defining and interpreting ecotourism, as they have

34

provided myriad interpretations according to local cultures and socio-economic

contexts and environments. For many other developing countries, ecotourism can

be a salvation of endangered ecosystems and wildlife and creates the opportunity

for many that possess biological resources to develop them sustainably rather than

damaging such assets. Because of the concept of protected areas and their benefit

towards biodiversity and ecosystem protection, ecotourism in protected areas

therefore should be carefully managed. In other words, they should simply

complements each other meaning, that as protected areas provide the attraction for

ecotourism, ecotourism in return should facilitate the objectives of the protected

area and can therefore support biodiversity. The driven attention and interest of

ecotourism as a source of revenue for many countries can divert and manipulate

the core concepts of what ecotourism should be achieving in the context of

supporting conservation. Ecotourism, essentially, should encourage community

involvement in the planning and implementation of ecotourism projects but in

many cases, this very involvement has been ignored and has therefore resulted in

failure. The provision of education and awareness to tourists should be heavily

emphasized in the concept of ecotourism, as tourists play a vital role in its success

and failure. It is sad however, that some tourists may in fact contribute to the

continuous damage of the environment.

Because of limited availability of resources and the capacity for economic

development experienced by many island communities, ecotourism can be an

attractive option for many reasons. Also developing ecotourism attractions is

often inexpensive because the attractions are nature-based and island communities

are commonly rich with these. Additionally, ecotourism can reduce the

dependency on sales of a particular product that an island has specialized in for

many years. Ecotourism can also allow the involvement of local people within

islands and can therefore create greater employment opportunities and human

resource management thus reducing leakages. Last but not least, ecotourism can

help safeguard the environment from detrimental impacts, as island communities

35

are very vulnerable to outside pressure concerning economic activities that

depend on the environment.

Finally, planning and implementation process of ecotourism should be

approached holistically. This would naturally involve local communities, various

tourism stakeholders and governments. Prior to this, the objectives of ecotourism

should be clearly defined because not only should ecotourism be a form of

generating economic benefit but also it should protect and conserve the

environment that its success depends on.

Fiji is an island state with limited resources and capacity for economic

development and has therefore used its natural resources for ecotourism as a

viable option for generating income flow into its economy. But because Fiji’s

natural environment may be put at risk as a result of growing tourism, ecotourism

at this point stands as an alternative option that would provide greater benefits

locally and at the same time maintain the integrity of the country’s environment.

However, before any further plans are made to promote ecotourism, it is prudent

at this point in time to build an understanding of the strengths and weakness of

ecotourism at a local level. For this reason, this research has been undertaken to

observe the existing ecotourism operation in Fiji as its case study.

36

CHAPTER THREE

THE RESEARCH CONTEXT: ECOTOURISM IN FIJI

INTRODUCTION

The growth of mass international tourism over the last 50 years represents one of

the pivotal changes in recent human history. Fiji has been increasingly involved in

this mass movement of people across national boundaries. Tourism in Fiji has

been encouraged because of its potential as a foreign exchange earner, the

multiplier effects of infrastructure development and the growth of other

industries. This chapter provides an insight in to the development of tourism and

ecotourism in Fiji over recent years.

To begin with, this chapter provides a reflection on the contribution of the tourism

industry to Fiji’s economy. Because of the increase in demand for the use of the

environment for tourism development, this chapter also describes how ecotourism

has been developed, adapted and defined in Fiji’s context towards sustainable

development. We then highlight some of the criteria used for assessing a tourism

project as ecotourism. Also discussed in this chapter are some of the issues that

may directly or indirectly affect the development of ecotourism for Fiji in the

future.

A background of the Yasawa Islands is also given to illustrate the rationale for its

selection as a study site.

37

A REFLECTION ON THE TOURISM INDUSTRY IN FIJI

Fiji stands out among Pacific island economies in terms of the size of its natural

resources endowment and its level of economic and social development. It has a

relatively well-educated population, a well developed entrepreneurial class, and

good physical infrastructure, and it is the commercial capital for much of the

Pacific islands economic activity, as well as being the focal point for much of the

Pacific islands trade.

Fiji has a population of 778,000 (1996 census) of diverse ethnic origins

comprising indigenous Fijian (50%), people of Indian origin (44.8%), European,

Chinese and others (5.2%).

Tourism and the sugar industry are the two mainstays of Fiji’s economy. Tourism

has been one of the largest sources of economic growth in comparison to other

industries such as fisheries, garment manufacture and forestry. As an economic

mainstay of the country, tourism has since 1989, reduced the previous heavy

dependence on sugar for foreign exchange earnings.

From 1963 to 1990, it was reported by Ulak (1993) that the gross tourism receipts

rose from F$3.6 million to F$336 million. In the same period, the industry’s

contribution to Fiji’s gross domestic product (GDP) rose from less than 4% in

1963 to over 12% (the exchange rate was US$1 = FJ$1.54 in 1993) in 1984. Also

Ulak (1993) reported an increase in number of visitors from just over 18,000 in

1962 to over one quarter of a million in 1986, the year before the two 1987 coups.

These coups caused an outflow of revenue, emigration of Indo-Fijians and a

decline in tourism. The coups negatively impacted the tourism trade so that in

1988 the number of visitors declined to 208,000; however, by 1990 tourism again

was on the rise and by 1992, the number of tourists had reached almost 280,000

(Ministry of Tourism 2004). In 1990, the recorded employment number in Fiji’s

tourism industry rose to over 5,300 people (Bureau of Statistics 2005). Fiji made

around $F430 million dollars from tourism in 1996, making the industry a

38

contender for the number one spot (Keith-Reid, 2003) compared to other money

generating industries. A similar trend of a rapid decline and then again an increase

occurred in relation to the coup of 2000. Visitor arrivals in 2001 were 348,014,

compared with a record 409,955 in 1999, but recovered to 397,859 in 2002

(Ministry of Tourism 2004). In 2001, Fiji had earned FJ$521 million dollars

(Tuqiri 2002) from its tourism sector.

In the latest record, for 2003, tourism receipts totalled around FJ$639 million

(Bureau of Statistics 2005) almost doubling the amount earned a decade ago,

representing around 15% of GDP. Since the late 1990s tourism has been

identified as having directly and indirectly provided employment to over 45,000

people (Bricker 2003). Earlier predictions are that by 2005, there will be around

265,000 new jobs created within tourism (Tourism Forum of 2004).

FIJI’S TOURISM PRODUCT

The success of tourism in a country like Fiji is greatly dependent on the marketing

of a clean, friendly, relaxing environment together with a variety of natural

attractions even though it is centrally located on the main sea and air routes

between the US, Australia and New Zealand. In terms of its tourism product, Fiji

offers all of the attributes associated with a tropical island destination: sun, sea,

sand and surf along with a reputation for friendly service and affordability. Fiji

over the years has become famous for its natural, cultural and historical resources

as the trademarks for tourist attractions. It is a country of rich biodiversity and

natural attributes. Added to this, Fiji has also been well marketed as an untouched

or untapped paradise with many of its flora and fauna still intact even though at

some stage there has been continuous alteration of the natural environment in

order to accommodate tourism facilities and infrastructure. An example of Fiji’s

untouched natural environment potential to the tourist industry as an attraction is

the Sovi Basin. This is an area that contains 11 forest types, 32 forest bird species

(19 of which are endemic to Fiji) and a vibrant marine life with some unidentified

fish species and vegetation that is increasingly pristine as one heads further inland

39

and higher. Some of the natural resources of Fiji used as tourist attractions are

oceans, vegetation, rivers, sand dunes and waterfalls. Nature-based tourism in Fiji

is vast with the sea and marine environment becoming the major attractions. Most

importantly, their value lies in their beauty, scarcity in the global market and the

presumption that they are pristine. The marine environment of Fiji is exceptional

because its reef system has about 390 coral species, 1200 varieties of fish, and 5

out of 7 species of marine turtles found globally, and possibly most importantly,

hosts the third-longest reef in the world. Tourists during their stay in Fiji are often

encouraged to visit remote beaches, snorkel and dive incredible reefs that

accommodate many diverse marine fauna. Many dive sites of Fiji are known to be

rich with many different corals and an impressive collection of charismatic, large,

pelagic species such as grouper, tuna, barracuda, shark and many more.

The cultural and historical resources also contribute to Fiji’s tourism attractions.

These include historical buildings, e.g. Fiji Museum, Orchid Island, traditional

ceremonies, cuisine, markets and many more attractions. Traditionally, Fiji has

traded on the idyllic South Pacific paradise tourist image with its happy smiling

indigenous faces, though this picture cracked with the May 2000 coup. The coup

basically resulted in a sudden decrease of tourist arrivals in 2000 by 28.3% from

the recorded arrival figure of 1999, although it later picked up again from 2001,

thus recording an 18.3% increase, which was continuing to rise in 2003 (Ministry

of Tourism 2004).

THE LEGISLATIVE AND STATUTORY CONTEXT OF ECOTOURISM

IN FIJI

Based on a recent survey conducted in 2002, there are 22 currently licensed

ecotourism operators in Fiji (Parliamentary Paper 2002) and this has increased

over the years till 2005 (including the unlicensed operators). The majority of these

ecotourism operators (licensed or not) are based in the Western side of Viti Levu,

with a few in other parts of Fiji including Kadavu, Vanua Levu (mostly in

40

Taveuni and Savusavu) and one in Vanuabalavu in Lau. Most of these operators

are indigenous Fijians running either as community-based or as local individuals

marketing their product to ecotourists on the basis of natural and cultural

experiences.

The criteria probably used to categories these tourism operators as ecotourism

were those provided by the Fiji Ministry of Tourism (2004). These criteria are

based on the WTO guidelines relating to the five principles of sustainable

ecotourism, which are: the principles of complementarity; the principle of

environmental conservation; the principle of social co-operation; the principle of

centralized information; and the principle of strong and effective institutions

(Harrison 1999). According to an interview with Mr. Tagivetaua (2005, pers.

comm., 6 June), the assessments of a viable ecotourism project are made on

location, profitability, marketability, availability of skills, availability of capital

and potential growth. This means that the location of the ecotourism site should

be accessible, the operation should show some evidence of having the capacity to

make profits, it should also have staffs that are skillful, the project itself should

also be marketable to the outside and above all, the project should be able to have

capitals available with indication of potential growth.

In 2003, the Ministry of Tourism introduced the criteria of Green Globe 21 for

assessing an ecotourism operation, based on the Agenda 21 principles for

Sustainable Development, which was to be reviewed later in 2004. Under these

criteria, for a tourism project or operation to achieve Ecotourism Certification, it

must be first benchmarked against all the Green Globe 21 Benchmarking

Ecotourism Indicators. These indicators identify ecotourism in a sense that the

operation should be naturally focused, should provide some form of interpretation

and education, should have infrastructure that is ecologically compatible, should

have ecologically sustainable practices, should contribute towards conservation,

should provide benefits to the local communities, should respect the culture as

well as being sensitive towards it, should provide customer satisfaction, should

41

provide responsible marketing and finally, should provide a code of conduct that

minimizes impact. Even though such benchmarking has been achieved in some

cases, for bigger resort operators such as Bounty, Turtle Island, Castaway etc.,

various issues were still raised as to how village-based or small scale tourism

projects could meet the required standards and how exactly they could also

interpret and apply these standards at a local level.

Following a review in 2004, it was disappointingly discovered that many of the

small-scaled local operators that wanted to be benchmarked or certified as

ecotourism could not simply keep up to the standards set by Green Globe 21 due

to the facts that it was difficult to achieve, it was costly, and that the criteria

identified were too advance or too international for a local intervention. This had

then resulted in the Ministry of Tourism having to remodel criteria that were more

workable at a local level. In 2005, after many consultations, a document on a

Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program was endorsed by cabinet

for approval and implementation. This program aligns itself with the Green Globe

21 approach but it has incorporated only accreditation levels believed to be more

applicable in the local context (Appendix 14.0).

Apart from Green Fiji, other guidelines have also been made available to meet

local operators’ standards, which also acknowledge sustainable environmental

practices. An example of this is ‘Making Small Hotels and Resorts

Environmentally Sustainable: A Simple Checklist for Fiji Operators’ (Fiji

Integrated Coastal Management Project 2003).

Regardless of the various ecotourism accreditations identified above, the one fear

that stands at this point is learning how ecotourism is actually interpreted and

implemented by those involved. It is true that accreditation is an effective

instrument for policy enforcement; however, it can be biased in its

implementation as it operates on only one level in terms of managing quality. The

real question therefore that emerges later in this study is how exactly ecotourism

42

is understood or interpreted and practised by communities and other stakeholders,

so that at the end of the day, ecotourism really does provide an incentive to

conserve and protect the natural environment.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF ECOTOURISM

The use of the natural environment in attracting tourists to Fiji has been

recognized for many years now, apart from the common promotion caption of

‘the sun, sand and sea’. As the interest in how Fiji has been benefiting from

tourism grew, many concerns have also been raised on the possible impacts it

would have on the natural or physical environment. According to Harrison and

Brandt (2002), only after providing many consultations regarding the impact of

tourism on the environment did Fiji government begin to develop a National

Tourism Development Plan for the period 1998– 2005. The consultations were in

related to the various issues such as: the risk of environmental damage caused by

the use of the natural and cultural environment for visitors to Fiji; the need to

conserve the natural environment; the importance of the physical environment to

Fiji’s tourism industry; and the need for controls in tourism and other forms of

development if unsightly and extensive damage to Fiji’s natural attractions were

to be avoided. The National Tourism Development Plan was developed to

recognize the links between tourism and the environment, warn the dangers of

pollution of the coastal zone by tourism and (more) by other economic sectors,

and recommend an integrated management scheme whereby pollutions could be

contained and effects mitigated. As a result, the idea of nature tourism and

community-based tourism were then introduced in the Tourism Development Plan

for adoption. Community-based tourism activities were referred to as ecotourism

and nature tourism (Ministry of Tourism and Transport et al. 1998).

Ecotourism in Fiji was encouraged as an initiative towards sustainable tourism.

Francis (1997) in his research on ecotourism in Fiji highlighted three key areas

where ecotourism possibly would provide great benefits to and these are: (1) in

43

local communities because it would allow employment opportunities to locals in

the fields such as natural and cultural site restoration, research, interpretation and

small business management; (2) in the tourism industry itself because it would

level out some of the peak and troughs prevalent in visitor arrival and on the

environment; and (3) in the environment because it could assist in the sustainable

development and the conservation of the natural resources.

Ecotourism in Fiji had been long blended with other tourism activities, primary or

secondary, and therefore has received very little attention in past tourism

development plans. Recently, it has surfaced and has contributed greatly to the

development of a niche markets for those environmentally conscious and

educated travelers.

As a signatory to the biodiversity strategy introduced at the Rio Summit in 1992,

Fiji obligated itself to develop an ecotourism policy (Bricker 2002). In February

1999, a National Ecotourism Policy (NEP) was adopted, titled Ecotourism and

Village-based Tourism: a Policy and Strategy for Fiji. One of the main focuses of

the NEP was to allow opportunities for resource owners to establish and run their

own business, especially in the rural areas, and be hosts to many of the nature

based tourism activities, also referred to as ecotourism. With that, the NEP also

had to branch its focus to other areas such as involving proper planning and

management of resources to encourage the promotion of positive economic and

social impact; reducing leakages of tourism investments; promoting

environmental awareness; encouraging the supply of traditional arts and craft; and

encouraging the maximum involvement of local communities. According to

Malani (1998) ecotourism was identified as an ingredient that would bring

indigenous communities into the tourism industry while providing them with a

positive outlook.

Even after the adoption of a National Ecotourism Policy, the definition of

ecotourism was still unclear to many (Bricker 2003). Almost any operator that

44

took a tourist into the outdoors or to a village considered itself as an ecotourism

operator. Ecotourism in Fiji was then defined as:

A form of nature-based tourism which involves responsible travel to relatively

undeveloped areas to foster an appreciation of nature and local cultures, while conserving

the physical and social environment, respecting the aspirations and traditions of those

who are visited and improving the welfare of the local people. (Harrison 1999:5)

Basically this definition has allowed the NEP to recognize and address some key

areas such as: the importance of including several stakeholders (government,

statutory bodies, international bodies, landowners, the tourism industry and the

general public); the issues concerning conservation of the natural and cultural

environment, prioritizing the increasing awareness of its importance; the concern

for rural development and enhancement of the quality of life for villagers in more

remote regions; and finally, the importance of developing a central register for all

ecotourism endeavours.

Part of understanding the interpretation on the definition of ecotourism is still an

issue in the development of ecotourism in Fiji today. According to Thaman

(2001:52), ‘the most critical role at this stage for Fiji Ecotourism Association is to

help clearly define what ecotourism is and can be in order to help set standards

and create awareness of the critical role that ecotourism can play in promoting

sustainable tourism development so that ecotourism itself, will survive’.

Sustainable tourism is about protecting the immediate resource base, which will

allow tourism development to be sustained (Hunter 1995). Ecotourism can allow

the continual existence of the natural resources on which the development of

tourism depends. However, if ecotourism is not properly managed, it may just

destroy the very resources on which it depends.

45

OTHER CURRENT INITIATIVES IN-LINE TO THE FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOTOURISM

Fiji apart from being a small island country is also vulnerable to a lot of external

forces and therefore it has been critical for the Government to approach tourism

development from the requirements of sustainable development. In regard to this,

there have been certain issues looming on the horizon regarding the need for

cooperation and integration amongst all stakeholders, especially the private

sector.

Two pieces of legislation have been highlighted as making a direct contribution

towards the development of ecotourism. Currently, one has been proposed while

the other has been enacted. These are:

a) The Proposed Return of the i qoliqoli (Customary Fishing Grounds) -

Rights of the Usage of the Sea to the Indigenous Fijians

The return of the ownership rights of the i qoliqoli to the indigenous people is

under consideration by government. This proposed legislation embarks on the

transfer of legal right to indigenous Fijians on the use and ownership of the

coastal resources (Customary Fisheries Act 2004). This would therefore

encourage and allow local communities to take the opportunity of using their own

natural resources to generate economic benefits, especially in the tourism

industry. However, the bill also states the reservation of the customary fishing

areas (Section 5) meaning that once the Bill is enacted, the customary fishing

areas automatically become reserved for sustenance to resource owners. Any

development relating to the use of customary fishing areas should be applied

through the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB). This is an issue still being

addressed at community level as it limits their rights to develop their own

resources. It is, however, the fear of many foreign hotel operators or investors that

once the communities take full authority and ownership with the rights for

46

development, this may possibly affect their individual businesses because they

will no longer have control or the right of access to coastal areas. This is already

happening in some areas around Fiji where many communities are already

thinking that the bill has been enacted.

At the moment, Fiji government is looking for possible ways with which to

manage such a situation. Efforts have also been made to raise awareness among

resource owners in order to maintain a balance between a vision for improving the

quality of life versus avoiding the degradation of the environment.

b) The Environment Management Act

The Environmental Management Act (2005) is a comprehensive environmental

management framework for Fiji. The Act has significant components that are

critical to the management of natural resources in Fiji and they are as follows:

• The establishment of a National Council for Sustainable Development to

coordinate policy development and delivery, devise environmental strategy,

prioritise programs and procedures, advise on institutional structure, and the

general operation of the legislation (Part 2, Section 8)

• Each government ministry will be required to create its own environmental

management unit to formulate the policy statement; a natural resource

inventory and resource management plan for resources under its jurisdiction;

and conduct internal environmental audits (Part 2, Section 13)

• A formal legal framework for Environmental Impact Assessment. The

system hinges on development not being allowed until approval has been

granted following an EIA (Part 4)

• Any commercial or industry class of facility must adopt the Code of

Environmental Practice and submit environmental audits to demonstrate

compliance to environmental inspectors appointed to enforce codes and

requirements (Part 2, Section 19)

47

• An Environmental Trust Fund would be created to support the payment of

debt for natural protected areas, biodiversity programs, studies and plans

(Part 7, Section 55)

• An Environmental Register will be published, public notices and codes of

environmental practice (Part 2, Section 17)

• Coastal resources management would be featured in documents that would

be formulated, such as the National State of Environment, overall National

Environment Strategy and a Natural Resources Management Plan.

The Sections within the Act were formulated in a careful manner so as to

complement the Tourism Development Plan and moreover, the development of

ecotourism in Fiji. The purpose of the act is clearly stated as the development,

management, sustainable use and protection of Fiji’s natural environment and

resources. Ecotourism emphasizes the protection and conservation of the natural

environment therefore the sections highlighted above serve as strategies to

facilitate conservation and the protection of the natural environment.

Ecotourism is oriented to the principles of protecting the environment, involving

local communities and providing return benefits both to the environment used and

to the local community. Fiji’s definition of ecotourism at the policy level has

hoped also to address these principles but instead it has exercised the definition by

only focusing more on the socio-economic benefits to local communities likely to

be provided by ecotourism, rather than on the interest of protecting or conserving

the physical environment.

48

TOURISM IN THE YASAWA ISLANDS: A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF

THE STUDY AREA

a) Location

The Yasawa Islands better known as the Yasawa Groups are a group of elongated,

narrow volcanic islands lying to the west and northwest of Fiji Islands. These

islands are the remains of a chain of volcanoes, which emerged 6–8 million years

ago. They rise from parts of the huge Yasawa-Mamanuca lagoon, which is

boarded on the east by Viti Levu and on the west by a barrier reef, which is 10–

30km west of all Yasawa Islands (Nunn 1994).

These groups of islands lie on the driest part of Viti Levu. The Yasawa group

consists of at least 21 groups of small islands of which 7 are larger islands:

WayaSewa, Waya, Naviti, Yaqeta, Matacawalevu, Nacula and Yasawa.

Most of the settlements in the Yasawa are on the coasts containing wide fringing

reefs and most of the locals depend heavily on near-shore marine resources for

subsistence (Nunn 1994). In general as part of an island state, the group is

characterized by its dependency on the sea, vulnerability to changes related to the

marine environment, a limited resource base, localized carrying capacities and

interrelated and often fragile ecosystems (Levette and McNally 2003).

There are four tikina or districts located within the Yasawa Groups called Waya,

Naviti, Nacula and Yasawa with different communities falling into each of these

Tikina (see figure 3.1). The total number of people in all of the Yasawa is yet to

be determined but according to the only information available from the Bureau of

Statistics, in the year 2004, the total population was 2,346, which was accounted

from only 15 villages out of the listed 28 in the whole Yasawa Group.

49

Figure 3.1: The four Tikina of Yasawa Island (from to top to bottom: Nacula, Naviti

and Waya and Yasawa). Source: NLFC 2004

b) The Development and Involvement of Tourism within the Area

The development of tourism in the Yasawa evidentially has been very rapid over

the years and because of this, it has become a famous tourist destination across

Fiji. At a national level, the Yasawa has been identified as a key area for potential,

high revenue generation for Fiji’s economy. It has supported a handful of resorts

and has also been a popular stopover for small cruise ships and sailing vessels. To

this day, there are three cruise-ship companies operating within the area. On a

daily basis, the Yasawa Flyer cruise ship travels to and from the Yasawa group

transporting tourists who wish to spend their vacation in the area. Not only does it

transport tourists but locals as well who are from various islands of the Yasawa.

Added to this are other cruise ships owned by Blue Lagoon and Captain Cook sail

the Yasawa waters for a week or so making stops of 2–3 days for village visits to

50

various communities, and day trips or picnics to deserted islands. There are four

cruise ships owned by Blue Lagoon and six by Captain Cook Cruises.

The Fiji Government has perceived the development of tourism in the Yasawa as

having positive impacts on local communities. It has increased resource owners’

participation in the tourism industry by providing them with employment

opportunities and it has also increased the retention of tourist dollars with very

little leakage. According to an interview with Koyamaibole (2004, pers. comm.,

18 April), the tourism sector in the Yasawa employs around 87% locals while the

remaining 13% are foreigners and other races from outside the local community.

Such employment has greatly helped the local communities in terms of generating

money and to some level provided human resource development in the tourism

industry to many participating villagers from within the area.

The total tourist arrivals in the Yasawa have been undocumented over the years

and in an unpublished report (Ministry of Tourism), 13,240 visitors were recorded

from verified data of only 9 operators out of the total of 36 operators that exist in

the entire island of Yasawa. Currently, there are at least 13 islands that

accommodate tourist resorts employing a majority of local employees.

51

Table 3.1 Location and Name of Tourism Operators in Yasawa (out of 36 hotels)

Location No. of Hotels Name of Tourism Operators

*Nacula 7 Al’s Paradise, Melbravo Beach Resort, Nabua

Lodge, Nalova Bay, Nanuya North, Oarsman Bay,

Safe Landing

**Naviti 5 Botaira, Coconut Bay resort, Korovou, Qereqere

Cross, Rays Tail

***Wayasewa 5 Adi’s Backpacker, Waya Island, Sunset Beach,

Bayside, Backpackers Paradise

*Tavewa 4 Coral View Island, David’s Place, Kingfisher,

Otto’s and Fanny’s

*Nanuya

Lailai

4 GoldCoast, Sunrise Lagoon, Sea Spray, Kim’s Place

***Waya

Levu

2 Octopus Resort, Eagles Nests-Saints Retreat

**Drawaqa 2 Drawaqa Resort, Manta Ray

*Matacawalev

u

2 Crimson Tierra, Long Beach

*Nanuya Levu 1 Turtle Island

*Navotua 1 Pleasuring Backpackers

***Kuata 1 Kuata Natural Resort

*Yaqeta 1 Yageta Backpackers

****Yasawa 1 Yasawa Island Resort

TOTAL 36

(* Nacula District; **Naviti District; ***Waya District, ****Yasawa District. (Source: MoT 2004))

The Native Land Trust Board can specifically identify the types of hotel

ownership, but the majority of the ecotourism projects and backpackers are

locally owned. Out of the 36 hotels, 32 are ecotourism related projects, 22 were

initially funded by the Ministry of Tourism, while the remaining 14 were

privately funded and owned

52

THE ISSUES OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE YASAWA

ISLANDS

Most of the islands in Fiji have a narrow economic base and are heavily

dependent on one or two income earning commodities. Likewise, the Yasawa

group of islands suffers from diseconomies of small scale and is highly

susceptible to natural disasters as it is usually in the path of seasonal cyclones.

Many in Fiji and in the Yasawa eagerly seek income earned from tourism and it

has become a major form of creating employment and income for the local

entrepreneurs and overseas investors.

Many tourists frequently visit the Yasawa once a month from the main islands via

various routes including Turtle Island seaplanes and the Yasawa Flyer cruise ship.

Not all of the economic impacts are beneficial, in particular the minimal retention

of the tourism dollar in the local economy.

The socio-cultural impacts of tourism in the Yasawa are mixed. Although

employment, income, education and training, mobility, and affluence may be

enhanced for some groups, there remain dubious impacts. Some of the least

advantageous socio-cultural impacts of tourism have occurred where the type of

tourism, the type of tourist attracted, the pace of change and growth, the degree of

interaction between indigenous people and the visitors, and the capacity of the

cultures and societies to cope with inquisitive visitors have not been carefully

managed. In addition, some of the tensions evident in the Yasawa such as inter-

and intra- conflicts between villages, have detracted from tourism development.

The population of the Yasawa islands is small so mass tourism may pose

problems of balance between visitor and resident numbers, and this may be a

source of irritation among the indigenous population, particularly where there are

vastly different values and behavioural systems between the local

hotels/backpackers and overseas investors operations.

53

The pressure of the cash economy also introduces changes in the traditional

family structure. It may be that the strength of the traditional cultures with the

overlay of religious and community organizations, as suggested in one of the

2003 Tourism Resource Owners Conference resolutions will prevent the level of

seriousness, which these pathologies have attained in the tourism experiences

elsewhere. There is one potential problem that needs very careful management

and that is the commercialization of traditional crafts and customs, as such

practices may undermine the authenticity of local practices across Fiji.

The natural environment is one of the chief attractions of the Yasawa. The

resources of sun, sand, blue lagoons, palm trees and most tropical settings in the

Yasawa have dominated the image of Fiji as a whole in the minds of most

tourists. It has always been reported that these features are among the primary

attractions of Fiji.

NACULA DISTRICT AS THE FOCUS OF THE STUDY

Nacula District was initially selected for this study because the area

accommodates the majority of the tourism activities occurring in the Yasawa and

also in other places around Fiji. These tourism activities include the operation of

cruise ships, dive operation, resorts and hotels, and most importantly the

concentration of a number of operators, all of which have identified themselves as

‘ecotourism’.

Also another reason for selecting Nacula was because of its history in tourism

development over the years and that many locals were taking the initiative to

develop and run their own tourism operations. Operators located in Nacula

accommodate a good representative of the types of ownership or management of

which it was also important to look into and identify what level of influence they

would have towards the set up of the tourism operators as ‘ecotourism’. Also, it

was the direct exposures of the tourism activities to the communities that could

54

allow this study to obtain more information regarding ecotourism, the

communities and their environment (refer to map below).

Figure 3.2: Tourism activity in Nacula Tikina (yellow—hotel operators; green—

community; red—cruise ship anchoring sites)

Another important reason for selecting Nacula as a case study was the existence

of a code of conduct regarding responsible tourism practices implemented in the

area, which enables this study to observe the effect the code can have on the way

ecotourism operates. Currently there is an association that exists within the area

known as the Nacula Tikina Tourism Association (NTTA) and it is involves

people from tourism operators, community members of Nacula district and even

at the provincial level. Turtle Island has played a leading role in this association.

The NTTA greatly emphasizes waste management, fijian culture, protection of

ecology and environment, guest safety and care, education and training,

communication, and self-improvement. Also they have published a coral-friendly

snorkeling brochure emphasizing the importance of good marine behaviour.

55

CONCLUSION

Tourism indeed has greatly contributed to the economic development of Fiji,

while at the same time; it has placed great emphasis on the use of the natural

environment, from terrestrial to marine, as its potential attractions or tourism

product. The increasing interest in tourism has raised many concerns about the

possible negative impacts it would have on the natural environment. Fiji has

always cared for its environment and the fact that it was becoming more and more

popular as a final holiday destination prompted more formal action in regard to

the protection of the country’s natural resources. This resulted in the development

of a Tourism Development Plan encouraging nature tourism as an activity linking

tourism with the environment.

In Fiji’s move towards sustainable tourism development, ecotourism was

introduced as a strategy with much potential not only for the economy but also for

the environmental management of tourism. Primarily a policy of Fiji’s ecotourism

(NEP) was introduced and adopted because of the need to increase economic

retention from the Fiji tourism product and to spread the benefits of tourism

throughout the country, particularly in the rural sector. The policy also responded

to other areas relating to the need for integrating traditional art and craft into the

tourism industry, the need for further developing local people in line with their

own wishes and the need for minimizing negative impacts of tourism

development and again the emphasis on the need for promoting conservation and

environmental awareness in the tourism industry.

On a vague understanding of the term ‘ecotourism’ by many tourism operators in

Fiji, the Ministry of Tourism defined it as a form of tourism that was nature-

based, with travel undertaken to a relatively undeveloped area that fosters an

appreciation of nature and local cultures. At the same time the physical and social

environment is conserved, thus respecting the aspirations and traditions of those

who are visited and improving the welfare of the local people.

56

Following on from the definition of ecotourism, the Ministry of Tourism also had

to identify criteria for categorizing tourism projects or operations as ecotourism.

Apart from the five principles highlighted in the Ecotourism and Village-Based

Tourism: A Policy and Strategy for Fiji, the criteria of Green Globe 21 have also

been implemented for benchmarking ecotourism projects. But these criteria were

found to be difficult to implement at the local level and in 2005 the Ministry of

Tourism introduced its Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program.

This program, although its criteria align with those of Green Globe 21 (2003), is

intended to be applicable at a level more applicable to Fiji.

Two initiatives that will possibly affect ecotourism development in the long run

are ownership transfer of sea usage to indigenous Fijians and the Environmental

Management Act. The transfer of ownership will result to increase local

participation in using of natural resources for tourism attraction, as an incentive of

generating income for many local communities. There is a fear that this may

restrict foreign investors or foreign resort owners from using the key environment

(marine environment) that has helped them to attract many tourists over the years.

The Environmental Management Act, however, is promising for ecotourism

development in the long run. This is because a lot of emphasis is also placed on

the management and protection of the environment in relation to tourism

development.

Tourism development in the Yasawa has been rapidly increasing over years and

therefore selecting Nacula District, located in the Yasawa, as the study site for

this research has been very challenging. This is because Nacula accommodates

the majority of the tourism activity happening around the Yasawa islands and

therefore would give a good representation of the operation of ecotourism on the

outer islands.

57

CHAPTER FOUR

THE METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In any research, it is important to consider the kind of information that is relevant

and required for the study and the how appropriate each method would be to

collect them. When selecting a research method, it is important to consider the

nature of the setting being studied, or the questions asked as well as the possible

limitations of the study such as time and resources (Silverman 2001).

This chapter provides an understanding of how the research was conducted. The

first part of this chapter describes the types of research paradigm used looking

into details of the qualitative and quantitative methodologies and how they merge

to form the methodology used in the study.

The Chapter then moves on to describe the different types of research methods

used to collect both qualitative and quantitative information needed such as

interviews, questionnaire survey and observation. An overview of the research, as

a case study, is also discussed together with the sampling design used to collect

the types of information required.

Finally, the chapter provides a brief discussion on the types of limitation

encountered and ethical issues considered while conducting the overall research.

58

JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH PARADIGM AND

METHODOLOGY

A paradigm is a worldview—a way of thinking about and making sense of the

complexities of the real world. It is a fundamental model or frame that is used to

organize observations and reasoning about the nature of reality. According to

Barbie (2001:43), the paradigms of social sciences offer a variety of views, each

of which offers insights that others lack, while ignoring aspects of social life that

others reveal. As such, paradigms are deeply embedded in the socialization of

adherents and practitioners (Patton 2002) and therefore tell us what is important,

legitimate, and reasonable. They are also normative, informing practitioners what

to do without the necessity of long existential or epistemological consideration.

On the paradigm of constructing theoretical knowledge for illuminating

fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, this research has been

conducted in order to obtain knowledge of a given environment, and at the same

time search for an explanation of events, phenomena, relationships and causes. As

an empirical study, the research employed both the qualitative and quantitative

methods. In effect, this mean that what is happening in the world has been

experienced and observed directly, rather than, theorizing, reasoning, or arguing

from first principles (Punch 2000).

In empirical research, data can be quantitative, qualitative or both and therefore

when gathering data, it is important to first understand that our assumptions,

interests and purposes shape the methodology we chose. According to Taylor and

Bogdan (1984:1), when these factors are ‘stripped to their essentials, debates over

methodology are debates over assumptions and purposes, over theory and

perceptions’. Methodology is about how one approaches a problem and seeks to

find the answers to it.

59

a) Qualitative Methodology

Qualitative methodology is associated with the holistic inductive paradigms

(interpretive social sciences, critical theory, feminist perspectives and post-

modern paradigm) (Jennings 2001). These paradigms may be clustered together

and described as the holistic–inductive paradigm. According to Patton (1990),

they are holistic because the paradigm studies the whole phenomenon and all its

complexity, rather than breaking the phenomenon into component parts and

studying discrete variables and causal relationships.

Rist (cited in Taylor and Bogdan 1984) points out, that qualitative methodology,

like quantitative methodology, is more than a set of data gathering techniques and

again, it is a way of approaching the empirical. This is because qualitative

research is inductive. In other word, a researcher develops concepts, insights and

understanding from patterns in the data, rather than collecting data to test

preconceived models, hypotheses or theories. Settings and people are looked at

holistically, meaning that people, settings or groups are not reduced to variables

but are viewed as a whole. As described by Hakim (2000), qualitative research is

concerned with individuals’ own account of their attitudes, motivations and

behaviours. It offers richly descriptive reports of individuals’ perceptions,

attitudes, beliefs, views and feelings, the meaning and interpretations given to

events and things, as well as their behaviours, discarding a researcher’s own

beliefs, perspectives and predispositions and displaying how these are put

together, more or less coherently and consciously, into a framework that makes

sense of their experiences, and illuminating the motivation that connects attitude

and behaviour, the discontinuities, or even contradictions between attitudes and

behaviour, or how conflicting attitudes and motivation are resolved and particular

choices made.

Qualitative methods are humanistic and are therefore non-statistical. Again,

according to Taylor and Bogdan (1984:7) the ‘methods by which we study people

60

of necessity affect how we view them’. When we reduce people’s words and

actions to statistical equations, we lose sight of the human side of life. When we

study people qualitatively, we get to know them personally and experience what

they experience in their daily life in a society.

The phenomenon of qualitative research, according to van Manen (1990), aims to

gain a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of our everyday

experiences. It allows a researcher to understand people from their own frame of

reference (Taylor and Bogdan 1984) or understand social phenomena from a

person’s own perspective. This means that the focus is about exploring how

human beings make sense of experiences into consciousness, both individually

and as shared meanings. Human behaviours of what they say and do are viewed

as a product of how people define their world. This requires a methodology that

carefully and thoroughly captures and describes how people experience some

phenomena—how they perceive them, describe them, feel about them, judge

them, make sense of them and talk about them with others. The methodology is to

capture these processes and be able to interpret them but focusing to other

people’s point of view. To gather such data, one must undertake an in-depth

interview with people who have directly experienced the phenomena of interest,

that is, they have lived the experiences as opposed to second-hand experience

(Patton 2002).

The type of qualitative research method selected for this study is the ‘interview’

in order to facilitate the study of various issues in depth. Questions used were less

focused on the factual status of particular instances but were more interested in

the ‘nature of the experiences’ in order to make sense of the world and be able to

develop a worldview. There is no separate reality for people; however, the

subjective experience incorporates the objective and becomes a person’s reality,

thus the focus on meaning, makes the essence of human experience (Patton 2002).

In order to build an understanding of how people make sense of their everyday

61

activities so as to behave in socially acceptable ways, the role of

ethnomethodology was employed in the study.

Ethnomethodology studies the social order ‘by combining a phenomenological

sensibility with a paramount concern for everyday social practice’ (Gubrium and

Holstein 2002:490). Ethnomethodology obtains norms, understandings and

assumptions that are taken for granted by people in a setting, because people don’t

even think about why they do what they do. According to Barbie (2004:290),

ethnomethodology studies ‘social life that focuses on the discovery of implicit,

unusually spoken assumptions and agreements’ In this study, as a researcher, I

have taken special interest in observing naturally occurring situations where

people are thrust into new or unexpected situations that require them to make

sense of what is happening. Also, I have suspended my own beliefs in reality to

study the reality of the everyday life of those studied (Taylor and Bogdan 1984).

One of the great strengths of using qualitative research is that it allows the

gathering of valid data (Hakim 2000) and only with tremendous caution.

Individuals are interviewed in sufficient detail for the results to be taken as true,

correct, complete and believable as reports of their views and experiences and,

according to Boas (cited in Jennings 2001), the whole analysis of their experience

must be based on their concept and not of ours. But this has its drawbacks at an

ontological level because a small number of respondents cannot be taken as

representative of the total population even if great care is taken to choose a fair

cross-section of the type of people who are the subject of the study (Hakim 2000).

In this case, the data collection and analysis of Nacula district may not be

representative of what other outer islands may experience towards ecotourism.

Depending on the size of the sample, it may not even represent the whole district

either.

62

b) Quantitative Methodology

Quantitative methodology is associated with the paradigm of positivism and chaos

theory (Jennings 2001). On the paradigm of positivism, data gathered from

interviews allows a researcher to have the access to ‘facts’ about the world

(Silverman 2001) and to be able to establish causal relationship of cause and

effects. This, however, should be based on an explanation framework, which

assumes a realistic ontology; that is, that reality consists of a world of objectively

defined facts (Davidson and Tolich 1999; Henwood and Pidgeon 1993).

According to Silverman (2001), quantitative methods require the use of

standardized measures so that the varying perspectives and experiences of people

can fit into a limited number of predetermined response categories to which

numbers are assigned. This will allow the quantification of information gathered.

Quantifying information gathered, according to Patton (2002), allows the

possibility of measuring the reactions of a great number of people to a limited set

of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of the data,

which thus gives a broad generalized set of findings presented succinctly and

parsimoniously. Henwood and Pidgeon (1993:15) supported this by stating that

‘quantification (the sum of standardization, measurements and number) is crucial

to the natural science approach because it renders the concepts embedded in

theoretical schemes or hypotheses observable, manipulated and tested’. They

further explained that ‘quantification is also taken as a necessary (if not always

sufficient) condition for the findings of research to be replicable and

generelizable, and for predictions upon the basis of observed regularities to be

made’.

When looking at the two different methodologies one can identify that they are

located at opposite ends of a continuum regarding world views that is in an

ontological position. For this reason, the present study has adopted a mixture of

63

qualitative and quantitative methods, or ‘methodological triangulation’ also

known as the mixed-method approach (Fielding and Fielding 1986).

c) Methodological Triangulation

Triangulation, according to Blaikie (1993), is not used merely to correct any bias

or to improve validity. It is used because ‘no single method ever adequately

solves the problem of rival causal factors, because each method reveals different

aspects of empirical reality, multiple methods of observations must be employed’

(Denzin 1978:28). In application to a researcher, triangulation plays a role in

increasing a researcher’s confidence so that findings may be better imparted to the

audience and to lessen recourse to the assertion of privileged insight. In other

words, it puts a researcher into a frame of mind to regard his or her own material

critically, to test it, identify its weaknesses and, to identify where to test further

doing something different (Fielding and Fielding 1986).

In Denzin’s systematic description of the types of triangulation, the

‘methodological triangulation’ was identified as consisting of two variants, the

‘within-methods’ and ‘between methods’. I have used the ‘within-methods’

triangulation whereby one method (interview) was applied to the collection of

data in the overall research but using multiple strategies (in-depth, semi-

structured, and unstructured) to increase reliability. This is a process that includes

borrowing and combining parts from pure methodological approaches (either

qualitative or quantitative), thus, creating mixed methodological strategies (Patton

1990).

Qualitative and quantitative methodologies could have been used individually;

instead, this research has approached it in a manner that has allowed the two

methodologies to complement each other. Fielding and Fielding (1986) argue that

qualitative work can assist quantitative work in providing a theoretical

framework, validating survey data, interpreting statistical relationships and

64

deciphering puzzling responses, selecting surveys to construct indices and

offering case-study illustration. Most social science research supporters,

according to Jennings (2001:133) have suggested that ‘mixing methods enables

the deficiency of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to be

overcome’. It is, however, important to consider when adopting a mixed-method

approach the differences between methods and the reasons for using each, the

focal point of the study, the key paradigm informing the study and the practical

research process (Greene et al. cited in Jennings 2001).

d) The Research as a Case Study

According to Yin (1994:13), a case study is ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates

a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the

boundaries between phenomena and context are not clearly evident’. Stake

(1995:xi), on the other hand, defines a case study as ‘the study of the particularity

and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within the

important circumstances’.

The case study is but one of several ways of doing social science research. Rather

than just obtaining people’s own accounts of situations and events, with reporting

of their own perspectives and feelings, a case study is concerned with obtaining a

rounded picture of a persons life, a situation, or events from the perspectives of all

the persons’ involved, usually by using a variety of methods and sources of

information (Hakim 2000).

Generally, case studies are ‘preferred strategies when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions

are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the

focus is on contemporary phenomena within some real-life context’ (Yin

1994:14). The main reason for approaching the research as a case study is because

case studies are designed to achieve experimental isolation of selected social

65

factors or processes within a real-life context, so as to provide a strong test of

prevailing explanations and ideas (Hakim 2000).

Case studies use both exploratory and descriptive separately or at the same time.

This research overlaps the two into a single study (Lein cited in Hakim 2000). At

the beginning of the process of data collection, exploratory research was

emphasized because little was known about the area being studied. The fieldwork

was approached with a certain outlook including flexibility in looking for data and

open-mindedness about where to find it (Shaffir and Stebbins 1991). Flexibility

and open-mindedness are important when exploring a phenomenon under study,

about which, relatively little is known. Once enough information was gathered,

the research approach began to move into ‘descriptive’.

This case study has taken as its subjects the organization (ecotourism operators),

the community, and the social group (tourists) all of whom they have been studied

using a variety of data collection techniques. These subjects have been used as

sources of information that can provide evidence on the issues being studied with

reference to the experience of ecotourism. According to Hakim (2000:61),

‘whether a case study is descriptive or exploratory or is concerned with rigorous

tests of received ideas, the use of multiple sources of evidence and very often,

multiple investigators, makes a case study one of the most powerful research

designs’.

One of the drawbacks that a case study has for this research is that findings made

are specific only to the area of focus of the case study. Added to this, findings

cannot be generalized to other cases and may lead to hypothesis generalization.

THE RESEARCH METHODS

Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to collect data relevant

to the objectives of the overall research. The methods have been applied

66

differently according to the subjects selected for this study (tourists, communities,

and ecotourism operators).

In December 2004 (1st— 14th) a preliminary visit was made to the district of

Nacula in which two weeks was spent interviewing both the operators and

communities. All information gathered during this time was used as references to

develop the final questions for the interviews and questionnaires survey for the

actual visit in January 2005 (9th — 23rd) which also lasted two weeks. There were

eleven tourism operators and six villages surveyed located close to each other.

Questionnaires for the tourists were distributed during the actual visit in January

2005.

a) Interviews

Interviews are widely used in many contexts of social research and there have

been many different types identified by social researchers. An interview is a

research method that typically involves a researcher asking questions and

receiving answers from the people who are being interviewed. Of the three most

commonly used interview techniques, semi-structured was selected for qualitative

while structured (used in the interviewer-administered questionnaire survey) was

selected for quantitative.

i) Semi-structured Interviews

The semi-structure interview was selected as appropriate for this study because

the focus was the operation of ecotourism and how it is linked to environmental

conservation. Ecotourism by definition covers a whole range of environments

from cultural, social, and economic to the natural environment and because this

study has chosen to focus on the natural environment, predetermined questions

had to be used. These predetermined questions were rigidly structured in order to

avoid diversion to other issues regarding the operation of ecotourism that may not

67

necessarily be related to the objective of the research. The structure of the

questions was followed with every person interviewed thus allowing control

throughout the whole interviewing process (Powney and Watts 1987). A semi-

structured interview also had predetermined questions, but the order in which they

are used was modified upon the interviewer’s perception of what seems most

appropriate (Robson 2002).

Interviews were conducted personally on a face-face basis with either the

manager or the owner of the hotel, during both the preliminary and final visits. A

total of eleven operators were interviewed. Interviews were conducted by

appointments for each operator at their respective location lasting up to an hour. A

schedule was prepared beforehand and all questions were addressed during the

interview. The scope of interview was limited to predetermined themes

(ecotourism understanding—definition of ecotourism, ecotourism product, waste

management, agriculture, resource use, education and awareness programs,

contribution to conservation, planning process, challenges) in which the key

questions were developed in advance. The wordings used in the interview were

changed and explanations were given as to what each question meant. Some

questions that seemed to be inappropriate were omitted, while some new ones

were included during the process of the interview. Because not all interviewees

were comfortable using English, some of the interviews were conducted using the

common Fijian dialect (‘Bauan’) and were later transcribed by myself.

Field noting was made during the interview regarding the conversation and it was

also tape recorded in full. The tape recorder has allowed me, as an interviewer, to

capture so much more than I could obtain from the field notes or from

memorizing what was discussed. All tapes used were later transcribed while the

field notes were kept as record for referencing points that were not clear while

compiling the data.

Included in the interview was an introduction to what the research was all about

and why it was being conducted in the district of Nacula. This was often used as

68

an icebreaker at the beginning of every interview in order to give the person

interviewed an understanding of the research while at the same time start to build

a comfortable environment for him or her to be able to express his or herself

freely. Again at the end of every interview, interviewees were also given the

chance to ask any questions they wanted to in relation to the research.

The disadvantage of using this method was that it was time consuming and

difficult. This was because not every manager and owner of the operation was

available during the time set for the interview so visits to a site for a day had to be

rescheduled. Also, because the interview was conducted in Fijian for the local

operators, translating the questions used for the interview from English to Fijian

and than back to English was time consuming partly because of limitations in

Fijian vocabulary, making some words difficult to translate directly.

b) Questionnaire Survey

A survey research according to Bryman (1989:104) ‘entails the collection of data

on a number of units and usually at a single juncture in time, with a view to

collecting, systematically, a body of quantifiable data in respect of a number of

variables which are then examined to discern patterns of association’.

Two different types of questionnaire survey were used on the tourists and

communities.

i) Self-Administered Questionnaires

Self-administered questionnaires are also known as self-completion

questionnaires, and as the term suggests, are completed by the respondents.

Surveys that use self-completion questionnaires engage the participants (who in

this case were the tourists) in responding to and recording responses on the

questionnaire (Bouma and Ling 2004).

69

The questionnaire was structured as a mixture of closed, ranking and open-ended

questions format and was distributed to tourists who were spending their holidays

in Nacula by their hosting hotel. Questionnaires were placed on the help desk of

the hotels that participated in the study for tourists to voluntarily fill and return

after completion at anytime of the day. Most of the questionnaires were collected

personally by myself from the operators after the first week of January 2005 of

which I was visiting communities in Nacula while some were later mailed 1–2

weeks after I had left for Viti Levu. An introductory statement was placed at the

top of the first page of the question sheet and questions of demographic features

were grouped together with questions regarding individual engagement and

participation in ecotourism offered by the operators in Nacula.

Few weaknesses encountered in using self administered questionnaire were that

the distribution of the self-completion questionnaire to tourists was not monitored

and therefore I, as the interviewer, had no control over their return. Also, tourists

filling out the questionnaire did so at their own pace and time and some may not

have intended to hand it in even after completion. This resulted in a 57% (57 out

of 110) response rate rather than 100% as expected. In questionnaires that were

returned, some of the questions asked were unanswered and there was no way in

which they could be further clarified.

ii) Interviewer-Administered Questionnaires

These were conducted on-site with community members in their respective

residing villages. Each interview lasted at least an hour on an individual basis.

The questionnaire used was structured as open-ended, involving a face-to-face

interview with me as interviewer. Face-to-face interviews allow the interviewer to

ask questions in the presence of the respondents and at the same time to complete

the questionnaires (Robson 2002). All questions were written beforehand and

asked in the same order to all respondents. Questions used were different from

those used for the tourist survey. The questions asked were generally closed

70

questions in order to remove answers that may drift away from the focus of the

study. This meant that the respondents were allowed to answer the question from

any angle but that the issue should only be relevant to the study (ecotourism and

the natural environment). This is because some of the respondents diverted some

of their response to the political issues regarding the tourism operation within the

area of study, which I felt was not important to my research.

Each interview began with a self-introduction followed by an introduction of the

research and its intentions. Each question was read out to individuals interviewed

and they were given time to answer them. Also, time was given for the

respondents to ask questions at the end of the interview. Interviews were

conducted both in English and in Fijian for non-English speaking. A local

translator was available for translating the dialect of Yasawan to Baun and vice-

versa for people who could not speak Bauan. All Fijian information gathered and

recorded was translated into English for analysis. The use of the term

‘ecotourism’ was used directly as an English term in all interviews while the term

‘conservation’ was translated into Fijian as ‘na taqomaki ni yaubula’.

c) Observation

Observation was conducted more in the exploratory phase and according to

Robson (2002) such an exploratory phase is typically an unstructured form of

observation that seeks to find out what is going on in a situation as a precursor to

subsequent testing out of the insights obtained. Therefore observation in this study

was merely as a supportive method to collecting data and would complement

information already obtained earlier through the interview and survey.

Observation was also used as a form of collecting data that could not be obtained

from the other methods.

General observations were made on hotel operation set-up, the community’s

activities towards the use of their marine environment, evidence of environmental

71

displacement and tourism activities within the study site. The observations were

conducted during on- site visits throughout the two weeks of the survey in

January 2005.

The Sampling Design

An important factor in conducting this or any research was to identify and design

the best sampling methods, which would provide a good representative picture of

issues that may occur in regard to the operation of ecotourism in other parts of

Fiji.

a) Sampling Population

The population or study subjects selected for the study were drawn from within

the district of Nacula, which includes hotel operators, community members and

tourists.

The decision on the numbers to be sampled for operators and communities was

made after a preliminary visit was conducted to the study site. Currently, there are

at least 21 operators, in total, located within Nacula district and an average

number of 56 households in each of the community surveyed. The average

number of tourists received in a day by most of the operators around the area

(during the off-peak seasons) is around 15.

b) Sampling Method

A non-random purposive sampling method was used for both the operators’

interview and the selection of the community to be surveyed.

Of the 21 hotel operators that existed within the district of Nacula, only 11 were

selected for the interview. Two criteria were identified beforehand for the

72

operators in the sample. The first one, and most important, was that, the operator

interviewed should fully acknowledge and identify their operation as ecotourism.

If so, the operators must be operating as an ecotourism for more than 3 years.

This, I believe, is a reasonable time frame for operators to be able to share their

experiences on the progress of their operation as an ecotourism operator. A short

interview was carried out with all of the 21 operators in Nacula during the

preliminary visit in December 2004 (Appendix 1.0). Only operators that

acknowledged that they were ecotourism and were in operation for more than 3

years were short-listed for further investigation. No other criteria was used

because the focus of the study was to investigate how practical each operation

was as an ecotourism towards environmental conservation and so it was only

important at that time for an operator to agree that it was ecotourism and be able

to make an evaluation thereafter.

There are at least 10 communities within the district of Nacula and out of these, 6

were selected. The locations of these 6 communities were directly exposed to the

tourism activities that were happening within that area. Questionnaires were made

available to at least 10 people from each community. Also certain criteria were

identified for each respondent to identify if they were eligible for sampling. These

criteria were based on the age (at least 30 years and over) and the number of years

that they had spent in the community (should be at least more than 10) together

with their status as a ‘legal’ villager from that particular area. The age and

settlement criteria identified for the respondents has helped provide a more solid

source of information on the experiences of community members with respect to

environmental changes occurring within Nacula district before and after the

tourism operation began. Because of the limited number of people that were

available during the day of the survey, 10 people from each village were the

maximum I could encounter within a day. The sampling technique used to obtain

the 10 community members was the non-random snowball technique in which the

first two respondents sampled were asked to nominate others that they knew

would fit my criteria and then the list would go on until a total number of 10 were

73

reached. The snowball technique was used because I had little information on the

people (name and age) that I wanted and could sample prior to my visit and so I

had to depend on community members who knew each other better than I did.

As for the tourist survey, questionnaires were made available to the operators

interviewed and each operator was requested to distribute them voluntarily to

house guests. There were no criteria set out for those tourists who wanted to fill

the questionnaires but that any questionnaire filled should be returned to the hotel

help desk. Each operator was provided 10 questionnaires for distribution and of

the total 100 provided; only 55 were filled and returned. There was only one

operator that did not allow questionnaires to be distributed to their house guests.

The Data Collection, Recording and Analysis

All data were recorded using note taking of every interviews conducted and the

use of audio recording device. In each interview and questionnaire forms, spaces

were provided for writing responses or answers obtained.

Data collected were quantitatively and qualitatively analysed. For quantitative

analysis, data were first categorised to summarise the raw data. Data were then

coded and sorted into the categories identified. Each questionnaire received or

filled was assigned a number and, each response on the questionnaire was

assigned a numeric code (Caputi and Balvanves 2001; Robson 2002; Barbie

2001). This was applied to tourist survey and to some of the community

interviews that required a quantitative analysis. There were some variables in the

tourist survey that were already in numeric forms (ranking, age group, duration of

stay, contribution to conservation) but for those variables that were not, numeric

coding was assigned. There were some variables that were clustered together, as

accounting for each variable would be space consuming on the database, for

example diving and snorkelling, Q10 (Appendix 4.0) were combined and assigned

a number; coral reefs and marine life in Q11 (Appendix 4.0) were combined and

74

assigned a title as marine environment; while sandy beach and coastal vegetation

were also grouped as coastal environment and assigned a number. The numeric

coding given to each response ranged mostly from 1–5 and this would increase

depending on the number of different answers obtained from various questions.

Answers from the open-ended questions (tourist and community questionnaires)

were first categorized into the most common responses and were then assigned a

number next to it as its’ code. For example, community questionnaire - Q12

(Appendix 3.0), common answers obtained were litter, sewage, oil slicks,

damaged reefs and algae growth and for each of this answer, they were assigned a

number from 1 to 5 as their code. Each key answer was tallied as to how many

individuals responded to it.

Once all the coding was done, data were then entered into an excel spreadsheet. A

basic statistical analysis (averages, mean, and percentages) was carried out

conclusions were presented visually as bar graph and pie charts as presented in

the finding chapter and as appendix.

A descriptive framework analysis also known as ‘descriptive accounts of

situation’ was used in the case of operators and community. Interviews were

descriptively analysed to give account for each situation investigated. Added to

this, various patterns, processes, commonalities and differences were identified

and tabulated. Generalizations were also made in order to explain various themes

and relationships identified in the data gathered.

LIMITATIONS

All methods have limitations. For this study some of the common limitations

encountered were:

• An average response rate (55% - 55 out of 100 questionnaires distributed),

combined with the fact that some questions were not answered, provided a limited

base for generalization

75

• Finding the right vocabulary to translate the question from English into Fijian, as

Fijian was sometimes limited with respect to the jargon. Added to this, the

common dialect spoken among community members is Yasawan, making the

questioning and understanding the response difficult and time consuming as I had

little knowledge of their dialect

• Finding the time for me as a researcher to get back to those that could not be

interviewed or surveyed during a day’s schedule

• Determining the availability of people for the interview and survey, as I did not

want my visit to alter or disturb a person’s normal activity day.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Allowing ethical balance in all research permits a researcher to balance their

obligations to promote intellectual freedom and contribution to knowledge with

fair treatment of the people to whom these obligations are owed and to whom the

knowledge is to be distributed (Jennings 2001).

In conducting this research various ethical issues were considered before, during

and after collecting the data. Before making the visits to the study sites,

permission was obtained from those involved (the hotel owners, the Tui Drola and

the Turaga ni Yavusa of each of the community surveyed) in the interview and

questionnaire survey. Written letters were initially sent out to the hotel operators

prior to visits, while a traditional ‘sevusevu’ was conducted to the Tui Drola and

also to the Turaga ni Yavusa of every communities surveyed, in accordance with

Fijian traditional protocol.

During the process of collecting data, voluntary participation was encouraged by

those who wanted to participate in the interview or questionnaire surveys.

Participants from communities and operators were reminded that they were free to

withdraw at any time without penalty, as the focus was not to pressure them to

76

participate. Tourists, on the other hand, were free to make their choices before

filling in their questionnaires.

On all grounds, the confidentiality of ‘who said what’ was taken into account and

respected in the community survey, because most respondents felt that their

response to a question could be indecent towards somebody else (within

communities and operators) as this was one of the strategies to avoid respondents

becoming less forthcoming or open. The privacy of individuals was respected and

therefore names were not put on to any of the survey forms.

Interviews conducted with the hotel operators were treated with anonymity, so

that a response made cannot be identified to a given respondent. Added to this,

findings made in this report will be submitted to hotel operators and also

communities in Nacula district.

SUMMARY

After evaluating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the triangulation

method (or the combination of both) was selected as the most productive

methodology for this study. Qualitative work can help assist quantitative work in

providing a theoretical framework, validating survey data, interpreting statistical

relationships and decoding puzzling responses, selecting surveys to construct

indices and offering case study illustration (Fielding and Fielding 1986).

Regardless of this, there were still a few limitations encountered during the

process of the collection of data because one cannot control the ontological world.

The case study and data were collected using interviews (semi-structured),

questionnaire surveys (self-administered and interview administered), and

observation. Each of these techniques had some degree of weakness. Three

populations were selected and sampled (tourist, community and resort operators)

using different sampling methods. Non-random purposive sampling was used for

77

both hotel operators’ interview and the selection of the community to survey.

With the community, the sampling of community members was conducted using

non-random snowball sampling. The sampling of tourists was more random.

Data analysis was carried out using the numeric coding system and percentage

analysis for quantitative data (tourist and community survey) while descriptive

framework analysis was used for qualitative data (operators’ interview).

Three areas where this research ethics were considered related to the consent of

those involved; voluntary participation, confidentiality and anonymity.

Because not all research is perfect, this study therefore allows the opportunity for

recommendation on how the study could have been better approached or could be

later conducted elsewhere in any other outer islands of Fiji where tourism is

actively engaged. Conducting the study only within the district of Nacula may not

be 100% representative of the engagement of communities towards the

development of ecotourism but it is designed to help provide an indicative insight

into the perceptions and practices of ecotourism in Fiji.

78

CHAPTER FIVE

THE FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the findings made in the overall research, which is discussed

further in the next chapter. The findings are presented under specific headings

with some graphical illustrations.

In order to study and understand the experiences of ecotourism in Nacula and to

identify the emphasis placed on environmental conservation, four key questions

are highlighted in the presentation of the findings, which has helped construct a

clear understanding of the specific objectives raised for the purpose of this

research. They are:

1. how do tourism operators interpret the practice of ecotourism?

2. how do members of villages within the Nacula Tikina District interpret

ecotourism?

3. how do both the tourism operators and communities actually put ecotourism

into practice, based on the practical approach of operators and the

involvement of communities as a whole to the development of ecotourism

within the area?

4. how are tourists engaged and involved themselves as ecotourists?

5. what is the contribution of the tourism operators, community and tourists to

ecotourism in the context of environmental conservation?

To build an understanding of these questions, other key issues are highlighted and

discussed as part of the findings in this chapter.

79

THE OPERATION OF ECOTOURISM IN NACULA DISTRICT

a) THE TOURISM OPERATORS

i) Background of the Operators

The title ecotourism has been adopted by many of the tourism operators in Nacula

district over the last 3–5 years. Most operators existing in Nacula have been in

operation over 5 years but it was only until recently that some of them had

converted their operation from just a backpacking operation to an ecotourism

operation.

Of the total 21 operators existing within Nacula, 11 stated in the interview that

they were ecotourism for many reasons. Six of the operators were identified as

locally owned and managed (Otto’s and Fanny’s, Coral View Resort, Nabua

Lodge, Gold Coast, Sunrise Lagoon, Melbravo); 2 were foreign owned and

managed (Turtle Island, Tavewa Dive Operator, Seaspray) while 2 even though

was locally owned, it was foreign managed (Safe Landing and Oarsman’s Bay).

All of these operators offer basic accommodation facilities like other hotels,

except the dive operator, to backpackers or visiting tourists and of which they also

offer outdoor activities such as: snorkelling (manta ray watching, dolphin safari),

fishing trip or game fishing, island and reef hopping, cave visit, Blue Lagoon

visit, and mountain hiking. To these operators such activities are highlighted as

ecotourism because they believe that it offers tourists an experience with nature.

Most of the operators interviewed were active members of the NTTA when it was

first established but in the last three years, only at least four were still considered

as active members (Turtle Island, Safe Landing, Oarsman’s Bay, Coral View,

Tavewa Dive Operator) while the rest have not been involved to a great extend.

80

ii) The Interpretation or Understanding of ‘Ecotourism’

Operators were individually interviewed so as to obtain information regarding

their understanding of the term ecotourism. They were therefore asked to define

ecotourism in their own words or else describe what they felt or thought was

suppose to be the meaning of the term (Q1– Appendix 2.0).

Most definitions described were common to each other but with emphasis on

different aspects of the term. A few of the examples are listed:

Example One: Operator 1

‘I understand that ecotourism is about showing tourists our culture for them to learn and

respect and when tourists come into communities, they provide them some form of

appreciation in which Fijians will then value their culture more and maintain it…..also

ecotourism is about looking after the environment and all activities practiced by any

operation is environment friendly’

Example Two: Operator 4

‘ecotourism to me, means looking after our culture and protecting our environment and

when we bring in more tourists to see them, we should be sure that the culture or the

environment is not affected…..an ecotourism operation must also be offering

accommodations made from natural resources around us so that we don’t cause a lot of

pollutions to the environment if we used other kinds of materials and the same time we

are also providing tourists to share an experience in living in the kind of houses that

locals live in’

Example Three: Operator 5

‘ecotourism is about protecting and respecting your culture and allowing the chance for

tourist to see it and also managing your rubbish well’

81

Example Four: Operator 9

‘ecotourism means educating the locals to protect and look after their environment and in

that way they will be able to manage their rubbish and not dump it into the sea’

Example Five: Operator 11

‘ecotourism I think means looking after the interest of your environment and that

whatever tourism practices one performs should be friendly to the environment instead of

increasing pollution’

These definitions, together with those identified by some other operators not

identified as example, were grouped to provide the common characteristics found

in each definition and they are summarized in Table 5.1.

The analysis showed that the definitive characteristics of ecotourism were related

to: culture (selected by 4 operators); the conservation of natural environment

(selected by 4 operators); the educational component placed on the environment

(selected by 3 operators); the management of litter (selected by 3 operators);

economic gain of communities from operators (selected by 2 operators);

environment-friendly practices (selected by 7 operators); and finally as a form

sustainable tourism (selected by 2 operators) (see Table 5.1). The environmental

friendly practices identified by the operators were referred to as: a tourism

operation that does not intend to pose any environmental threats, such as

pollution, to the people around the area; using the environment as naturally as

possible to entertain tourists; and building accommodations that uses natural

resources, which also reflects the originality of the types of houses that locals live

in.

82

Operators were later asked to identify a definition that they could relate to their operation or business set-up using a list of

definitions that was provided to them (Q2–Appendix 2.0), just to see if it was any different to how they generally understood

what ecotourism meant.

83

Operator Number

Characteristics 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cultural √ √ √ √

Conservation of

natural environment

√ √ √ √

Educational √ √ √

Management of

Litter

√ √ √ √

Community benefits √ √

Environment-

friendly practices

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Sustainable tourism √ √

Table 5.1: Analysis of definitions identified by individual operator interviewed.

Table 5.2 Ecotourism definition selected by operators as applicable to their

operation

Definition Number Choosing

Queensland Government (1997) 0

The International Ecotourism

Society (2003)

2

Ceballos–Lascurain (1987) 1

Thaman (2001) 3

Honey (1999) 0

Evans-Pritchard and Salazar

(1992)

0

Ross and Wall (1999) 0

Australian Conservation

Foundation (1994)

0

Boo (1990) 1

Wearing and Neil (1999) 0

Valentine (1993) 0

Harrison (1999) 4

Ecotourism Australia (2003) 0

From the list of definitions provided by different authors, five were selected as

described below:

a) Purposeful travel to maintained areas, to understand the culture and natural

history of the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the

ecosystem, while at the same time producing opportunities that make the

conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people (The International

Ecotourism Society 2003).

b) Tourism that consists of travelling to undisturbed or uncontaminated natural

areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring and enjoying the

scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural

manifestations.

84

(Ceballos–Lascurain, 1987).

c) A form of tourism activity that gains for a country, a tourist enterprise and

local communities, cash income, foreign exchange or other assistance required

to make life safer, healthier, more productive and more enjoyable while at the

same time focusing on the uniqueness, beauty and knowledge of the natural

and cultural environment and the links that local communities have to the

environment as a central tourist attraction or beneficial learning experience

and as a resource that should be protected, restored and used sustainably for

the benefit of future generations (Thaman 2001).

d) An activity that can stimulate the economy and generate direct funding for

conservation, as well as provide employment and entrepreneurial

opportunities that justifies the conservation of natural areas and the protection

of assets upon which the industry depends (Boo 1990).

e) A form of nature-based tourism which involves responsible travel to relatively

undeveloped areas to foster an appreciation of nature and local cultures, while

conserving the physical and social environment, respecting the aspirations and

traditions of those visited, and improving the welfare of the local people

(Harrison 1999).

The definitions of ecotourism selected above, to indicate the practicality of the

operators, are quite similar to the definitions generally described earlier. Those

operators that selected the definitions (a) and (b) felt that it was practical to them

because they were offering activities believed to be focused on: learning about the

culture of the local people in Yasawa; and how natural the physical environment

was for tourists to enjoy while visiting.

For example in an interview with one of the operators, he stated that:

‘my operation I would say is ecotourism because it offers activities such as village visits

which allows a chance for tourists to learn about our culture…during village visits, ladies

85

perform traditional dances which tourists can see and learn about…also we take them out

for snorkelling and cave visits so they could enjoy the natural environment we are

providing them with’

Operators that selected definition (b) and (c) on the other hand felt that these

definition was practical to them because their operation was allowing the

opportunity to bring in more tourists and in that way they were providing more

employment to the locals especially and also a chance to protect the environment.

For example, an operator interviewed stated that:

‘my operation over the years has provided job opportunities to many young males and

female from Nacula…I believe my operation is ecotourism because it is providing

employment to the young locals and because of this, it has helped encouraged them to

learn about how tourists look after the environment while they are here to use it and they

would then take what they have learnt from tourists and deliver it back to their own

community’

The majority of the operation that selected definition (e) felt it was practical to

them because their operation was allowing tourists to travel to an area that was

pristine with white sandy beaches and a very tropical environment with very little

development made and nature was the only source of attraction in the area. Added

to this, it was also because they were providing activities that were involved in

experiencing the local culture.

For example in the interview of one of the operator:

‘my operation is practical to this definition because tourists come and stay in Nacula to

enjoy the natural sandy beaches and climate and this is what we provide to them…I have

activities offered such as snorkelling and reef hoping or island hoping where tourists

would just go out to have picnics on the beach and enjoy the sun…using our natural

resources is the only thing we have….also we send tourists out on village visits to learn

about how locals here live… For one thing when tourists go and visit these sites (the

beach and community) it gives them a feeling of appreciation and in that way they will

end up wanting to protect it’

86

In summary, eight operators had sites allocated for the type of water activities

they offer, while two did not have any, and one had no idea at all, (even though

they had also offered water activities such as snorkelling or fishing trips to their

guests) (Q4). The project or activity sites mentioned here were referred to those

sites allocated or marked by operators mostly for snorkelling or fishing (Q3).

Most of these sites are located either at Blue Lagoon Island or along the reefs

adjacent to their hotel location. There was no baseline inventory assessment

conducted at any of the project sites used as indicated by the operators (Q5). This

was similar to the question on whether the use of the sites was ever monitored

over the years when it was initially identified and used as an activity site.

Nevertheless, some operators (marked as * in Table 5.3) use general observations

rather than a formal monitoring process to notice the changes made within and

around a site.

In order to understand how each operator was using the marine environment to

accommodate the types of ecotourism activities they offer to their guests, they

were asked to identify the following areas summarized in Table 5.3.

iii) The Use of the Marine Environment

Overall, the definitions later selected have been focused on learning the culture,

travelling to a natural environment, conserving the cultural and physical

environment and providing benefits to local communities. Because the focus of

the study is on the emphasis of conservation in ecotourism, only a set of key

factors have been used to investigate how operators have adopted or approached

them individually as suppose to an ecotourism operator. These factors are

described later in this section and they include the types of tourism products

offered, environmental and awareness programs offered, contribution towards

conservation, and an evaluation how each business have been set-up.

87

Table 5.3: Summary of the responses made to Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Appendix 2.0). The numbering order of the operators provided

in this table is not similar to that of Table 5.1.

Operator Do you have a

project or activity

site

Activity types

offered

Activity site location Any baseline

inventory

assessment

conducted prior to

site use

Are sites

used

monitored

How are the sites used Are there any

written

regulations or

code of conduct

applied

1

Yes: 3

Snorkelling

Fish feeding

Yanitu Reef

Blue Lagoon

Reefs outside resort

None

*None

Shared-operators

Open use and

number

No: but verbal

reminder

2

No: but have sites

for water activities

Snorkelling

Blue Lagoon

Reefs outside resort

None

*None

Shared-operators

Open use and

number

No: but verbal

reminder

3

Yes: 1

Snorkelling for

manta ray and

sharks

Game fishing

Reef adjacent to resort

Outside reefs

None

None

Number limitation

(Max. 6 guests per trip per day)

Zoning Shared-operators

No: but verbal

advice

4

No idea

Fishing trip

No idea

None

None

Open use No: but verbal

advice

89

Table 5.3 Continue

Operator Do you have a

project or activity

site

Activity

types offered

Activity site

location

Any baseline

inventory

assessment

conducted prior

to site use

Are sites

used

monitored

How are the sites used Are there any written

regulations or code of

conduct applied

5

Yes: 4

Snorkelling

2- Tavewa Reef

1- Nanuya Lailai

1- Yanuyanu Lala

None

*None

Rotational use

Number limitation

Shared-operators

No: but verbal

briefing

6 Yes: 1 Snorkelling Blue Lagoon None None Open use Nothing at all

7

Yes: 3

Snorkelling-

Reef

hopping

Blue Lagoon

Reefs outside

resort

None

None

Rotational use

Open number

Shared-operators

Yes: Snorkelling

guidelines provided

(NTTA snorkelling

guideline-pamphlets)

8

Yes: 3

Snorkelling-

Reef

hopping

Cabbage Reef-

outside resort

Blue Lagoon

None

None

Open use and number

Shared-operators

Yes: Snorkelling

guidelines provided

(NTTA snorkelling

guideline pamphlets)

9

No: but have sites

for water activities

Snorkelling

Nearshore reef

outside resort

None

None

Open use and number

Shared-operators &

communities

No: but verbally

reminder

90

Operator Do you have a

project or activity

site

Activity types

offered

Activity site location Any baseline

inventory

assessment

conducted prior to

site use

Are sites

used

monitored

How are the

sites used

Are there any written

regulations or code of

conduct applied

10

Yes: 1

Mangrove Walk

Island Tour

Near lodge premises None None No answer Yes: Snorkelling

guidelines provided in

handbook

11 Yes: 30+ Diving Reefs all around

Nacula

None None Rotational

use

No: but verbal reminder

91

Table 5.3 Continue

92

It was common for most operators to share and use a similar site over time while some

practiced rotational use (Q6) or zoning system. Seven of the operators indicated that,

they allow either open-use or open-number to their sites, meaning that there were no

kinds of restrictions imposed on the use of any of these sites so tourists or other

operators were allowed to use any of the sites at any given time.

Rotational use was practised by only two operators overall, meaning that the use of a

site was rotated every week. A site used today won’t be again used the next day for

snorkelling or for any other types of activities. There was only one operator that

practiced the zoning system. Zoning, in this case, referred to the allocation of a site to

facilitate only one type of activity throughout instead of having all activities

concentrated at that one site. For example, a site used for game fishing was different

from a site used for snorkelling.

The majority of the operators interviewed did not have any written regulation or code

of conduct made available to their guests (Q7), although, guests were often verbally

reminded of the do’s and don’ts before any snorkelling, diving or upon arrival at the

resort as part of their briefing program. These do’s and don’ts, similar for every

operator, are simply, ‘do observe but do not touch anything (mostly corals) while

snorkelling or diving’. Two operators were using similar guidelines and code of

conduct for snorkelling, which was part of the NTTA’s (Nacula Tikina Tourism

Association) code of responsible tourism practice. There was, however, only one

operator that had developed their very own snorkelling guidebook, which they made

available to their guests, in the hope that they will read it prior to a snorkelling trip.

iv) Environmental Education and Awareness Programs

The level of environmental knowledge (Q9) expressed by individual operators ranged

from having-no knowledge at all, to being-fully knowledgeable. Environmental

knowledge, in this case, was based on how operators felt was their understanding of the

93

interaction between what occurs on land and its impact on the marine environment.

From the interview, eight operators felt that they were slightly knowledgeable, one was

fully knowledgeable, and one admitted knowing nothing at all. The five operators that

felt they were slightly knowledgeable mostly related their knowledge to the effects of

littering the marine environment, and the effects of land alteration for development.

Two of the operators (marked as * in Table 5.4) on the other hand, even though they

stated that they were slightly knowledgeable, could not identify any information of

what they knew because they felt that they still had a lot to learn.

The one operator (operator 10) that claimed to be fully knowledgeable simply described

in the interview that:

‘I feel that the Management and the Supervisors of our resort fully understand the impacts of

unfriendly land-based environment practices and how it affects the marine environment,

particularly solid waste management. The staffs are well versed as well: it is a matter of

ignorance from their part, which I believe requires the need for more awareness and training,’

Table 5.4: Summary of the responses made to Questions 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 (Appendix 2.0)

Operator Level of

Environmental

Knowledge

Staff Training and

Awareness Programs

Personnel Training of

Tourist Guides

Education in Environmental

Conservation to Tourists

Education in Environmental

Conservation to Communities

1 Slightly

knowledgeable

None No * Yes: introductory briefing No

2 Slightly

knowledgeable

None No No No

3 Slightly

knowledgeable

Yes No * Yes: introductory briefing No

4 *Slightly

knowledgeable

None No No No

5 Slightly

knowledgeable

None No * Yes: but in briefing No

6 Slightly

knowledgeable

None No * Yes: but in briefing No

7 None None No * Yes: basic briefing No

8 *Slightly

knowledgeable

None No No No

9 Slightly

knowledgeable

None No No No

95

Operator Level of

Environmental

Knowledge

Staff Training and

Awareness Programs

Personnel Training of

Tourist Guides

Education in Environmental

Conservation to Tourists

Education in

Environmental

Conservation to

Communities

10 Fully knowledgeable Still in the process No Yes No

11 Question was not

applied

None Yes * Yes: but in briefing prior to a

trip

No

96

Table 5.4 Continue

There was no environmental training or education provided to any staff (Q10)

because, as identified by one of the operators, most of their staffs are local and

they already have some form of traditional knowledge about their environment

and how they can protect it. For the one operator that did provide some form of

staff training and awareness program, it was often conducted very briefly during

their staff meetings.

For example, in an interview:

‘Yes, I try and do that every morning in my staff meeting. I would normally meet on

staff’s movement of the day and then I would try and find space to give little tips on some

environmental issues. I don’t conduct it as a big classroom learning or training, but I offer

it on a small basis. The staff training covers bits and pieces of some friendly

environmental practices like litter especially’ (Operator 3)

Almost all operators, except one, indicated that they provided no personnel

training of tourist guide (Q11). The only operator that did provide some form of

training simply stated that:

‘Our staffs are taught of the things taught to our guests . . .we basically train our staff to

identify various marine animals that tourists would like to know. Because our workers are

not so well informed themselves, we have only gone to the level of knowing the general

names of these species’ (Operator 11)

There were only seven operators that indicated to have provided education to

tourists on environmental conservation (Q12), while to communities (Q13) this

was not practised at all. Education was only provided to tourists while arriving at

the hotels. From an observation, the contents of the information provided, as

education, did not consider any ecological and biological processes that occur in

the environment. The information was more of how tourists should practice safe

and responsible snorkelling (operators with * in Table 5.4). Four of the operators

that provided no environmental education at all (operator 2, 4, 8, and 9), felt that

tourists already had better knowledge on environmental conservation than they

97

did and so there was no need to educate them. There was only one operator that

described the outfit’s education content as:

‘during the island tour, guests are told how we value our natural environment,

particularly the conservation of our trees, plants and marine life, and they are educated as

to how they could use and treat it. When I take the island tour, I briefly explain to tourists

the ecological importance of various important plants around us especially for mangroves

when our guests go for a mangrove boardwalk’ (Operator 10)

The reason why some of the operators could not provide education to

communities was because they were not informed well enough about

environmental conservation to be able to pass on the information to others.

v) Contribution to Conservation

Taking an active role in contributing to the conservation of the marine

environment around Nacula district (Q14) is an initiative that all operators have

expressed great interest and support in. However, they feel that there is a need

first to build the knowledge of the operators and the communities about the

concepts of conservation, and how both parties can work together. Education is a

component that is lacked by both operators and communities. Despite this,

operators feel that their support and effort could be used in terms of: help form an

organization that can help look after the marine environment; conducting

monitoring activities related to the use of the marine environment, especially for

water traffic; donating funds that can help facilitate conservation programs such

as raising awareness and environmental education for both tourists and

communities; advocating community involvement and networking among all

stakeholders (operators, communities and tourists); and finally, helping formulate

conservation strategies that all operators can adopt in their operation.

98

99

Most of the operators have indicated that taking an active role in conservation is

promising and challenging. There are interests expressed by operators regarding

monetary contribution towards conservation, and a majority feels that the money

handling responsibility should be bestowed to communities, while some feel that

it should go to the operators. Money obtained should be allocated to community

projects, education, management and enforcement of marine protected areas.

vi) Business Set-Up

There was no planning process involved in the initial physical set-up of individual

operations (Q16). For each operator, the physical set-up or layouts on the number

and location of buildings, were made according to the following: tourist

preferences and demand on accommodation view (e.g. backyard view, seaview,

garden view, privacy); availability of space to extend buildings; and finally the

ideas and recommendations made from families and friends regarding building

set-up.

Operators interviewed were all aware of the environmental damages that could

result from mismanagement practices (Q17), but, only one operator had a

contingency plan that ‘states in detail all risk incurred with all activities on island

and the plan of action to take should something happen’ (quoted from interview).

Table 5.5: The summary of the responses made to Questions 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 (Appendix 2.0)

Operator Planning Process Availability of

Contingency Plans

Conservation

Strategies in

Place

Rubbish Disposal Agriculture Resource Use from

the Marine

Environment

1 None None None Compost, Recycle, Burn & Bury Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

Coral extraction

2 None None None Reuse, Compost, Bury Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

Rock extraction

3 None None None Bury, Recycle, Compost Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

Seaweed manure

4 None None None Compost, Burn, Mainland

Delivery

Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

Seaweed manure

5 None None None Reuse, Compost Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

6 None None None Compost, Recycle, Burn & Bury Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

7 None None None Compost, Bury, Mainland

Delivery, Recycle

Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

100

Operator Planning Process Availability of

Contingency Plans

Conservation

Strategies in

Place

Rubbish Disposal Agriculture Resource Use from

the Marine

Environment

8 None None None Compost, Bury & Burn Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

9 None None None Compost, Burn & Bury,

Mainland Delivery

Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

Coral extraction

Rock extraction

10 No answer Yes: Environment

Management Plan and

Sustainability (EMP)

Yes: Incorporated

into EMP

Environment

friendly

Sand extraction

11 Not applicable Not applicable None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

101

Table 5.5 Continued

The response made by other operators on why there was no contingency plan

available was because they did not see any evidence of environmental damage to

allow them to establish a plan. This was also a reason as to why none of operators

had any conservation strategies in place (Q18).

Three of the most common rubbish disposal methods practised (Q19) by all

operators since establishment are burn and bury, compost, recycle and reuse. The

types of rubbish burnt or buried consist of plastic bags, plastic bottles and glass

bottles. Many plastic bottles are distributed to communities for water storage,

while some are transported back to factories in the mainland. Those that are

transported back to mainland are often packed in large plastic bags and a person

conducting a supply run would deliver these bags mostly to factories in Lautoka

where they are purchased and recycled. This is only done in the interest of

individual operators. It is a similar case for can-drinks. Food wastes are often

composted.

The agricultural activities practised by all operators are described as environment

friendly because no artificial fertilizer is used for the maintenance of food or

flower gardens. Most of the operators extract to use various resources from the

marine environment such as sand, corals, rocks, and seaweed for different

purposes. Sand extraction was identified common to all operators. This is because

sand was always used for construction such as the cementing of walls and floors.

It was also used as sand flooring for most accommodation units. Corals (in dead

forms) were mostly used as absorbers of wastewater in toilet septic tanks while

rocks or stone on the other hand has been used for sea wall construction.

vii) Experiences

For operators who choose to follow the ecotourism path, some of the challenges

and opportunities (Q25–Appendix 2.0) are:

• Finding financial support from the government for business expansion

• Working with other operators to improve the use of the marine environment

and reducing it’s negative impacts

• Networking amongst operators on best practices and guidelines

• Managing litter or rubbish, as this has been a major problem within the area

• Expanding the business and encouraging tourism

• Communication amongst ecotourism operators on different areas of interest

in order to expand operation

• Communicating conservation to communities and gaining their support

• Building an understanding of how to be better ecotourism operators and the

involvement that comes with it.

b) THE COMMUNITIES

i) Background Summary

Under the Traditional Fishing Rights Act (1992), local indigenous Fijians are

identified as the custodians of their respective fishing grounds. The distribution of

fishing grounds among many local communities of Fiji is a very complex issue.

For example, the fishing ground of one district belongs only to villages that come

under that district meaning other villages of the same province do not have any

rights in the fishing grounds. The fishing grounds of a local community (known as

i qoliqoli) are distributed according to the district (tikina) they exist. Within a

district, each community has its own fishing area known as i kanakana.

In the case of Nacula, each of the communities surveyed was aware of the district

fishing boundary (from casual conversation with communities) but many were not

familiar with the boundary for each individual community (Q2–Appendix 3.0). It

was generally understood and respected that the ownership of the fishing grounds

within Nacula was used and shared largely by everybody within the whole

district. Any community within the district has the right and is entitled to use any

103

part of the reef located within Nacula even if it was in the vicinity of another

community’s fishing ground.

The total number of well-known marine sites used for tourism activities, as

reported by communities, is more than 10 and this is likely to increase as the

development of tourism around the area progresses. These sites are often used by

tourist operators such as cruise ships and resort operators for various day trip

activities (diving, snorkelling, kayaking, and many water-related activities). Aside

from this, the majority of these sites are also used by local communities for

subsistence purposes (Q4–Appendix 3.0).

How communities use the marine environment

Apart from the dependency on the marine environment for sustenance, the

harvesting of ornamental marine products has also been one of the major activities

commonly practised more by many communities over the last 15–20 years. These

products are mostly shells yega (Lambis lambis), davui (Triton sp), bulibuli

(Cypraea sp), vasua (Tridacna sp), turtle shells and corals, which are often sold to

tourists during a community market day (Q9–Appendix 3.0). Community market

day is a popular event, whereby tourists come into the village for a day visit while

community members would display their handicrafts for sale. The visit is often

frequented in turns by cruise ships (Captain Cook and Blue Lagoon) and hotel

operators.

From discussions with communities, it seems that this activity has been identified

as one of the major income source for many households (apart from employment

opportunities offered by local hotel operators). Communities target ornamental

marine products because they find that tourists are fascinated by them. Cash

income made from this is often spent on food, education, travelling, household

necessities and most importantly, community expenses (church donation) as

104

stated by 98% of the households questioned during the pre-visit (Q5–Appendix

1.0).

Most marine ornamental products are harvested by hand on reef flats during reef

gleaning, Metal rods are used to break corals in situations were shells are located

deep within coral heads or are hard to reach (Q9–Appendix 3.0). Most commonly,

when a person goes out fishing, he or she looks forward to coming back with lots

of shells even though no intention was made for harvesting on a day’s fishing trip.

Most of the catch is live. Many reefs that are being targeted, have been used for

many years as fishing sites for communities, and became extensively used for

harvesting shells when cruise ships arrived at the Yasawa Islands in the late

1970s. These reefs are mostly located close to communities (300–400 metres

walking distance).

Community Initiatives towards Environmental Conservation

Currently no local environmental conservation practices developed or are in place

within communities, regarding either the marine or terrestrial environment (Q10–

Appendix 3.0) even though the NTTA was established to look after the safe and

sound practices of Nacula tourism operation toward communities and their

environment. Management of litter has been emphasized to a great extent by the

NTTA to both operators and communities but there has been no monitoring or

enforcement of this at community level because communities were still

complaining of litter around Nacula. The use of dynamite (a destructive fishing

method often reported in the Yasawa) has been banned in all communities while

the use of duva (a common used poisonous plant fiber and compressor for

catching fish) has been discouraged but not enforced. At certain times, tradition,

such as the death of chiefs, has caused restrictions on the use of the marine

environment for a period of time.

No future plans have been identified for any conservation efforts in relation to the

tourist and community use of the marine environment (Q11–Appendix 3.0).

105

Communities have not felt the importance to talk with each other about the

current state of their qoliqoli, how to begin managing its use, or even to

implement ideas regarding environmental conservation.

Generally, if a conservation issue was identified, communities felt that it would be

important to involve the individuals within the community, as everybody should

be accountable for their own practices. From observation, imposing conservation

activities in the community would be difficult because the level of education and

awareness amongst the communities is very low. In addition, many community

members interviewed have very little knowledge and understanding of how their

qoliqoli could be affected by their individual practices. The majority of people

believe that as long as money was coming into the community conservation was

not a priority. There was very little networking and communication between

communities and the operators concerning the protection of the environment (Q6–

Q8 –Appendix 3.0).

ii) Research Findings from the Communities

Overview

A total of sixty community members were interviewed (10 from each community-

5 male and 5 female) from the six communities visited. All those selected for the

interview do not hold any customary titles in communities and neither do they

hold a hotel ownership or shares. Fifty-two percent of those interviewed were of

the age 30-35 while forty percent were between 36 and 40 and eight percent were

between 41 and 45. All community members interviewed are subsistence

fishermen or fisherwomen and were not involved in any form of hotel

employment.

106

All responses were written out in statements as obtained from each interview and

in each statement, commonalities were highlighted and were then tabulated under

various titles to provide an overall summary. Under each title, how many

respondents in their own respective community stated their definition as such and

this was calculated in percentages.

When approaching this question to community members, about 64.9% of the

respondents stated that they had heard the term ‘ecotourism’ (Q1–Appendix 3.0)

at some point mentioned within the community by hotel operators or by tourists,

and of this number 23.0% stated that they did not know what the term meant at all

while the others (41.9%) who thought that they knew of the definition described it

as summarized in table 5.6 below.

Local Understanding: Defining ‘Ecotourism’

107

Definition

Community

Tourism-related

activities %

Tourism

development %

Conservation of the natural

environment %

Respecting and learning the cultural

environment %

Community

development %

1 33.3 33.3 0 0 33.3

2 0.0 40.0 40.0 60.0 60.0

3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3

4 20.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 70.0

5 20.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 80.0

6 25.0 62.5 0.0 50.0 62.5

Total 98.3 269.1 133.3 233.3 339.1

Table 5.6: The definitions of ecotourism identified from the survey by respondents and the numbers choosing them, displayed in

percentages.

Figure 5.1 Percentage distributions of the different areas defining ecotourism as

identified by communities.

9%

27%

12%22%

30%

Tourism relatedactivities

Tourismdevelopment

Conservationn ofthe naturalenvironmentRespecting &learning culture

Communitydevelopment

‘Tourism-related activities’ were defined as activities tourists engaged in while

visiting the area, such as diving, snorkelling, island picnics, boat cruising, game

fishing, and kayaking. ‘Tourism development’ was defined as anything that

respondents described as expanding the tourism industry in order to attract more

tourists. ‘Conservation of the natural environment’ was defined as the protection

of the marine (coral and fish) and terrestrial environment (plants) while

‘community development’ was defined as the development that tourists brought

into the community from a social and economic perspective. The ‘cultural

environment’ mentioned in one of the definitions identified in the Table 5.6, was

defined as the community’s way of living. Social development were related to

factors such as the improvement of social infrastructure such as community hall

and church while economic development were those factors such as employment

and other financial contribution given to communities.

Some of the common responses summarized in Fig 5.1 are quoted as.

Example One: Community respondent 1

‘ecotourism means bringing tourists into the village so they can see and learn about the

way that we live and in doing so, the tourists should respect it…. this is why tourists are

often advised to be very careful in the way they dress as they enter the village…I

believed that, by allowing tourists to enter the village, we can encourage them to donate

some of money that can help improve the community hall or church’

Example Two: Community respondent 2

‘ecotourism means tourists coming into the Yasawa to dive, snorkel, visit the cave and

most importantly, to enjoy the white sandy beaches…bringing in more tourists to use the

marine environment will bring in more money for the community because tourists and

cruise ships pay to use communities’ fishing grounds… The money obtained is used to

develop the community’s infrastructure such as houses and the church… Some of the

money also goes into community fund-raising.’

Example Three: Community respondent 3

‘ecotourism means tourists teaching the community to look after their marine

environment and avoiding the disposal of rubbish in the sea… It’s because when tourists

see locals dumping wastes in the sea, they advise them that such an activity will harm the

fish and coral and can also affect the environment in the long run… Also tourists would

advise the locals not to sell shells collected from the marine environment as we are

killing them in the process.’

Networking of Ecotourism Operators and Communities

The use of the marine environment for tourism related activities

From the survey, 72% of the respondents stated that their community had not at

any stage involved the hotel operators in any decision making regarding how their

qoliqoli was utilized for tourism- related activities, while 28% of the respondents

agreed to some level of involvement. Of this group 98% showed that the level of

110

involvement was very low (Q6–Appendix 3.0). The involvement was practically

on the discussion of fees for the use of the qoliqoli. The discussions were only

involved with the operators and community members that had some form of

customary status. This has much to do with the Fijian traditional protocol within a

society, where only the people with significant status in society are given

recognition in decision-making.

The reasons why there was no involvement between hotel operators and

communities, as identified above by 72% of the respondents (Q6–Appendix 3.0),

were:

• No form of communication was encouraged by either party (lower-level

people in communities and hotel operators) regarding the number of sites used

and how they were being used by operators. Any communication made

usually involved people with high community status and the tour operators for

their consent.

• The communities’ found no obvious environmental damage caused by

operators and therefore didn’t consider liaising over the controversy.

• Local operators using the marine environment also had rights to the area in

which they ran their businesses and therefore did not need to consult other

community members in regards to heir activities apart from prior

arrangements made with only the community elders.

111

Figure 5.2: The reasons why there was no involvement between communities and

operators regarding how the local qoliqoli was utilized for tourism activities

44%

19%

37%No communication

No environmentaldamage observed

Individual rights oflocal operators

Communities’ Common Fishing Sites…

From casual discussion with various community members, it seems that no

arrangements were made between the operators and communities in regard to the

use of a community’s common fishing site as a tourist activity site. Despite this,

the use of many of these sites by the communities was restricted out of respect for

the tourists and therefore 87% of the total number of respondents stated that they

did not use any of their fishing sites while in the presence of tourists (Q4–

Appendix 3.0).

When questioned on how each respondent felt about tourism operators (cruise

ships and hotel operators) using their fishing grounds (Q4–Appendix 3.0), 50%

stated that they were not satisfied at all while the other 50% felt satisfied. The

common reasons are summarized in table 5.7 according to how some of the

community members had responded.

112

Table 5.7: Reasons stated by respondents about how thy felt about the use of their

marine environment by both tourism operators and the communities.

Reasons

Satisfied

• Because tourists do not extract or take anything from the

marine environment while using it for their enjoyment and so there

are no negative impacts imposed

• Exchange Benefits: We allow tourism operators to use our

marine environment for their enjoyment and in return they pay for the

use of these sites, which brings monetary benefits to the communities

Not

Satisfied

• Environmental disturbance: The increase of tourism operators

within the area will result to more boats running in the marine

environment and therefore increasing water traffic which as a result

leads to the disturbances of the marine environment

• Disappointing practices: Cruise ships throw anchors onto

reefs and damage the corals and as a result destroys the habitats of the

marine life, especially the fish, whose numbers have reduced in recent

years.

Hotel Operators Having an Influence on Communities with Environmental

Conservation

From the survey, 83% of respondents stated, that they were not influenced by

operators regarding any environmental conservation of the marine environment,

apart from a waste management program that was implemented but with very

little monitoring and enforcement (Q7–Appendix 3.0). This waste management

program was introduced through the NTTA in which all communities have tried

to adopt over the years. The weaknesses however as expressed by the

communities is the monitoring and enforcement of this program because evidence

of rubbish in the marine environment was still observed.

113

One of the reasons to the establishment of the NTTA in Nacula was to also look

after the welfare of communities but in the interviews conducted there was no

sign from community response to indicate that they were collectively involved

with the NTTA network of which would have encouraged them to take part in

some form of environmental conservation. The existence of the NTTA to

community members has been perceived as an organization that was established

to involve the interest of the tourism operators and their operation within Nacula

district.

Even if there was some form of influence, this was not through the operators but

instead through the behaviour of tourists. For example, one community member

interviewed stated that it was not the operators, but the tourists who came to use

and enjoy the marine environment that had influenced them a lot. This is because

tourists often gave advice as a form of education to community members, who

sell marine ornaments (especially shells) during a community market day. In such

a case, tourists would end up refusing to buy the products displayed.

The remaining respondents (17%) who identified that they were at some level

influenced on environmental conservation came from a few communities that

were exposed to some environmental education provided by one of the hotel

operators within the area in partnership with an environmental conservation group

known as Coral Cay, which was working in Nacula during the period of the

fieldwork.

The Benefits gained by Hotel Operators in the Use of Community Fishing

Grounds

The use of the community’s marine environment, especially their fishing grounds,

as sites for the hotel operators to conduct various water activities for their guests

have raised questions in the mind of community members. From the survey, when

community members were asked to identify how they felt about how hotel

114

operators are gaining benefits by using the marine environment within the area

(Q8–Appendix 3.0), 35% stated that they were satisfied while 65% were not

satisfied at all (see Figure 5.3 and Table 5.8). The 35% that felt ‘satisfied’ stated

that the use of their marine environment by operators will: allow the opportunity

to bring in more tourist to Nacula which in return would then allow more financial

support coming in to communities (100.0%); minimize the use of destructive

fishing methods practised by locals (23.8%); and finally teach communities to

look after their marine environment (14.3%).

Figure 5.3: Reasons for community satisfaction with operators making use of fishing

sites

73%

17%

10% More financialsupport tocommunitiesMinimiseddestructive fishingpractices by localsEnvironmnetallearning experience

Those, on the other hand, that were ‘not satisfied’ identified their reasons as

follows: there was no communication with community members (87.2%);

individual resource use privileges were denied (77.4%); and that the monetary

benefits were gained from operators were inadequate (30.8%) (see Figure 5.4 and

Table 5.8).

115

Figure 5.4: Reasons for community dissatisfaction

45%

39%

16%

No communication

Resource usepriviledge deniedLess monetary gain

Table 5.8: Descriptive reasoning stated by respondents in regard to the benefit hotel

operators gain from using the community’s marine environment.

Reasons

Satisfied Hotel operators using the marine environment or a community’s

fishing ground will bring in more tourists, which will result to the

following:

More financial support for communities

More tourists creates more opportunities for hotel operators to

donate money to communities

Minimization of destructive fishing practices of the locals

The presence of more tourists will reduce the damage caused by

locals on the reef particularly destructive fishing methods. Tourists

are always keeping a look out for community members that practise

such methods especially the use of dynamite.

Learning experience

Tourists will help teach communities how to look after their marine

environment especially with respect to litter and damaging coral

116

Reasons

Not

Satisfied

No communication

Community members are never informed or consulted by operators

on the use of marine environment in terms of the number and

locations of sites used for guest activities such as snorkelling,

diving, and sports fishing, alteration made to the coastal areas for

accommodation; and the number of boats operating within the area.

Resource use privileges denied

Respondents feel that the right to use their marine environment is

denied in some areas because operators have forbidden the locals to

fish or glean in areas right outside their hotels, despite the fact that

locals depend on this marine environment for their livelihood

Less monetary gain

Not all operators return the full monetary benefits to the

communities. This is because tourists come to the Yasawa

especially for the marine environment (white sandy beaches, reefs)

and the majority of the money earned is paid to operators and only

a fraction of the money is donated to the communities.

Changes Observed Over-Time to the Marine Environment

At Present

The development of tourism can have a positive impact on the natural

environment but it can also be negative if not properly managed.

When discussing the impact of tourism on the marine environment, both operators

and tourist activities were collectively described as tourism.

Some of the common statements identified by 72% of the respondents described

the impact of tourist behaviour as ‘good’ (or positive) related only to the tourists’

behaviours and these were described as:

117

Example One:

‘Tourists do not impose any negative impact because while out snorkelling or diving they

do not touch or remove anything from the marine environment. They are there only to

enjoy it and not impose any harm.

Example Two:

‘Tourists’ presence at a site has helped communities to look after their marine

environment in terms of littering, catching fewer fish and minimizing the use of

destructive fishing methods (especially dynamite). Tourists have helped keep out

poachers from illegally fishing various community fishing grounds.

Other statements that were identified and commonly recognized as ‘bad’ (or

negative) by 83% of the respondents were related to the everyday practices of the

operators. These were:

Example One:

‘Pollution such as fuel discharge and litter from cruise ships. Oil slicks are often found

floating on the surface of the water and communities have believed cruise ships to be the

main source of this.

Example Two:

‘The extensive water traffic (boat movement) within the area (cruise ships, hotel boats,

community boats, sea plane, and other tourist water transports e.g. Yasawa Flyer) has

caused a lot of disturbance to the marine environment.

Pre and Post Development by the Tourism Operators

According to those interviewed, the status of the marine environment had shown

no improvement over what it was before the rapid development of tourism

operation in Nacula. The common use of dynamite for fishing by community

members and outsiders 10 years ago had adversely affected the reef conditions,

which according to those interviewed, is still evident today. Some of these

118

methods had caused the decline in the fish catch numbers and sizes, the decline in

seashell harvest and the high percentage of dead reefs. Sixty eight percent of those

interviewed stated that there had observed no significant changes to the conditions

of the marine environment in the last ten years.

However, 32% of the respondents were of the opinion that changes had been

observed and that these changes were basically the continuous increase of

pollution in the marine environment (Q12 & 13–Appendix 2.0). The pollution

was described as litter, sewage and oil slicks especially from cruise ships and

hotel operators around the area Figure 5.5). Respondents had observed a lot of

smashed coral on reef flats, which they believed to have been caused by boat

anchorage in recent years. One very distinctive observation that the majority of

the respondents made without explanation was the excessive growth of algae

(sargassum species) on shore near reefs. The algae often washed up onto the

beach and the occurrence has gradually increased over the years.

Figure 5.5 The types of pollution observed in the marine environment

22%

12%

20%

22%

24%

LitterSewageOil SlicksDamaged ReefsAlgae Growth

According to respondents, operators within the area have done nothing to address

most of the problems identified.

119

c) THE TOURISTS

Research Findings Concerning Tourists

i) Respondents’ Demographics

Of the 55 tourists who returned the questionnaires, from the 100 questionnaires

distributed, 43.6% were males while 56.4% were females. The majority of these

respondents were from the UK (36%) and Mainland Europe (27.3%) followed by

Australia (20%) and then New Zealand (9.1%) with America as the lowest

(7.3%). The level of education of the respondents varied from no form of

education (1.8%) to as high as university degrees (61.8%).

Figure 5.6: The age groups of tourists interviewed

40%

36%

15%

7%

0%

2%

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

As demonstrated by the figure 5.6, the majority of the respondents were relatively

young in the age category 15–34. There were none from the age category 55–64

but a few over 65.

120

ii) Respondents’ Travelling Preferences

Majority of the respondents were travelling in pairs (87.3%) as compared to those

travelling alone (7.3%) or in families (5.5%). Many of these respondents have

stayed in Nacula for at least 4 to 7 days (58.2%) followed by those who have

spent less than 3 days (27.3%) and finally those that had stayed more than a week

(14.5%).

Figure 5.7: Reasons why tourists travel to Nacula

Relaxation59%

Honeymoon2%

Business2%

Culture19%

Adventure0%

Nature16%

Others2%

From the pie-chart (figure 5.7), it appears that the highest proportion of

respondents are visiting Nacula (Q8-Appendix 4.0) for relaxation (59%) followed

by those who wanted to experience a new culture (19%) and finally those that

wanted to enjoy the natural environment (16%). Prior to making the decision to

travel to Nacula, factors identified by respondents as extremely important to the

trip (Q9-Appendix 4.0) were the beach (47%), the people (47%) and the culture

(40%) while factors that were ranked as slightly above important were the coral

reefs (42%), the marine life (42%), food (31%) and the cheap accommodation

(33%).

121

Table 5.9 Mean score on the ranking of different factors on importance of trip to

Nacula

Factors Mean Score

Beach 4.27

People 4.25

Culture 3.96

Coral Reefs 3.71

Marine Life 3.78

Food 3.69

Cheap Accommodation 3.76

iii) Respondent’s Activity Engagements

The number of activities most respondents were engaged in while visiting Nacula

(Q10-Appendix 4.0) were diving and snorkelling (71%) figure 5.8). Other

activities included kayaking and surfing (6%), game fishing (3%), boat cruise

(4%), cultural tour (7%), cave visit (6%) and others (3%). Snorkelling was often

conducted during beach picnics, island and reef hopping. From the overall listed

activities offered by operators, most were water-based activities. This is because

there was always a high expectation of tourist wanting to spend more time on

activities associated with the marine environment than land.

122

Figure 5.8: Types of activities tourists were engaged in while visiting Nacula

Diving & Snorkeling

71%

Kayaking & Surfing

6%

Game Fishing3%

Boat Cruise4%

Cultural Tours7%

Cave Visit6%

Others3%

When respondents were asked to identify factors that they found interesting in the

trip, (Q11–Appendix 4.0) many stated the people and the culture (26%), the

natural environment (coastal environment, 23%; the marine environment, 24%)

and the climate (12%) (Figure 5.9). The major reason was that, most of the

respondents wanted to experience and learn about a new environment holistically

in terms of it’s culture and people, to enjoy the scenery of nature, and most

importantly, to relax in a tropical climate.

123

Figure 5.9: Factors tourists found interesting during their trip to Nacula

People and culture26%

Accomodation7%

Marine environment (reef,

marine life)24%

Climate12%

Food7%

Coastal environment

(Sandy beach, coastal vegetation)

23%

Others1%

If these respondents were to return to Nacula in the future (Q15–Appendix 4.0),

factors that they ranked as extremely important were to enjoy the climate (40%)

and learn of a new culture (36%) apart from theirs. Factors that were ranked as

slightly above important were based on the scenery/nature of the area (45%), the

marine environment (40%) and the quality of accommodation provided (44%).

Table 5.10 Mean score on the ranking of different factors of importance ‘why

tourists wish to return to Nacula in the future’

Factors Mean Score

Climate 4.09

Learning a new culture 3.91

Scenery of nature 4.09

Marine environment 3.69

Quality of accommodation 3.65

Food 3.38

Learning experience 3.6

124

iv) Respondents’ Sharing their Experiences

Some of the disappointing experiences respondents expressed having encountered

during their visit to Nacula (Q13 & Q14–Appendix 4.0) were related mostly to the

amount of litter and rubbish (65.5%) either floating in the sea or washed on to

shores. Rubbish came in many forms-tins, plastics, glass, paper, dead seaweed on

the beach and those that floating in the water during high tide being most evident

around resorts and villages. Some respondents were also disappointed with the

beach (29.1%), because of litter and because they had expected Nacula to have

more white sandy beaches. Moreover, some respondents were disappointed with

the condition of the marine environment because of damaged corals, dead reefs

(27.3%) and little evidence of marine life like vertebrates and invertebrates

(10.9%).

Table 5.11 Mean score on the ranking of different factors of importance ‘why

tourists wish to return to Nacula in the future’

Factors Mean Score

Climate 4.09

Learning a new culture 3.91

Scenery of nature 4.09

Marine environment 3.69

Quality of accommodation 3.65

Food 3.38

Learning experience 3.6

The level of understanding on environmental functions (ecological and biological

functions of the marine environment) (Q16–Appendix 4.0) as expressed by

respondents was selected between 1 to 5 (with 5 being extremely knowledgeable

and 1 as no knowledge at all). From the survey, the majority of the respondents

(41.9%) ranked their understanding as 3 (being knowledgeable) while 25.5%

125

ranked them 2 (slightly knowledgeable). Only 3.6% of the respondents had a very

comprehensive knowledge of environmental functions.

Table 5.12 Mean scores on the rankings of different types of knowledge expressed

by tourists

Type of knowledge Mean Score

Environmental knowledge 2.82

Conservation knowledge 2.60

Respondents’ knowledge regarding environmental conservation (Q17–Appendix

4.0) was also ranked from 1 to 5. The majority of rankings were from 2 to 4 (from

slightly knowledgeable to slightly above knowledgeable). Of the total

respondents, 38.2% ranked them slightly knowledgeable, 27.3% ranked them

knowledgeable and 20% ranked them very knowledgeable. There was a low

percentage ranking for extremely knowledgeable (1.8%). Some of the

conservation practices identified by respondent as sought of important or

significant in protecting the marine environment were mostly involved with

managing litter; limiting access of tourists; controlling water traffic, providing a

code of conduct for everybody using the marine environment; provision of more

monitoring and enforcement of environmental–friendly practices, and the

distribution of tourist numbers and tourist activities so that they are not

concentrated in any one site all the time.

v) Environmental Information

The great majority of respondents claimed that during the period of their stay in

Nacula, operators provided them with no information at all regarding how, as

tourists, they could behave responsibly with respect to environmental

conservation (Q18-Appendix 4.0) and neither did they gain any new information

(30.9%) (Q21–Appendix 4.0). From those respondents that were provided with

environmental information (slightly informed 21% and informed 20%), 29.1%

126

stated that they were not satisfied (Q19–Appendix 4.0) at all with what was

provided, while 23.6% were only slightly satisfied, a mere 25.5% expressed

satisfaction. Some of the information that respondents highlighted would be of

importance to operators in encouraging tourists to be more responsible while

using the marine environment include codes of conduct for tourists or basic rules,

‘do not touch lists,’ information on how to interact with the environment and

areas of where to and not to snorkel to be made available through brochures or

information leaflets. Other things that respondents felt were important for

operators to provide were learning booklets on local reefs and the marine life

associated with them, tips on what to look for while snorkelling, and information

on how to care for the environment. If operators did enforce a code of conduct on

tourists (Q20–Appendix 4.0), the majority of the respondents felt that the level of

compliance would be very high (72.7%).

Table 5.13 Mean score on the ranking of environmental information provided

Environmental information Mean Score

Level of information provided 1.96

Satisfied with the information provided

by the operators

2.44

Level of compliance to the information

provided

4.64

Some things that respondents decided were important for them to learn during

their stay at Nacula were biological and ecological information about the marine

ecosystem, such as the types of fish and corals present locally, coral life and

ecology, seasonal fish and spawning period, food web or marine life, growth of

corals, inter-relationships of the marine environment and the functions of various

ecosystems.

127

vi) Tourist’s Contribution towards Conservation

A low percentage of respondents expressed support for conservation (Q23 & 24-

Appendix 4.0) in terms of monetary contribution (7.3%). More respondents stated

slight support (32.7%) and (32.7%) showed some support. There were a small

number of respondents who showed no support at all (18.2%) to monetary

contribution. For those that did show some level of support, 52% were not willing

to contribute anything at all while 36% were willing to donate at least $10–49,

followed by those that were willing to donate $50–99 and 5% to more than

$100.00 (figure 5.10).

Figure 5.10: Tourists supporting monetary contribution towards conservation

52%

36%

7%5%

$0.00

$10-49

$50-99

$100+

Money obtained for conservation, according to respondents, should be distributed

to various key stakeholders such as government that look after the environment or

NGOs that are conservation oriented. Another area identified was the formation of

an education committee that can raise awareness and create education programs

for operators, communities and tourists. Also money could be spent on setting up

marine parks for future conservation work and ecotourism. Some even felt that

part of the money should be distributed to communities and the operators.

128

SUMMARY

There have been a number of findings made in this chapter regarding the

operation of ecotourism and how each of the stakeholders (operators,

communities and tourists) has contributed towards it. No interpretations have

been made in these findings.

Operators

1. The definitions of ecotourism were more strongly focused on environment

friendly practises. Operators also felt that the definition was also related to

culture, the conservation of the natural environment and the management of litter.

The five ecotourism definitions that the operators related their operations to were

selected from: The International Ecotourism Society (2003); Ceballos–Lascurain

1987; Boo (1990) and Ministry of Tourism-Fiji (2002).

2. All operators interviewed mainly used the marine environment as activity sites for

guests during their stay. Most of these operators had between 1 and 4 sites for

various water activities at any given time, while one operator had more than 30

sites. At each of these sites, no baseline inventories were conducted prior to its

use and neither was they’re monitoring over time to understand the environmental

changes encountered within the after mentioned sites. There were no forms of

control in place regarding the number of operators using a site at any one time so

most of the sites used were shared amongst the operators. Lastly there was no

code of conduct regarding responsible environmental behaviour when using a site.

3. In regard to environmental education and awareness programs as an ecotourism

component, operators expressed very poor understanding of basic environmental

information regarding activities on land and their impact on the marine

environment. Added to this, all except one provided no training or environmental

awareness programs to its staff, and neither was there any personnel training of

tour guides. Some operators provided some forms of education to tourists

regarding environmental conservation but this was conducted only during guests’

129

check-in briefings. None of the operators interviewed had provided any

environmental education to the local communities.

4. Operators have expressed interest in the support and monitory their contribution

to conservation effort but feel that there is a great need to make them understand

what the underlying component and principle of ecotourism is in addressing

environmental conservation.

5. The physical set-up for most of the operators did not involve any planning

process. Also, no operators except one had in place contingency plans of any

kind, should an environmental crisis occur. Also, no operator except one had

conservation strategies in place. Rubbish disposal was generally recycled, burn,

bury, and compost. Most agricultural practises were environment friendly because

no artificial fertilizer materials were used. The operators continuously practiced

the extraction of natural resources from the marine environment for building

purposes.

Communities

1. The term ‘ecotourism’ was used amongst communities within Nacula without a

clear understanding of what it meant. Ecotourism for those who felt that they

understood the term related it more to community development, tourism

development and culture.

2. There was poor networking between communities and operators in regard to the

use of communities’ qoliqoli for tourism activities. Communities felt that they

were seldom involved in the planning of the tourism activities occurring locally.

Three main reasons for this were the lack of active communication between

operators and communities. Communities did not monitor environmental damage

that would identify the operators as the source and because most operations were

locally owned, so the operators felt they had the right to use the environment.

3. Many community members felt that the operators had not in any way influenced

them to protect or conserve the environment through their practises, as contrary to

what an ecotourism is expected to do. They have however been more influenced

by the tourists rather than the operators.

130

4. The majority of community members felt unsatisfied with the local operators

while others felt satisfied. The communities that felt satisfied related their reasons

to the fact that operators would be able to help provide communities with

financial support by bringing in more tourists to use their natural environment.

For those who were not satisfied, the main reason was the lack of communication

between operators and communities regarding the use of the communities’ marine

environment. Also some felt that the use of certain areas within their fishing

grounds was denied to them and some that they were not getting enough monetary

benefits.

5. Most community members interviewed identified no changes in the environment

in regard to tourism development. Those community members that had observed

changes however, related them to increased pollution such as litter, sewage, oil

slicks, damaged reefs and excessive algae growth.

Tourists

1. Tourists visiting Nacula were predominantly there to relax and enjoy the

environment and what it had to offer in terms of white sandy beaches, sun and

sea.

2. Not all tourists visiting Nacula were fully knowledgeable about the environment

and related conservation issues.

3. As one might, perhaps, expect, tourists were not fully supportive of the idea that

they should make monetary contributions towards conservation efforts.

One of the issues derived from the factors identified, is that, the concept of

ecotourism was never addressed well enough, by both the communities and

operators which has inhibited the understanding of ecotourism as a holistic

approach, which recognizes the input of communities, operators, tourists, includes

education and awareness and most importantly, it promotes good tourism

practises, which safeguards the interest of the environment.

Further discussions of these findings are presented in chapter 6.

131

CHAPTER SIX

THE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE

FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the findings made in Chapter 5, regarding the definition of

ecotourism and how it has been approached in Nacula to address environmental

conservation. This chapter is intended to help build an understanding of the

various issues addressed and highlighted in the objectives of the overall study.

After further analysis of the four key components described in Chapter 2, seven

characteristics have been highlighted and used to investigate the definition of

ecotourism as described by the operators and communities. These characteristics

identify ecotourism as an activity that should: provide environmental

understanding and appreciation; minimize the impacts on the environment;

provide economic benefits for the conservation of natural environment; provide

benefits to local communities; contribute to environmental conservation; provide

appropriate management; and most importantly be nature-based or oriented.

Apart from uncovering the definition of ecotourism as expressed by operators and

communities, this chapter has examined the practical approach of ecotourism

taken by three important stakeholders (operators, communities and tourists), all of

which are believed to play an important role in the success of ecotourism.

Because the focus of the study was ‘Ecotourism and Environmental

Conservation’, only the features of ecotourism linking or relating to

132

environmental conservation had been used to investigate the practice of

ecotourism for the three key players. Operators were examined based on the

following three factors: (1) the nature and setting of the tourism product offered

by the operators; (2) the active management strategies adopted and implemented;

and (3) the environmental education components advocated by the operators

towards promoting the protection or conservation of the environment. These

factors are believed to complement the conservation component of ecotourism.

Communities, on the other hand, were examined on the basis of their involvement

and participation in the entire ecotourism approach. Discussions relating to this

were based on factors such as: (1) involvement of community members in

decision-making regarding resource use and (2) community participation in the

planning process of tourism development. Understanding the behaviours of

communities towards such matter as resource use can help identify the influential

effect of ecotourism on conservation. Communities are recognized as resource

owners; therefore, decisions on resource use should not be separated from them.

Forming a close working relationship between communities and the tourism

industry is essential to supporting conservation. Finally, the tourists were

examined only as users of ecotourism because of their influence, through their

presence or behaviour, which may have some effect on communities and

operators towards conservation. Discussions for tourists were based on motives

for travelling and most importantly the attitudes expressed towards environmental

education and conservation.

This chapter has also examined how each stakeholder has contributed towards

environmental conservation. Discussions have been made regarding: (1)

conservation plans, resource use, and agricultural practices of operators; (2) the

understanding of conservation among communities and operators; and finally (3)

the monetary contribution tourists can make towards conservation.

133

WHAT IS ECOTOURISM?

The analysis of different theorists of ecotourism in Chapter 2 has helped to

describe what ecotourism is and should be about. It highlights seven major

characteristics, which are shown to coincide with characteristics of a ‘real’

ecotourism operation, as discussed by Honey (1999:22-24). These characteristics

have been employed in this study to assist in the investigation of how the Nacula

operators and communities define ecotourism.

They are:

1. Nature-based or -oriented (Wood et al. 1991; Bjork 1996; Young 1992;

Scace 1993; Wight 1993; Valentine 1993)

Ecotourism is often described as nature-based or nature-oriented, meaning, that

the destinations visited are often remote and undisturbed, whether inhabited or

uninhabited, and are usually under some kind of environmental protection (Honey

1999). Since nature is a primary motivator for tourists, ecotourists should be able

to experience a truly intact ecosystem and compare them with areas that have

been disturbed (Ceballos-Lascurain 1988).

2. Providing environmental understanding and appreciation (Ceballos-

Lascurain 1987; Ecotourism Association of Australia 1992; Wood et al. 1991;

Bjork 1996; Young 1992; Wight 1993; Wearing and Neil 1999).

Ecotourism provides an understanding of the environment visited. This allows a

tourist visiting to express his or her appreciation of that environment with a high

level of respect. Basically, there is an authentic two-way interaction experienced

between the tourists and the local residents (Wallace 1991; Williams 1991). As

Honey (1999) describes it, ecotourism is culturally respectful and has minimal

134

effects on both the natural environment and the human population of a host

country.

3. Minimizing impacts to the environment (Valentine 1991; Valentine 1993;

Wood et al. 1991).

Historically, the term ‘ecotourism’ was adopted by writers who began to

document the phenomena of nature tourism but later focused on the attempt to

mitigate associated negative impacts. Ever since then, there has been a consensus

that ecotourism should strive to minimize adverse effects that appear to alter the

integrity of the environment visited thus encouraging non-damaging and non-

degrading tourism practices. At an operational level of ecotourism, Honey

(1999:22) relates minimizing the adverse effects to such practices as ‘of hotels,

trails and other infrastructure by using either recycling or plentifully available

local building materials, renewable sources of energy, recycling and safe disposal

of waste and garbage, and environmentally and culturally sensitive architecture’.

Honey also states that minimization of impact requires that the numbers and mode

of behaviours of tourists be regulated to ensure limited damage to the ecosystem.

4. Providing economic benefits directed to the conservation of the natural

environment (Wood et al. 1991; Scace 1993; Boo 1990).

Ecotourism can provide monetary benefit to the locals in return for the use of their

resources. Most importantly, it allows the opportunity for raising funds that could

be directed to the conservation and protection of the natural environment on

which the tourism activities are dependent.

135

5. Providing benefits to local communities (Wood et al. 1991; Young 1992;

Scace 1993; Boo 1990; Wearing and Neil 1999).

Ecotourism provides not only monetary benefits but also the empowerment of the

locals to protect and conserve their natural resources, allowing for benefits in the

long run. Empowerment can also maximize the initial and long-term participation

of the local people. Honey (1999), believes that local communities must be

involved with and receive income and other tangible benefits from the

conservation area and its tourist facilities.

6. Contributing to environmental conservation (Ecotourism Association of

Australia 1992; Ross and Wall 1999; Bjork 1996; Scace 1993; Wight 1993;

Wearing and Neil 1999; Boo 1990).

Ecotourism allows the conservation of both the natural and cultural environments.

Therefore, tourism in an area should contribute to the protection of the natural

environment in order to foster conservation of the resources available and at the

same time increase people’s awareness of the importance of their resources.

7. Providing appropriate management (Ross and Wall 1999; Valentine 1993;

Wearing and Neil 1999).

Where possible, ecotourism should allow the use of appropriate management of

the resources. This means that tourism activities should be well managed and

maintained so that they do not alter the well being of the local people and the way

in which they use their resources. This would also contribute greatly to

conservation.

136

a) The Interpretation of Ecotourism to Operators and Communities

The understanding or interpretation of ecotourism to many of the operators as

described in the previous chapter is summarized into four key areas: (1) the

environment-friendly practices of the tourism operations; (2) the culture; (3) the

conservation of the natural environment; and (4) the management of litter. Of all

these, the environment-friendly practices were highlighted the most in the

interviews.

The environment-friendly practices is the first of these key areas commonly

referred to operations that: (1) had no intention of imposing any environmental

damages such as pollution; (2) were using the environment with minimal impact

as natural as possible for tourists to enjoy; and (3) build accommodations that

uses natural resources, which also reflects the originality of the types of houses

that locals live in thus giving tourists an experience of living in a traditional Fijian

home. The culture identified as the second key area was referred to tourists

travelling to a destination with an intention to learn, understand and experience

the way of living of the locals. For the third area, the conservation of the natural

environment was referred to the operational set-up of tourism that was focused on

protecting the environment. This meant that operators’ physical set-up should

pose no harm or damage to the environment at all. Tourists, most importantly,

should visit an area without causing any pollution or any other form of

disturbance to its natural setting. Litter management, as the final key area, was

referred to the safe and proper disposal of litter or any other form of rubbish.

Ecotourism, for operators, can be summarized into two distinctive definitions.

Firstly, it was described as an activity that was expected to provide environmental

protection or conservations, and secondly, to appreciate the local culture.

Matching these to the seven characteristics earlier discussed, operators in overall

had the expectation that ecotourism was to display characteristics that would:

provide environmental understanding and appreciation (definition 2); minimize

environmental impact (definition 3); and contribute to environmental conservation

137

(definition 6). Operators, most importantly, felt that ecotourism should minimize

environmental impact through the management of litter and environment-friendly

practices (definition 3). They also felt that it should provide environmental

understanding (definition 2) but most importantly to the cultural environment.

There was little interest expressed towards ecotourism and environmental

conservation (definition 6) but there were no further intentions regarding any

further conservation of the local resources or the promotion of increased

awareness.

Ecotourism, for communities, was defined more commonly to three different key

areas:

(1) Community development—the operation of tourism within the area should

provide benefits to local communities, either socially or economically.

(2) Tourism development—tourism business and operation should be developed

in order to allow more tourists to visit the area. This is related to the first

factor because in the perception that as more tourists come into the area, the

more opportunities there will be available for community development.

(3) Respecting and learning about the cultural environment— visiting tourists

should learn, understand, appreciate and experience the locals’ way of living.

Added to this, tourists should respect and follow traditional protocols of a

community.

Ecotourism, in communities, concern providing benefits for the well being of the

locals and the preservation of their culture. Relating these to the seven

characteristics, ecotourism was expected to display characteristics of the

definitions 2 and 5. Communities felt that ecotourism was about providing

environmental understanding and appreciation (definition 2). The environment, as

in the operators’ descriptions, was mostly used to refer to a cultural environment.

138

Providing benefits to the local communities (definition 5) was related to monetary

gain from tourism development within the area that intends to improve the locals’

economic way of living. However, the provision of benefits was not recognized to

provide any empowerment to locals in ecotourism in the long run.

PUTTING ECOTOURISM INTO PRACTICE………..

a) The Practicality of Ecotourism for the Operators

The practical definitions of ecotourism identified by the operators as best

describing their operation emphasized: 1) educational and experiential factors

(Ceballos-Lascurain 1987); 2) protection and conservation of the natural

environment and its resources (The International Ecotourism Society 2003; Boo

1990); 3) provision of benefits to local communities (Thaman 2001; Harrison

1999; The International Ecotourism Society 2003); and 4) provision of benefits to

the environment (Harrison 1999).

As with the characteristics of ecotourism previously discussed, Wearing and Neil

(1999) also add that, the success of an ecotourism site reflects the extent to which

it is able to protect natural resources and biodiversity, generate money to finance

conservation and contribute to the local economy, whilst educating visitors and

members of local communities, and thereby, encourage environmental advocacy,

and the involvement of people in conservation and development issues. The

central focus of this study was to look into ‘Ecotourism and Environmental

Conservation’, therefore, only certain characteristics of ecotourism that address

environmental conservation, as discussed by various theorists, were used to

examine the practicality of ecotourism. These characteristics were based on three

factors: (1) the nature or setting of the tourism product offered by the operators;

(2) the active management strategies adopted and implemented to reduce negative

impacts to the environment while using it; and (3) the environmental education

139

components advocated by operators for promoting the protection or conservation

of the environment used.

The findings indicate that, many of the products or activities offered by operators

for tourists were nature based and were concentrated mostly in the marine

environment. The environment used to facilitate these products had no active

management practice in place. Active management simply requires the control of

human use of resources in an attempt to restore, enhance, protect and sustain the

quality and quantity of a desired ecosystem (Dunster and Dunster 1996). The

control of human use could include the regulation of open access to the

environment used. Most operators share similar water activity sites, with no

limitation set on the number of tourists using the sites at any one time, or the

number of times an operator wishes to use the site in a week. In this case,

operators did not consider the natural carrying capacity of an area used. Carrying

capacity, according to Battan (2000), is the degree to which the ecosystem used

(which in this case is the marine environment) is able to tolerate human

interference while its natural function is maintained. Altering the carrying

capacity of an environment can generally worsens the situation of what an

environment is capable of coping with. In addition, many of the operators did not

have written regulations or codes of conduct provided to tourists regarding

friendly use of the environment. Instead, upon arrival as part of their briefing,

they were verbally reminded of the ‘dos’ and ‘donts’. The failure to provide a

standard protocol or a code of conduct could result in the tourists having less

respect towards the environment, but on the other hand, regulations and

restrictions cannot necessarily change a tourist’s behaviour or attitude towards the

environment (Eagles et al. 1992). This could be similar to local communities

unless environment awareness and education have been fully addressed to them.

A study conducted by Obua and Harding (1997) found that a greater impact is

dependent not only on an increase in visitor numbers but also, in part, on tourist

behaviour.

140

Orams (1995) suggests that, ecotourism should be managed towards a more active

form so that the activities can contribute to the health and viability of the

environment where they take place, rather than destroying it. Management,

therefore, should include monitoring and inventory assessments of the use made

of the environment. No monitoring of the environment used was ever conducted

over time by any of the operators; therefore the understanding of various changes

to the environment encountered over time were poorly recognized and

understood. Most of the operators expressed vague knowledge about essential

issues such as the level of negative impacts possibly as a result of their operation.

There was no baseline inventory made to a site used by any of the operators to

provide knowledge of its initial status, and to use that knowledge to make a

comparison of what the environment was like before and to what it is now. In this

case, the health and condition of the environment used will be difficult to

determine over time, therefore, any negative impact encountered from and during

the operation will not be recognised.

Findings from the examination of the business set-up of the operators showed that

none of the operators had: (1) undertaken any technical planning process

regarding the physical set-up of their operation in the environment used; (2) any

action plans in place to accommodate environmental drawbacks if they were to

occur at some stage as a result of their unmanaged practices; or (3) any

conservation plans at hand to adopt in order to protect the environment in the

future. Planning, according to Battan (2000), is about organizing for the future to

achieve certain objectives and so it is important in the development of tourism.

Because no environmental damage was observed or evident, operators, in

planning their development had played very little attention to it. This, again, is an

example of poor management practice. Planning for ecotourism is very important,

because ecotourism opportunities will be lost if the resilience of an area and the

ability of its communities to absorb impacts are exceeded, or if its biodiversity

and physical appearance is altered significantly.

141

Operators, have taken initiatives in the management of litter. Such initiative cover

solid litter, liquid wastes, degradable and non-degradable litter, although the

approach used for the disposal of plastic materials (which are normally burnt) is

not as environment-friendly. The burning of plastics contributes to the increase of

harmful carbon-based chemical compounds released into the atmosphere, which is

believed can negatively affect the environment. Regardless of the litter

management imposed, a lot of rubbish was still observed floating on the sea

surface or washed up along the shoreline of the resorts. This was expressed by

tourists as one of the most disappointing experiences when visiting Nacula. There

is also an increase use of raw materials from the marine environment (sand, coral,

and rocks) for construction and cosmetic purposes. The continuous extraction of

raw materials can result in habitat displacement for many marine organisms and

most importantly, contribute to coastal erosion if it is not sustainably practiced.

Tourists also reported the poor condition of the marine environment with respect

to reef health.

Ecotourism contributes to conservation by providing environmental education or

interpretation to participants, which can lead to an awareness and understanding

of the natural environment, thus promoting pro-environmental attitudes, support

for conservation and responsible environmental behaviour (Boo 1991, Goudberg

et al. 1991, Nianyong and Zhuge 2001, Beaumont 2001). Environmental

education, therefore, forms a core component of ecotourism (Nianyong and Zhuge

2001). Increasing education and awareness enables individuals to make a decision

about the best way forward, from an environmental, economic, and social

viewpoint, in order to benefit both the present and future communities (Hoctor

2003). Operators, however, did not address any environmental education and

awareness programs in terms of training staff on environmental issues, providing

personnel training of tour guides, and providing environmental conservation

programs to communities. The lack of awareness provided to communities by the

operators has not resulted much to the pro-environmental attitude expected from

communities which is why in many cases most community members do not seem

142

to take full responsibilities of protecting the marine environment of Nacula. Only

two operators did identify staff training (but not specifically on tour guides) of

which cannot be classified as quality training. None of the operators interviewed

expressed the interest of tour guide training but according to Lindberg et al.

(1998), consider tour guides are the heart and soul of the ecotourism industry and

therefore their roles are considered as particularly important (Weiler et al. 1991;

Weiler and Ham 1999). Environmental education provided to tourists, in this case,

was often conducted by any of the staff available for the day during their arrival

briefing, which cannot be as effective, because it does not provide enough

information to tourists to allow them to understand the value and importance of

the environment that surrounds them and of which they will be using during their

period visit. Charters (1996) believes, that the greater understanding of the value

of resources will happen if people actually experience it first-hand, as

understanding leads to appreciation and appreciation itself will further lead to

protection. Information provided to tourists on the day of arrival is only a one

time reminder and so it is likely to disappear in the minds of the tourists after two

days or so unless a tour guide was available to educate them continuously

throughout.

b) The Involvement and Participation of Communities in Ecotourism

The involvement and participation of local communities in ecotourism is an

important factor in the success of ‘ecotourism and environmental conservation’.

For a tourism project to be successful, the locals must be made a part of it. Most

importantly, they are resource owners; therefore, the interest in protecting or

using their environment should not in any way be separated from them. A basic

finding of this study is that this has not been the case in Nacula.

Communities, as reported, were never actively involved in any of the processes

regarding the development of tourism within the area, nor were they ever

involved in any of the decision-making process as to how their marine

143

environment would be used to facilitate various tourism water related activities

that were offered by the local operators. There were three main reasons for this:

(1) the lack of communication between operators and local communities; (2) the

lack of confidence communities had in identifying the sources of the problems

encountered in their environment; (3) the right of local operators to the use of the

environment and its resources to which communities saw no reason to object. The

lack of communication simply was because decisions regarding tourism

development or environment use were always made between operators and the

elders with authority of ‘say’ within a community. This is because, traditionally,

any major decisions in a Fijian community were usually made only by those of

high social status. Individual consensus was never requested among community

members; therefore, many felt no reason to be involved at all. Healey (1997),

identifies that community participation will be more intense if there are direct,

open and respected dialogues amongst all stakeholders, which would also allow

the opportunity for learning about each other’s views and concerns, thus finding a

solution to any objections made. This, however, was not the case. The lack of

confidence in communities was due to the fact that they found no obvious

environmental damage to strongly say it was caused by the operators. Because of

this, communities felt no reason to communicate with operators in any decision-

making regarding the use of their environment. There were only a small number

of community members that had not recognized any changes to their marine

environment over time. Concerns have been raised in relations to some of the

pollutants observed in the marine environment but no effort has been made to

address them.

From an observation made around the study area, one common environmental

displacement noticed was the excessive dead algae often deposited on most

shorelines after a high tide. This was also reported to have increased over the

years by those who had also observed this change. Increase of algae growth could

indicate increased nutrients entering the marine environment, especially from

untreated sewage that leaches into soil and then out to sea after a heavy rain.

144

There is a possibility that the sewage could be from most of the hotel operations

as they do not have proper sewage disposal systems or from cruise operations

travelling to and from in the area. Even though the excessive algae deposition was

physically observed, communities did not express any understanding or

knowledge about what this could have been caused by. This shows that no

consultations, information sharing or education was given to communities in

order for them to understand and explain some of the environmental changes that

could result from the increased tourism development or activities over time. As

shown, in this case, if communities were provided with increased access to

information about environmental processes, they could be able to directly relate

the causes and be concerned with how operators were using their environment.

Many of the operators interviewed were locals (Appendix 8) and because they

also had ownership right to the use of the environment and its resources, most

communities felt no right to object and so this gave a much stronger reason for

communities to not participate or be involved with any decision making of the

operators.

On the involvement process that encourages communities to take control in all

stages of ecotourism planning, as discussed by Wearing and Neil (1999), Drake

(1991), MacDonald and Wearing (2003), none was addressed between the

communities and operators in Nacula. The communities were never involved in

any management planning, implementation towards any tourism developments

undertaken by operators. Decisions were always made by a top-down approach,

because low status individually was never consulted regarding how they felt about

the use of their resources. Control over resources can be the key to gaining

community support towards conservation and the top-down approaches has

sometimes failed to gain such support, in spite of the fact that it has provided

monetary benefits to local people (Campbell 1999).

Generally as an overview, the lack of local community involvement could be that

people do not know what they are supposed to do. They lack the understanding of

145

ecotourism so it follows that they do not know anything and therefore lack the

capacity to do anything else.

c) The Tourists as the Users of Ecotourism

Tourists are described as vital players in the success and failure of ecotourism, as

they are the main users of the environment intended to be conserved.

Based on their demographic characteristics, ecotourists can be generally

characterized as holding tertiary qualifications, aged of 20–40 or 55+, equally

divided between male and female and mostly from United States, Canada,

Germany, Sweden and Australia (Blamey 1995; Boo 1991; Wight 1996;

Valentine 1991). They regularly travel as couples or individuals and are frequent

and experienced travellers (Wight 1996; Boo 1991). The demographic features of

tourists surveyed within Nacula, which may likely be a representative of the types

of tourist received most in the area all year round, are the young adults (between

the ages of 20–34+) travelling mostly as a couple. In some cases, a couple may be

travelling in a group with other couples where many of them have a high tertiary

qualification. Tourists found travelling to Nacula hold some of the characteristics

of an ecotourist as described in which they are young, well educated and are from

one of the countries described earlier.

Some studies of ecotourists, as reported by Beaumont (2001), have found that

ecotourists generally share motivations of wanting to view or experience a natural

area and to learn about nature. From the survey, more tourists were purposefully

travelling to Nacula mostly for three reasons and they are to relax, to learn about a

new culture, and to experience a natural environmental setting. The factors found

to have been extremely important in affecting tourists’ choice of travelling to

Nacula, prior to visit, were related to the beach and the people and their culture.

The environment was considered as slightly above important but not with the

intensity of the above-mentioned factors. Tourists therefore, travelling to Nacula,

146

were more motivated by wanting to have a relaxing trip to Fiji because of the

captivating image of its sun, sand and sea. The image of the sun and the

hospitality of the locals have often been used to portray the tropical climate of Fiji

and the culture of the people respectively, and so many tourists were found to

have selected climate and culture as being extremely important to travel back to

Nacula in the future. During the trip, tourists had also identified people and

culture, environment, and climate as the three most interesting factors experienced

in the trip. These factors as discussed, have expressed that the tourists’

motivations were not strongly ecotourist-oriented in terms of having an intention

to learn about the environment, but rather, the intention of the visit was to use and

enjoy the environment for the purpose of relaxing. Relaxation in the case of many

tourists was mostly in the form of diving and snorkelling.

Even though culture was commonly identified as a holiday choice, there was little

visible interest expressed by tourists in wanting to learn it, as participation of

tourists in cultural tours relatively. Ecotourists, according to Eagles et al. (1992),

should demand information and instructions of their chosen destination because

they are often science oriented and focused on studying new things, but again, this

was not evident in tourist participation. Apart from being a frequent and

experienced traveller, ecotourists are also often outdoor enthusiasts (Wight 1996;

Boo 1991). The study shows that many tourists were reported to have engaged in

various outdoor activities such as kayaking and surfing, diving and snorkelling,

boat cruises and game fishing. These activities were also identified as forms of

relaxation, which were all associated with the enjoyment of the ‘sea’ and the

‘sand’. The luxury living, accommodation, and food are far less important to

ecotourists (Wearing and Neil 1999). Tourists visiting Nacula, however, still

considered accommodation as a very important factor for their return.

A study conducted by Beaumont (2001) suggested that not all ecotourists are

environmentally aware and sensitive. Tourists surveyed have expressed average

knowledge on environmental functions and the importance of conservation.

147

Knowledge on environmental conservation was relatively low because issues

regarding conservation measures were generally related to managing litter;

limiting tourist access; controlling water traffic; and monitoring and enforcement

of environment-friendly practices, without any descriptive explanation.

According to Nianyong and Zhuge (2001) and Beamount (2001), providing

environmental education can help foster awareness and understanding of the

natural environment and consequently promote pro-environmental attitudes and

responsible environmental behaviour because the more informed a person is, the

more likely they are to support environmental conservation because they can

appreciate the value and identify with the environment that is at risk (Goudberg et

al. 1991). Operators have not provided environmental information to visiting

tourists and therefore the attitudes and interest of tourists towards environmental

conservation have not been actively expressed in terms of financial support

towards conservation (more ranking percentage was made in the slight support of

financial contributions). Even though there was a high percentage of concern

regarding the amount of litter and the poor reef conditions, tourists had still

expressed great disappointment towards the lack of white sandy beaches within

the area, again showing that many were there to enjoy the sandy beach rather than

having the interest to learn about the environment as ecotourists are expected to

do. The level of compliance to the code of conduct expressed by tourists does

show a positive attitude but it is most likely that the compliance will be forced

rather than voluntarily accepted. This will not bring out a positive learning

attitude for tourists without their realizing it, to actively learn and understand the

reasons why some careless behaviour on their part could, disturb the environment

used.

d) Individual Efforts Made Towards Conservation

Ecotourism has the potential to create support for conservation objectives in both

the host community and in visitors alike, through the establishment of and the

148

sustaining of links between the tourism industry, local communities and the

environment. Conservation, importantly, addresses the management of resources

in an attempt to restore, enhance, protect and sustain the quality of the local

environment.

In examining the contributions made towards conservation from various

stakeholders, the findings showed that all operators (except for one) had no

conservation strategies or future planning regarding environmental conservation

in place. Contribution of effort towards environmental conservation by operators

seems to have been a ‘hear-say’ catchphrase, because evidently, there were no

conservation practices in place by any of the operators’ interviewed. If there was

any environmental disturbance from the increasing tourism development,

operators would not be able to take action because they also had no contingency

plans available. All operators in their business set-up have addressed the

management of rubbish and litter, but communities have learnt that it has only

been efficient but not as effective over the past years. The litter management

program was actually introduced by the Nacula Tikina Tourism Association, in

which they were expected to take a leading role in advocating conservation in the

marine environment of Nacula. One of the reasons expressed by both operators

and communities regarding the diminished effectiveness of the program was the

lack of enforcement at the time of its introduction. Tourists have also expressed

great disappointment in the amount of litter observed along the shorelines and in

the marine environment. Pollutants such as oil slicks and excessive dead algae

were found on the water surface and along the shores. Evidence of oil slicks is

probably the result of increase tourism transports to and fro the islands from the

mainland or within islands. Excessive algae deposits are the result of increased

sewage seeping into the marine environment from untreated waste materials. This

would mostly be from operators that do not have proper sewage treatment for

their toilets or cruise vessels that may possibly be discharging waste into the

marine environment. This is possible because no patrol boats were available to

monitor the everyday activities of cruise vessels, but some locals have reported

149

such concern in recent years. Agricultural practices of operators were

environment- friendly but there were some reservations about the use of resources

(sand, rock, rubbles extracted from the marine environment for construction), as

future planning for most operators is to expand their business, and as result, will

increase demand on resources.

A further finding is that, the understanding of the concept of environmental

conservation was very vague with both communities and the operators; therefore,

operators have expressed the need to actively address environmental awareness

and education. No local environmental conservation was currently practised in

any of the communities, apart from litter management. Communities were not

influenced by the operators on any environmental conservation practices even

though some had reported that they were more influenced by tourists’ attitude and

behaviour. Evidently, such influence has not been effective enough to change the

behaviour and attitude of communities towards conservation. This is because

communities were still found harvesting targeted marine ornaments to sell to

tourists, using processes of harvesting that were not even environment-friendly.

For example, coral in particular, are broken off and sold to tourists, as observed

on site. Most importantly, most ornamental species sold are listed as endangered

species of Fiji. This has been the result of the lack of environmental awareness

and education provided to communities and has resulted in communities not

recognizing inevitable changes occurring over time within their own environment.

As long as money was coming into communities, many did not express the

interest in addressing environmental protection or conservation.

According to Wearing and Neil (1999), there is a possibility that communities

may express resentment towards areas designated for conservation, simply

because such a measure is viewed as principally of benefit to tourists with no

reciprocal benefit for the local population. This would mean that local people no

longer have the right to use resources they consider theirs, but at the same time

see it frequently visited by foreign people, that the communities express negative

150

reactions is hardly a surprising result. This has exactly been the case for Nacula

communities. Many have felt that their right to use the resources has been denied

as some operators have forbidden the locals to fish or glean in areas adjacent to

the hotels. The intentions of operators may be for the tourists’ benefits, but

because there was no proper communication and consultation made at a grass-root

level, negative reactions were expressed by local communities. Locals giving up

the use of their resources for tourism activities, in return, could provide associated

benefits that they would appreciate and acknowledge, but this has not been the

case. Communities were satisfied with how operators are using their resources, in

terms of gaining less monetary benefits, to increase their business performances.

This could also be the reason why communities have expressed less interest in

protecting their environment and as a result they are driven continuously to

harvest marine ornaments to sell to tourists continuously.

Lastly, operators have expressed full support for any future environmental

conservation effort put forward in the future, for example, donating funds for

raising awareness about conservation, providing technical support, and

monitoring. Communities may only provide full support once environmental

awareness and education have been provided; because many communities have

commented that they have very little knowledge and understanding on how the

environment could be affected by their individual practices.

Hoctor (2003) states that increased awareness of the importance of natural

resources can result in an increased willingness of the host communities to protect

resources and to support local conservation causes. There is an increased

willingness of communities in Nacula to participate in conservation only if they

were provided with a lot of awareness. Tourists, on the other hand, have

expressed very little interest and support for any conservation, not even the

willingness monetary contribution to support environmental conservation. The

majority of tourists indicated no interest of monetary contribution towards

151

conservation, even though suggestions were made as to how it would be spent if

later tourists will have to make contribution.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the many debatable issues surrounding ecotourism today, many

interest groups have proposed that ecotourism is one of the new ways forward for

environmentally sustainable development. And so, as tourism continues to

develop, the environment, in turn will also be protected.

The term ‘ecotourism’ means a lot of things to many theorists and over the years

it has been difficult to find a standardised meaning but in the world of

conservation today, ecotourism has been recognised as a solution to protecting the

environment while at the same time gaining a return benefit from using it.

The literature review of this study has identified ecotourism as a bridge that links

tourism not only to environmental conservation but also to the local communities.

Of the seven highlighted characteristics of ecotourism expressed by different

theorists, the study has only selected those characteristics that match the practice

of ecotourism towards the conservation or protection of the environment and in

doing so, it has provided conclusions to the following areas:

1) The interpretation and understanding of ecotourism to operators and

communities

The study has shown that there were some disagreement in the definitions of

ecotourism, as described by communities and operators. Operators understand or

define ecotourism in two different contexts, the cultural and the physical

environment. Their objective of ecotourism was to provide tourists a cultural

experience that will result in a higher understanding and appreciation of the

environment. Most importantly, ecotourism was also meant to minimize negative

152

impacts on the physical environment and contribute towards its protection.

Minimizing negative impacts, in this case, was referred to as the management of

litter and the physical set-up of the tourism operation as offered to tourists. The

accommodation set-up simply in conclusion cannot be classified as environment-

friendly (as mentioned by operators) because the materials used were obtained

from the natural environment and continuous use of the natural resources for

building materials over time will increase the pressure to extract raw materials

from the natural environment. Deterioration of the environment is inevitable

unless there was some effort to extract them on a sustainable basis. Protecting the

cultural environment, on the other hand, was meant providing a cultural

experience to tourists to allow them to learn and understand, respect, and

appreciate the locals’ way of living.

Communities, on the other hand, understand ecotourism as an activity that

provides them with economic benefits, such as employment and as a source of

income for using their surrounding environment. Most importantly, ecotourism

was described as a source of improving the well being of communities. Like the

operators, communities also identify ecotourism as an activity that was provide a

cultural experience, which will increase tourists’ knowledge and appreciation of

the local culture they were visiting.

Evidently, there is also a gap in the understanding of ecotourism between

operators and communities. In theory, ecotourism addresses the importance of

finding a balance between the social, cultural and physical environments. Its core

interest is to maintain the nature of an environment used. This means that, as

tourism activities continue to provide benefits to the social, cultural and physical

environment over time, the nature or natural setting of that environment is not

negatively affected in any way. The tourism activities, therefore, should be

conservation-led or oriented. Ecotourism aims to take a relatively small number of

people to a natural area in order to minimize impacts on the social, cultural and

physical environment. Ecotourism has the idea that it will contribute to a

153

sustainable future for the destination it occurs in, in the form of economic return

because it has the potential to foster conservation of the resources used by

increasing awareness to people on the importance of maintaining the resources.

The situation is, however, that operators express their interest in protecting the

environment while communities, only look at how the environment used can

provide them economic benefits. Sure enough, operators have expressed their

concern to protecting the environment but practically, this had not been the case.

Ecotourism also was never emphasized as a means of empowering local

participation for any conservation interest in the long run.

2) The practicality of ecotourism for operators relative to environmental

conservation

The definition of ecotourism stresses that the notion of travel for ecotourism is

restricted to undisturbed natural areas, as ecotourism’s focus is fundamentally on

experiencing natural areas without causing damage to the local environment.

Activities provided by the tourism operators in Nacula were based on the use of

natural features and attractions. Operators were only offering activities that were

nature-based and so they can be classified as ecotourism.

Ecotourism by definition also emphasizes the need to minimize impacts posed on

the social, cultural and physical environment used for tourism activities and in

doing so, proper management planning is expected to play a key role. Ecotourism

should be managed actively, so that it can contribute to the health and viability of

the environment used, rather than destroying it. Active management requires the

control of human use of resources in an attempt to restore, use, enhance, protect

and sustain the quality and quantity of a desired ecosystem and some of it would

include the identification of carrying capacity of an area, the development of

monitoring strategies of the environment used, the development and

implementation of a code of conduct, and the development of contingency plans.

This study has shown that there was no active management that accompanied the

154

use of the environment facilitating any of the tourism activities. This simply

meant that no control of use was in place, and neither, were there any regulations

provided to tourists for the use of the environment that will at least minimize

negative tourist behaviours. Added to this, operators had no monitoring program

and resource inventory in place regarding the environment used for facilitating the

activities offered. This was probably the reason why operators had very little or

no knowledge of the status and changes encountered within the environment.

Initially, there was no planning made in linking the individual set-up with the way

the environment was used. None of the operators had any action plan in place,

which would help address environmental problems if they were to occur later in

time (possibly as a result of their individual practices) and how they would cope

with it. None of the operators also had current or future conservation plans in

place. Planning in regard to the use of the environment for the purpose was poorly

acknowledged. There had been intentions expressed by operators in support of

conservation, but no sign of planning for conservation was observed on the

ground. Management planning, in this case, had played little role according to the

operators’ in relation to the development of tourism within Nacula, even though

the management of litter was identified as one of the main priorities of operators

making a move towards environmental protection. Although the litter

management introduced was identified as efficient, there are still uncertainties

about its effectiveness and approach. Again the practices of the operation in this

case cannot be identified as ecotourism.

Ecotourism by definition also emphasises the importance of education for both

tourists and residents of nearby communities. It attracts people who wish to

interact with the environment, and in varying degrees, develop their awareness

and appreciation of it. Ecotourism also provides local people the opportunity to

learn and use the area and attractions that tourists visits. Here, the advocacy of

environmental education through the operation of ecotourism for operators was

poorly practised towards the communities, tourists and even to their very own

staff. Raising environmental awareness and education to tourists and communities

155

was of little importance to operators. This also included the training of staff as

tour guides. Because there were no tour guides, tourists were always left on their

own. The verbal reminders made to tourists during arrival briefings do not

provide tourists a first hand experience with nature which is expected to motivate

them to appreciate and value the environment used. Ecotourism, from the finding,

had not played any educative role as it is supposed to have done, and therefore the

operation, as expressed by many operators, was not aligned with their own

definition of ecotourism.

3) Community’s understanding, involvement and contribution towards ecotourism

Ecotourism, in its definition, addresses the importance of conserving the natural

resources utilised by surrounding communities. Also by definition, it highlights

the importance of what it can provide to local communities in return. But, for

ecotourism even to begin using the environment, communities’ consensus is often

important to consider. Ecotourism links communities to their environment, but the

success of ecotourism are also very dependent on how communities play a role in

the environment. This is why ecotourism, also by definition, encourages the

importance of local involvement in the overall operation of ecotourism. Local

communities are resource owners and therefore they should not be marginalized

by or excluded from any effort to use or protect their environment. Increasing

access to information for local communities can provide them with greater scope

for involvement in planning and decision-making. In other words, education plays

a powerful role in increasing local involvement.

Findings made in this study did not contradict these generalizations from

experiences elsewhere. Community involvement and participation in the planning

or development process of the ecotourism operations in Nacula had played no role

at all. In decision- making regarding resource and environmental use, a top-down

approach was the only adopted throughout; there was no recognition of the

desirability of reaching a bottom-up consensus on the question of how local

156

resources are used. In many cases, some communities expressed disappointment

at the loss of the right to use the resources or the environment within their own

vicinity. This did not represent an example of good ecotourism practice.

Ecotourism, as earlier defined, is education on the environment for local

communities, which will help increase their understanding and appreciation of

protecting their environment. The findings also showed that local communities

identified the lack of environmental education as the fault of operators, who

should have provided the communities with such help since they, as resource

owners, are key players in the holistic approach and the success of ecotourism.

Because of the lack of education provided to local communities, findings have

shown that local communities had only very limited knowledge regarding the

interrelationship between ecotourism and the use of the environment. As a result

of this, they had failed to recognize changes in the environment over time,

possibly caused by tourism development within the area.

4) Tourists and their contribution towards ecotourism

Even though tourists received in Nacula meet the demographic characteristics

described as those of ecotourists, their motives for travel was only focused on the

interest in what most ordinary tourists do when visiting a tropical destination,

which is to relax and enjoy the climate, the environment, and the hospitality

offered. From the findings, the intentions of travelling for most of the tourists

were basically to enjoy the environment for its purposes of relaxing, rather than

wanting to learn about it. Attitudes towards environmental conservation expressed

by tourists were surprisingly disappointing in terms of monetary contribution for

future conservation work, as many tourists were not actively supportive of the

idea. In other words, this is not ecotourism.

The tourists’ knowledge of environmental functions and the importance of

conservation were relatively low and knowledge expressed on environmental

conservation measures was generally described without logical explanations. It is

157

simple to say, in this case, that every tourist visiting Nacula could be blamed for

not expressing an interest towards environmental conservation because his or her

motive for travel was focused elsewhere. Due to the fact that the operators of

ecotourism did not clearly identify their operation to tourists as environmentally

focused, through the provision of education to increase environmental awareness,

it is scarcely surprising that tourists did not take an interest in any environmental

conservation themselves. The attitudes of the tourists towards conservation were

not actively supportive of any future conservation in Nacula in terms of monetary

contribution. The tourists did at some stage express responsible environmental

behaviours by raising concerns about the amount of litter encountered in the

marine environment, but again great disappointment was expressed towards the

lack of ‘white sandy beaches’. This seems to reflect that tourists were visiting

Nacula to enjoy the sandy beach rather than having an interest in learning

something new. The types of tourists moving in an out of Nacula are expected to

affect the development of ecotourism, if so, over time. This is because if tourists

visiting Nacula are only focused on using the environment for their own

enjoyment then the purpose of ecotourism to protect the environment has been

defeated. Communities often look up to tourists as their inspiration towards

looking after their environment and so if tourists did not show any interest

towards caring for the environment, communities also became more ignorant in

the process.

To conclude, ecotourism in Nacula has placed very little emphasis on the

conservation of the environment used for facilitating tourism activities. The

emphasis of ecotourism, for the Nacula operators was focused more towards

culture and so the interest towards protecting the environment for all those

involved (operators, communities and tourists) was poorly acknowledged, if the

intention of ecotourism was to also protect the environment. Possible factors as to

why the tourism operation in Nacula has addressed very little about the

environmental protection include the fact that ecotourism as it is supposed to be

was not clearly defined to both communities and operators so that they would

158

both have a mutual understanding of the goals. There was also a lack of education

and awareness provided in the whole approach of ecotourism within the area.

Most importantly, there was a lack of communication between communities,

operators and tourists, who are believed to be the key stakeholders in the success

of any ecotourism operation.

Also as another concluding factor, none of the groups (operators, communities

and tourists) had expressed a high indication of being more ‘eco-aware’ to the

other. Operators even though had some knowledge of the concept of

ecotourism, their operation however did not express as such. Communities on

the other hand had relied on the operators to take the leading role on practice

of ecotourism and because this had not been the case, communities’

knowledge and participation, as part of the ecotourism equation, in Nacula

became very limited.

Critically in summary, the case study of Nacula does not fit the theory of

ecotourism from a range of perspectives or criteria simply because of the

following reasons:

1. It undermines genuine ecotourism operation elsewhere around the world but

most importantly for Fiji because it did not follow fully the principles of

ecotourism as highlighted by many theorists.

2. It makes false claims about the nature of the product and the visitors’

experiences. All the tourist products offered by the operators even though was

focused on the natural environment, there was no evidence to support they

were of an interest to protect the environment in the long run.

3. It persists with a product that is not in the interest of environmentally

sustainable development.

4. It diverts the focus of ecotourism from environmental conservation to

concentrate more importantly as an alternative option of providing socio-

economical benefits to local communities and to the interest of the country’s

159

economy. This is because ecotourism was greatly encouraged in Fiji as an

option to provide economic benefits to outer island communities.

5. It undermines the contribution and involvement of local communities as key

players to the success of ecotourism because communities were not fully

participative to the whole process from the very beginning as suppose to be.

6. It neglects the educative potential of ecotourism, which could help enhance

the quality of life for the host community, provide a high quality of experience

for the visitors and maintain the quality of the environment for all, for the

future.

All of these six factors is a result on the fact that the principles and focus of

ecotourism are not clearly defined or outlined to a level where there is a mutual

understanding from all those involved stakeholders, mostly to the operators and

local communities.

160

CHAPTER SEVEN

RECOMMENDATIONS

The case study of Nacula reveals an unfolding scenario of what the experience of

ecotourism may be to some local operators in Fiji. The locals of Nacula like many

other island communities, uses the natural environment and its resources as a

product for attracting tourists. The advocacy of involving local communities to

take active roles in tourism development over the years has resulted in the

increasing numbers of locally owned tourism operators in Nacula, a trend that is

also beginning to expand rapidly in other island communities of Fiji. Because of

government concern regarding the protection of the environment in line with

sustainable development planning, alternative forms of tourism that have the

interest of safekeeping the environment have been introduced for adoption across

Fiji. This form of tourism is referred to as ‘nature-based tourism’ or ‘ecotourism’

under the National Ecotourism Policy (NEP). This policy focuses on the

promotion of positive economic and social impacts; reducing leakages; and the

opportunities for resource owners to establish and run their own businesses,

especially in the rural areas.

Critically, the definition of ecotourism under the NEP policy identifies ecotourism

as a means of equally distributing the benefits of tourism to many rural areas,

instead of having the focus on the protection of the natural environment. In other

words, it is centred more on the welfare of the local people, rather than the

interests of the environment used. Losing the focus of environmental protection or

conservation in ecotourism can impose negative impacts for the future

development of ecotourism in Fiji.

161

FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF ECOTOURISM IN FIJI

Recommendations to Government

The operation of ecotourism in Fiji should not only focus on its economic

potential but that it should also be greatly advocated as a conservation tool. The

term ecotourism in Fiji has somehow become a misused expression by those

tourism operators that focus or centre their attraction on the natural environment

even though there is no support towards environmental conservation. This is

because the term and key principles of ecotourism are not clearly defined, but

even if it was, questions are drawn to determine if the definition of ecotourism is

valid and operational to the context of Fiji, especially at a local level. The

definition of ecotourism used here in Fiji has a lot of emphasis on the social,

cultural and economic components with very little focus towards the protection of

the natural environment. In the long run, Fiji needs to address this and find a

balance where not only is the operation of ecotourism gaining the social, cultural

and economic benefits but that the interest of the environment used is

safeguarded. The government and other involved stakeholders of tourism and

environmental conservation groups or institutions should review the current

definition of ecotourism and formulate one that is desirable to all environmental

aspects (cultural, social, economical and natural). Regardless of environment-

friendly tourism practices, ecotourism needs to be recognized as an activity that is

also focused on understanding the ecological relationships of the environment

which some local operators do not address. Fiji government should review the

current ecotourism policy relating to environmental protection, the effectiveness

of which should be measured over time, in order to identify its weaknesses and

strengths and make improvements thereafter. Governments has the potential to

exert control on the scale and the types of tourism development and they,

therefore need also to have a balanced attitude towards a broader care of the

environment, whilst developing tourism. Ecotourism policies should be

encouraged in the direction of the critical role it can play towards environmental

162

protection, rather than only advocating its economic potential, especially for most

rural communities.

One of the major loopholes brought to light the findings in Nacula is the lack of

understanding regarding the definition and concepts of ecotourism on

environmental conservation. It is possible that in the future, qoliqoli ownership in

Fiji will be fully transferred to local communities, and therefore the advocacy of

economic benefits gained from using local community resources in the tourism

industry can impose a major drawback. Communities may be driven more

towards what their resources can offer economically, rather than towards their

protection. This has been the case for Nacula district and probably will get worse

if actions are not taken to address this situation.

Recommendation to Operators

Increased education and awareness not only for ecotourism, but also on

environment-friendly practices is greatly needed for operators because, as

findings indicate, most operators were not environmentally focused in their

operation, or at least not according to what an ecotourism is suppose to be.

Ecotourism encourages environmental protection and therefore good quality

environmental planning and management should be associated with it in order to

maintain the natural features of the environment used. Basic management criteria

should be outlined and adopted by operators who wish to engage in its operation,

not only as a site for ecotourism enterprise but also as an operation that is focused

towards the interest of protecting the environment used. Some of these measures

include setting up different zones to use, identifying the carrying capacity of an

area used, conducting environmental impact assessment, conducting

environmental monitoring or assessment, and providing environmental codes of

conduct for tourism. Zoning can provide a proper recognition of the resources that

exist in an area and subsequently identify where tourism can and cannot take

place. Identifying the carrying capacity of what an environment can facilitate is

163

important because only then can the number of tourists visiting an area be

monitored and controlled. Identifying carrying capacity can be extremely

problematic because of the various factors that influence it. Nevertheless, trying

to identify a limitation or control on a number of tourists visiting would be a step

forward, as there is no form of control in entry at this point for Fiji as a whole.

Environmental monitoring and assessment will also allow an operator to

understand and identify changes occurring within an area. Added to this,

operators need to be encouraged in providing educational programs and

increasing the awareness of their visiting guests, sensitising them to the focus on

environmental conservation. There is great potential for tourists to contribute

towards environmental conservation only if there is more active promotion of

environmental education and awareness and that first-hand experiences are also

provided to them during their visit.

Recommendation to Communities

This study has shown that the term ecotourism was not clearly defined to

communities and as a result, the operation of ecotourism in Nacula has become a

one way-process not only to the operators but also to communities. Because of

this, communities have been drawn more towards the capitalising effort of

ecotourism rather than having the interest to initially protect the environment. As

a recommendation, it is important to note that before identifying a tourism project

as ecotourism, communities need to first seek consultations or advise from

expertise not only regarding what ecotourism is about but how every step is

approached to becoming a real successful ecotourism project that is based on all

of its principle.

Ecotourism addresses the links between communities, tourism and the

environment used. It is therefore important that there is communication and

transparency at all times between communities and operators regarding any

current or future plans and development of tourism relating to the use of local

164

resources. Local communities are also users of the resources used for any tourism

activities and therefore they need to be part of any development or planning

process that is associated with it. Because one principle focus of ecotourism is to

conserve the natural resources of the surrounding communities it is therefore only

important that we consider that the interest in using a community’s environment

should not be removed from them. The more involved communities are in

ecotourism, the more they will allow them to understand the processes involved

and a better chance of success. Giving the chance for communities to be involved

the development of ecotourism will inspire them to take leading roles in the

conservation of their natural resources. However, again, there needs to be a high

degree of awareness provided to communities by operators, government and other

involved institutions. Active awareness should include dialogue of the goals and

objectives of ecotourism operation and the way it affects communities.

As recommendations to the overall approach of ecotourism in Fiji, the

government involved in the development of the tourism industry in Fiji with other

stakeholders should compose a definition that is acceptable to all that not only

will it create a mutual agreement to the definition that can be applied here in Fiji

but that it will also help minimise the misunderstanding of the concepts of

ecotourism and other policies of which it is associated with. The primary focus of

ecotourism on environmental conservation should be strongly emphasised not

only on the definition of ecotourism but also to its practical operation. Following

this, communities and operators should then be provided with active education

and awareness so as to provide a better understanding of the components of

conservation in ecotourism, which they could then provide to visiting tourists with

the intention to use the environment. Added to this, both communities and

operators need to work together collectively, be more transparent, and have more

active dialogues with each other regarding any decision-making on resource use.

Last but not least, in the long run, the approach of ecotourism towards any

environmental conservation should be adopted holistically by everybody—

165

including the government, operators, communities and tourists, for the benefit of

Fiji’ long term future.

Because of this, the term ‘ecotourism’ as used by most local operators should be

removed and instead be recognized only as tourism. Surely having a genuine

ecotourism initiatives would be highly desirable, and so there is an urgent need to

‘raise the bar’ in the practice of ecotourism and the understanding that surrounds

it.

166

REFERENCES Australian Conservation Foundation. (1994). Tourism Policy. Unpublished document. Ayala, H. (1995). From quality product to eco-product: will Fiji set a precedent? Tourism Management 16(1), 39–47. Barbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. 9th Edition. Wadsworth, Belmount: Thomson Learning Inc. Barbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research. 10th Edition. Wadsworth, Belmount: Thomson Learning Inc. Battan, R. N. (2000). Tourism and the environment: A quest for sustainability. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. Baumol, W.J. and Oates, W.E (1979). Economics, environmental policy and quality of life. London: Prentice Hall Inc. Beaumont, N. (1998). The meaning of ecotourism according to… Is there a now consensus for defining this natural phenomena? An Australian perspective. Pacific Tourism Review 2, 239–250. Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(4), 317–339. Bjork, P. (1996). How much do Finnish tourists value sustainable tourism. In: Aho, S., Ilola, H. and Jarviluoma, J. (eds.) Dynamic aspects in tourism development. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Symposium on Tourism Research (pp. 53–76). Rovaniemi: University of Lapland. Bjork, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective: An extended definition of a unique tourism form. International Journal for Tourism Research 2(3), 189–202. Blaikie, N. W. H. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity. Bookfinder, M. P., Dinerstein, E., Arun, R., Caulay, H., and Arup, R. (1998). Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12(6), 1399–1404. Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potential and pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund,

Washington DC.

167

Boo, E. (1991). Planning for ecotourism. Parks 2(3), 4–8. Bouma, G. D., and Ling, R. (2004). The research process. 5th Edition. Australia: Oxford University Press. Black, R., Ham, S., and Weiler, B. (2001). Ecotour guide training in less developed countries: Some preliminary research findings. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(2), 147–157. Brandon, K. (1996). Ecotourism and conservation: A review of key issues. Environment Department Papers No. 033. Washington, DC: World Bank. Bricker, K. S. (2002). Planning for ecotourism admist political unrest: Fiji Navigates a way forward. In: Honey, M. (ed.) Ecotourism and certification: Setting standards in practice (pp. 265–297). Washington, DC: Island Press. Bricker, K. S. (2003). Ecotourism development in Fiji: Policy, practice and political instability. In: Fennel, D. A and Dowling, R. K (eds.) Ecotourism policy and planning (pp. 187–203). Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International. Bryman, A. (1989). Research methods and organization studies. London: Unwin Hyman. Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 629–642. Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Summary of statistics relating to visitors’ arrival in Fiji (1985–1991). Suva, Fiji. Butler, R.W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28(3), 40–45. Butler, R.W. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation 18, 201–209. Butler, R.W. (1992). Ecotourism: It’s changing face and evolving philosophy. Paper presented to the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracus, Venezuela. Campbell, L. M. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3), 534–553. Caputi, P., and Balnaves, M. (2001). Introduction to qualitative research methods: An investigative approach. London: Sage Publications.

168

Carter, E. (1994) Ecotourism in the Third World- problems and prospects for sustainability. In: Carter, E. and Lowman, G. (eds.) Ecotourism: A sustainable option? (pp. 3–17). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987). The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal, January 13–14. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1988). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Parks, 2. 31–35. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: The state of nature based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland. Charters, T. (1996). Ecotourism: a tool for conservation. In: Charters, T., Gabriel, M. and Prasser, S. (eds.) National Parks: A private sector’s role (pp. 77–84). Toowoomba: USQ Press. Chin, C. L. M., Moore, S. A., Wallington, T. J., and Dowling, R. K. (2000). Ecotourism in Bako National Park, Borneo: Visitors’ perception on environmental impacts and their management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (1), 20–35. Customary Fisheries Act. (2004). Customary Fisheries Bill-Draft. Suva: Government of Fiji Islands. Davidson, C., and Tolich, M. (1999). Social science research in New Zealand: Many paths to understanding. New Zealand: Pearson Education Limited. Deardon, P., and Harron, S. (1993). Alternative changes and adaptive changes. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 81–102. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: a theoretical introduction into sociological methods. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dimitrios, D. and Westlake, J. (2001). Eco-labeling in the context of sustainable tourism and ecotourism. In: Font, X., and Buckley, X. (eds.) Tourism eco-labeling: certification and promotion of sustainable management (pp. 27–40). Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing. Drake, S. P. (1991). Local participation in ecotourism projects. In: Whelan, T. (ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment (pp. 132–163). Washington DC: Island Press.

169

Drumm, A. and Moore, A. (2002). Ecotourism development- a manual for conservation planners and managers. Volume 1. The Nature Conservancy, Virginia. Dunster, J. and K. Dunster. (1996). Dictionary of natural resource management. Vancouver: UBC Press. Eagles, P. F. J. (1992). The travel motivation of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 31(2), 3–7. Eagles, P. F. Balantine, J. L. and Fennell, D. A. (1992). Marketing to the ecotourists: case studies from Kenya and Costa Rico. Paper presented at International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUNCN) IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, 10–12 February. Eagles, P. F. J. and Demare, R. (1995). Canadian ecotourists: Who are they? Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 22–28. Ecotourism Association of Australia. (1992). Newsletter 1. Ecotourism Australia. (2003). On line WWW at http://www.ecotourism.org.au. Last logged in 16th February 2003. Environment Management Act. (2005) Act No. 1 of 2005. Suva: Government of Fiji Islands. EIU ViewsWire (Economist Intelligence Unit). (2003). Maritius Industry: Tourism holds up a tough environment. November 11, Country Report. New York. Evans-Pritchard, D. and Salazar, S. (1992) What is ecotourism? Costa Rico: Eco Institute of Costa Rica and ULACIT. Evans-Pritchard, D. (1993). Mobilization of tourism in Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 20, 778–779. Farrell, B. H. and Runyan, D. (1991). Ecology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18, 26–40. Fennell, D. and Eagles, P. (1990). Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptualized framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 8(1), 23–34. Fielding, N. G., and Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data: Quantitative research methods Series 4. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publication Inc.

170

Fillion, F., Foley, J. P., and Jacquemot, A. J. (1994). The economics of global tourism. In: Munasignhe, M and McNeely, J. (eds.) Protected area economics and policy: Linking conservation and sustainable development (pp. 234–254). Washington DC: World Bank. Francis, J. (1997). Tourism development in Fiji: Diversification through ecotourism. Unpublished MA Thesis: University of the South Pacific, Suva. Goodwin, H. (1996). In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity Conservation 5(3), 277–291. Goodall, B. and Stabler, M. J. (1999). Principles influencing the determination of environmental standards for sustainable tourism. In Stabler, M. J. (ed.) Tourism sustainability: Principles to practices (pp. 1–25).Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Goudberg, N. J., Cassells, D. S and Valentine, P. S. (1991). The prospect for an ecotourism industry in northern Queensland wet tropical rainforests. In: Goudberg, N. Bonnell, M. and Benzaken, D (eds.) Tropical Rainforest Research in Australia (pp. 25–38). Proceedings of a workshop held in Townsville: Institute for Tropical Rainforest Studies. Green Globe 21. (2003). Green Globe: The path of sustainable travel tourism. International Ecotourism Standards. April 2003. Green Globe, htpp://www.greenglobe.org Gubrium, J. F. and Holestein. J. A. (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hakim, C. (2000). Research design: successful designs for social and economic research. 2nd Edition. Unwyn Hynman Ltd: London. Hall, M. and Wouters, M. (1994). Managing nature tourism in the sub-Antarctic. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 355–374. Harrison, D. (ed.) (1999). Ecotourism and village-based tourism: A policy and strategy for Fiji. Ministry of Tourism and Transport, Suva, Fiji. Harrison, D., and Brandt, J. (2002). Tourism and politics. In Harrison, D. (ed.) Pacific Island Tourism, Cognizant, New York. Hashimoto, A. (1999). Comparative evolutionary trends in environmental policy: reflections on tourism development. International Journal of Tourism Research 1: 195–216.

171

Hawkes, S. and Williams, P. (1993). The Greening of Tourism: From Principles to Practice. British Columbia: Centre for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University. Healy, R.G. (1989). Economic consideration in nature-oriented tourism: the case of tropical forest tourist. Durham, North Carolina: Southeastern Center for Forest Economic Research. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmilan Press. Henwood, K. L., and Pidgeon, N. F. (1993). Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. In: Hammerley, M. (ed.) Special Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: Sage. Hemmi, J. (1995). Ymmparisto-ja luontomatkailu. In: Bjork, P. (ed.), Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourism form. International Journal of Tourism Research 2, 189–202. Henry, W. R. (1980). Patterns of tourism use in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park: Implications for planning and management. In: Hawkins, D. Shafer. E. and Rovelstad, J. (eds.) Tourism marketing and management issues (pp. 43-45). Washington DC: George Washington University Higgins, B.R. (1996). The global structure of the nature of tourism industry: ecotourists, tour operators, and local businesses. Journal of Travel Research 35(2), 11–18. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington: Island Press. Hoctor, Z. (2003). Community participation in marine ecotourism development in West Clare, Ireland. In: Wilson, J., and Garrod, B. (eds.) Marine ecotourism: Issues and experiences (pp. 7–36). Clevedon: Channel View. Hunter, C. and Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment: A sustainable relationship (pp. 10–21). London: Routledge. Hunter, C. J. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (3), 155–165. Hvenegaard, G. T., and Dearden, P. (1998). Ecotourism versus tourism in a Thai National Park. Annals of Tourism Research 25(3), 700–720. ICT (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo) (1993). Anuario Estadistico de Turismo. San Jose, Costa Rica: ICT.

172

Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourim planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. IUCN (World Conservation Union). (1993). Parks for life. Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Area. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Keith-Reid, R. (2003). Shape up or lose out: How to sell the region at the world’s biggest trade fair. Island Business 24(4) (May): 40–42. Klemm, M. (1992). Sustainable tourism development: Languedoc-Roussil-lon thirty years on. Tourism Management (June): 169–180. Levette, R. and McNally, R. (2003). A strategic environmental assessment of Fiji’s Tourism Development Plan. World Wildlife Fund, Suva, Fiji. Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., and Sproule, K. (1997). Ecotourism questioned: Case Studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3), 543–562. Lindberg, K and McKercher, B. (1997). Ecotourism: A critical review. Pacific Tourism Review 1, 65–79. Lindberg, K. Wood, E. M., Endgeldrum, D. (eds.) (1998). Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers. Volume 2. North Bennington, VT: The International Ecotourism Society. Lindsay, H. E. (2003). Ecotourism: their promise and perils of environmentally-oriented travel. Cambridge Scientific Abstract (February 2003). htpp:www.csa.com/hottopics/ecotour1/overview.html, visited 19th April 2004. Madan, S, and Rawat, L. (2000). The impact of tourism on the environment of Mussoorie, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Environmentalist 20(3): 249–255. MacGregor, J. R. (1993). Sustainable tourism development. In: Khan, M. A., Olsen, M.D. and Vats, T. (eds.) VNR’s Encylopedia of Hospitality and Tourism (pp. 781–789). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Malani, M. (1998). Ecotourism development throughout Fiji. Paper Presented at the Japan Ecotourism Conference, ‘Analyzing Current Global Ecotourism’, Okinawa, Japan (March 26 1998). Mathieson, A., and Wall, G. (1982). Environmental impacts of tourism. In Mathieson, A., and Wall, G. (eds.) Tourism: economic, physical and social impacts (pp. 105–112). London: Longman.

173

McAvoy, L. (1990). An environmental ethic for parks and recreation. Parks and Recreation 25(9), 68–72. McDonald, M., and Wearing, S. (2003). Reconciling communities’ expectations of ecotourism: initiation a planning and education strategy for Avoca Beach Rock Platform. In: Wilson, J., and Garrod, B. (eds.) Marine ecotourism: Issues and experiences (pp. 155–170). Clevedon: Channel View. Mieczkowski, Z. (1995). Environmental issues of tourism and recreation. Lanham: University Press of America. Mihalic, T. (2003). Economic instruments of environmental tourism policy derived from environmental theories. In: Fennel, D. A., and Dowling, R. K. (eds.) Ecotourism Policy and Planning (pp. 99–120). Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International. Ministry of Tourism and Transport, Tourism Council of the South Pacific and Deloitte and Touche (1998). Fiji Tourism Development Plan. Ministry of Tourism and Transport, Suva, Fiji. Ministry of Tourism. (2004). Fiji Tourism Information Guide. Ministry of Tourism, Suva, Fiji. Ministry of Tourism. (2004). Fiji Hotel Operator–Database. Unpublished. Nelson, J. G. (1994). The spread of ecotourism: Some planning implications. Environmental Conservation 21(3), 248–255. Nianyong, H., and Zhuge, R. (2001). Ecotourism in China reserves: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(3), 228–242. Nunn, P. (1994). Environmental changes and the early settlement of Pacific Islands. East-West-Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Obua, J., and Harding, D. M. (1997). Environmental impact of ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(3), 213-223. Ondicho, T.G. (2000). Environmental impacts of tourism in Kenya. In: Robison, M., Swarbrooke, J., Evans, N., Lang, P., Sharpley, R. (eds.), Environmental management and pathways to sustainable tourism: Reflections on international tourism (pp. 197–208). London: Business Education Publisher Ltd. Orams, M.B. (1995). To a more desirable form of tourism. Tourism Management 16(1), 27–39.

174

Parliamentary Paper. (2002). Rebuilding Confidence for Stability and Growth for Peaceful, Prosperous Fiji: Strategic Development Plan 2003-2005. No. 72, November 2002. Suva, Fiji. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd Edition. Newbury Park: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Edition. London: Sage. Pederson, A. (1991). Issues, problems and lesson learned from ecotourism planning projects. In: Kusler, J. (ed.) Ecotourism and resource conservation (pp. 61–74). Selected Papers from the 2nd International Symposium: Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, Madison: Omnipress. Pigram, J. J. (1989). Sustainable tourism-policy consideration. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(2), 2–9. Pigram, J. J. (1996). Best practice environmental management and the tourism industry. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 2 (3 & 4), 261–272. Powney, J., and Watts, M. (1987). Interviewing in educational research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Puczko, L. and Ratz, T. (2000). Limits and assessment: New integrated way to assess the physical impacts of tourism. In: Robinson, M., Swarbrooke, J., Evans, N., Long, P., Sharpley, R. (eds.) Environmental management and pathways to sustainable tourism: reflections on international tourism. London: Business Education Publisher Ltd Punch, K. F. (2000). Developing effective research proposal. London: Sage. Queensland Government. (1997) Queensland Ecotourism Plan. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Tourism, Small Business and Industry. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Inc. Ross, S. and Wall, C. (1999). Evaluating ecotourism: The case study of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tourism Management 20(6), 673–682. Ruschmann, D. M. (1992). Ecological tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management 13, 125–128. Salasfsky, N., Cordes, B., Parks, J. and Hochman, C. (1999). Evaluating linkages between business, the environment, and local communities: Final analytical

175

results from the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program Scace, R. C. (1993). An ecotourism perspective. In: Nelson, J. G., Butler, R., and Walls, G. (eds.) Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring, planning, managing (pp 59–82). Waterloo: University of Waterloo. Shaffir, W. B., and Stebbins, R. A. (1991) (eds.) Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research. London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interpretation. 2nd Edition. London: Sage. Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P.,Lee, D. R., and Deshier, D. J. (2003). How ‘eco is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(4), 322–347. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). The development and management of visitor attractions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford: CAB International. Taylor, S. J. and Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search meanings. 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Taylor, D., and Dangerfield, J. M. (1999). Ecosystem tourism: A resource tourism in Cayman Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7 (2): 146–158. Thaman, R. (2001). Ecotourism and the natural environment: Protecting Fiji’s unque environment. In: Bricker, K. S. (ed.) Shaping the future of ecotourism in Fiji. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Fiji Ecotourism Association Conference, Tanoa International Hotel, Nadi, Fiji, December 11–12, 2000 (pp 52–72). Fiji Ecotourism Association, Suva, Fiji Islands. The International Ecotourism Society. (2003). On WWW at http://www.ecotourism.org. Logged in 12th August 2004. Tuqiri, M. (2002). Tourism wants more money to get more visitors. Fiji’s Business Magazine 28(11), (November): 10. Ulak, R. (1993). The impact of tourism in Fiji: A comparison of two villagers. Summer 43(2), 1–7.

176

UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). (1999). Tourism and the environment: enemies or allies? UNEP Press Release 4 February 1999. UNEP, Nairobi. Valentine, P. (1991.) Nature-based tourism: a review of prospects and problem. In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and -Marine Tourism (pp. 475–485). Newport, Oregon: National Coastal Resources Research & Development Institute. Valentine, P. (1993). Ecotourism and nature conservation. A definition with some recent developments in Micronesia. Tourism Management 14(2), 107–115. Visser, N. and Njuguna, S. (1995). Environmental impacts of tourism in Kenya Coast. Wajibu 1. Wallace, G. (1991). Ecotourism and obligations to local people. Paper presented at the World Congress on Adventure Travel and Eco-Tourism at Colorado Springs, Colorado. Wallace, G. N., and Pierce, S. M. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazon, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research 23(4), 843–873. van Manen, H. (1990). Researching Lived Experiences. London: University of Western Ontario. Weaver, D. B. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 26(4), 792–816. Wearing, S and Neil, J. (1999). Ecotourism: Impacts, potential and possibilities. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Reef Education and Professional Publishing Ltd. Weiler, B., Johnson, T. and Davis, D. (1991). Roles of the tour leaders in environmentally responsible tourism. Conference Papers, University of Queensland. Australia Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.

Weiler, B. and Ham, S. H (1999). Training ecotour guides in developing countries: Lessons learned from Panama’s first guide’s course (pp. 10–19.). Paper presented to the International Society for Travel and tourism Educators annual conference, Vancouver, Canada, November 1999. Western, D. (1993). Defining ecotourism. In Lindberg, K. and Hawkin, D. E. (eds.) Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers (pp. 7–9). North Bennington VT: The International Ecotourism Society. Wheeller, B. (1992). Ego or ego tourism: new wave tourism. In: ETB Insights, Vol. 3. English Tourist Board, London: D41–44.

177

Wheeller, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (2), 121–129. Whelan, T. (ed). (1991). Nature tourism: managing for the environment. Washington DC: Island Press. Wild, C. (1994). Issues in ecotourism. In: Cooper, C. P and Lockwood, A (eds.) Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management (pp. 6). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: ethics, or eco-sell? Journal of Travel Research 34(4), 4–14. Wight, P. (1996). North America ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research 34(4), 2–10. Williams, P. (1991). Ecotourism management challenges. Paper presented at the Travel Review Conference, Washington DC, February. Burnaby BC: Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Applied Science. Wood, M. E. (2002). Ecotourism: principles, practices and policies for sustainability. 1st Edition. USA: The International Ecotourism Society. Wright, P. (1994). Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In: Carter, E. and Lowman, G. (eds.), Ecotourism: A sustainable option? (pp. 39–55). West Sussex: John Willey and Sons. WTO (World Tourism Organization). (1997). Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Volume One. Forty-ninth Edition. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. WTO News (World Tourism Organization) (1997). Tourism 2000: Building a Sustainable Future for Asia-Pacific. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. WTO (World Tourism Organization). (1996). Compendium of Tourism Statistics. Seventeenth Edition. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. WTO (World Tourism Organization). (2000) Island Tourism in Asia and the

Pacific. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

WTO (World Tourism Organization). (2005). Yearbook of Tourism Statistics-2005 Edition. http://www.world-tourism.org, visited 26 February 2005. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd Edition. Applied Social Research Method Series, Volume 5. London: Sage.

178

Young, H, (1992). People and Parks-Factors for the Success of Community Based Ecotourism in Conservation of Tropical Rainforest. Paper presented at the IUCN IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela. Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Washington DC: Conservation International.

179

APPENDICES Appendix 1.0

Operators and Community Preliminary Visit Questionnaire

Department of Tourism and Hospitality Studies, School of Social and Economic

Development, University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus, Suva Fiji

Preliminary Visit Questionnaire for:

a) Tourist Operators

Objectives

To investigate the interpretation of ecotourism concepts by each individual

ecotourism operators. This will help build an understanding to the foundation of

the ecotourism operation and be able to identify any linkages relating to the

conservation or protection of the marine environment.

Name of Operator:…………… Year of Operation:………….

Name of Interviewee:…………… Contact Details:……………………

Interpretation of Ecotourism

1. How would you define ecotourism in your own words or understanding?

2. What are the objectives of your business or operation?

3. What are your goals in the next 3 years?

180

4. Do you have a business statement that highlights your operation?

5 From the list of definitions identified, choose one definition that you feel best

fits your current business practice or is ideal for an ecotourism operation to

be?

6. Could you please indicate how the definition of ecotourism (selected above)

has been helpful to achieving the objectives stated?

7. Could you please indicate how the definition of ecotourism (selected above)

has been helpful to achieving the objectives you have identified?

b) Community

Household Id:………

1. How many family members do you currently have in this household?

2. How many of the family members are working and where do they work?

3. What would be the various sources of income to the family?

4. What would be the percentage of each of the sources?

5. Cash income made from the sale of marine ornaments to tourists, what would

your household spend it on? If you do sell them.

6. How important would you find your marine environment to be of use to you?

Not at all (1) Average (2) Important (3) Very important (4)

181

7. What activities do you engage most with in the marine environment

(swimming, food collecting, shell collecting for selling, traveling etc.)?

8. If fishing is identified in Q4, then what % of food is obtained from the marine

environment compared to the % purchased from shops or supermarket if any?

9. Have you heard of the term ecotourism?

10. How would you define the term ecotourism from your own understanding?

11. How many ecotourism operators do you think exist around this Tikina?

182

Appendix 2.0

Operators In-depth Interview Questionnaire

Department of Tourism and Hospitality Studies, School of Social and Economic

Development, University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus, Suva Fiji

What this survey about….

This study is about gaining a better understanding of your experience to the operation of ecotourism in the Nacula Tikina. By participating in this survey, you will help us understand your operation as an ecotourism operator and how it has it has contributed to the conservation of the environment and its resources. Objectives

To investigate the business practices of each operator in relations to addressing environmental concerns and issues that may have some connectivity impact to the marine environment such as the use of the product, waste management, resources use, agriculture, planning, contribution to conservation, education and awareness programs etc.

ID:…………………... Understanding of Ecotourism 1. What do you understand by the term ecotourism? Explain in your own word 2. From the list of definition provided, please select which you think best suits

your operation practically Ecotourism Products 3. What types of ecotourism product do you offer to your customers? Identify

the entire ecotourism product offered under your operation. 4. Do you have a special project site (natural site) that is associated or is being

set out for the use of the ecotourism product that you offer to your customers to use at any time for their learning experience or for enjoyment during their visit? What would the area of the site be like? Briefly explain (location (map), area, how many other operators use this site)

183

5. Do you have any baseline inventories of this site? If so, have you used this information to set-out any management and decision making process for conservation or protection to the use of the site?

6. How do you go about organizing the use of the project site (emphasis of

individual responsibilities, carrying capacity (number of people you allow at any one time), and zonning, seasonal closures of specific areas, closure during breeding seasons, etc? Briefly explain.

7. Do you have any guidelines or regulations outlined for your customers as to

how they should use the environment of the product for their enjoyment? Briefly describe the guidelines if there are any.

8. Do you monitor the status of the natural environment of the site over time in

order to understand the conditions and changes that have occurred physically to the surrounding from the time the area had been first used for your operation? Briefly explain. (This can also help identify the level of impact imposed by tourists)

Education and Awareness Programs 9. How well do you feel you are informed about environmental functions and

interactions of what occurs on land and its connectivity impact with the marine environment? Rank between 1-5

10. Are there any staff training and awareness of environmental management in

place? How often is this conducted? 11. Do you provide personnel training of tourist guides to meet the requests of

tourist regarding information about various environmental issues? 12. Do you educate your tourists as to how they should interact themselves with

the environment or identify some biological and ecological significance of the environment that they could be of importance to conservation. Briefly explain

13. Do you provide any form of education to local communities as well to the

conservation of the environment? Contribution to Conservation 14. How do you feel about taking an active role in contributing to the

conservation of the marine environment around the Nacula Tikina as a whole? In what ways do you see yourself engage to this?

184

15. Do you generate or plan to generate some form of money towards conservation or protection of the marine environment. If so how do you plan its distribution? How do you feel about making contribution towards conservation work?

Planning process

16. Was there a planning process involved in the initial physical setting up of your

operation? Briefly explained the involvement in the planning process? To be able to gain an understanding if there were any external review made to the environment (resource inventory, assessing government regulation in relation to environmental policies or ecotourism criteria)

17. Are you aware of some of the environmental damages that may arise if the

followings (waste management, agricultural practices, resource use) are not environmentally practiced to the full extent? If any such happens, what plan of action do you intend to take? Do you have any contingency plans that address future environmental harm that may be caused by your operation in the near future?

18. Are there any conservation strategies in place for the marine environment in

the future operation of your business?

Waste Management

19. Briefly describe any of the waste management programs that your operation has implemented around and within the natural environment of your operation.

Solid Waste Management Recycling and Reuse Liquid Waste Management (sewage treatment, septic tanks, effluents irrigation, holding tanks) Rubbish and Litter Management

20. In what ways do you feel has the identified waste management program been helpful to the protection of the environment (marine environment for that matter) around and within your operation?

21. Of how many years have your operation now adopted and implemented the

program identified above (for each individual)?

185

Agriculture 22. Briefly describe how the flower gardens, natural vegetations, other green

crops, etc. are maintained around the area. Able to describe the use of fertilizer, other manure etc. (What is the focus on environmentally-friendly practices)

Resource Use 23. Briefly identify some of the natural resources used from the marine

environment that you have used to maintain the physical set-up of your buildings, sea wall, floor of bures, footpaths, internal decorations of bures, manure, or as souvenirs for tourists etc. Examples of this could be: extraction of sand from beaches to make stones for building, rubbles and corals to use for septic tanks, seaweed or seagrass to use in flower beds as manure, shells for bure internal decoration etc. Where have these resources been extracted or collected from? What has been the methods used for extraction or collection? How often is this being done?

24. What is your dependency level to the marine environment in terms of food?

Do you encourage fishing, shell extraction, coral extraction, gleaning etc. from the vicinity of where you take your tourist? Briefly explain.

Experiences 25. What are some of the challenges and opportunities faced as an ecotourism operator in Nacula Tikina?

186

Appendix 3.0

Community Questionnaire

Department of Tourism and Hospitality Studies, School of Social and Economic Development, University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus, Suva Fiji Objectives

To also investigate community’s understanding and participation in the operation of ecotourism to the use of their marine environment or fishing grounds as they are the resource owners and therefore have the majority impact and influence to the decision-makings relating to conservation practices and issues.

General

1. Have you heard of the term ‘ecotourism’? If yes, please briefly explain or describe what you think it means?

2. Are you as an individual familiar with the ‘qoliqoli’ boundary of your community?

3. Which sites within the ‘qoliqoli’ are being used by the tourism operators in the Nacula Tikina for their outdoor marine activities (diving, snorkeling, kayaking, etc)? Describe on map

4. Are these sites also used by the communities for subsistence etc? If so, how exactly do you feel about the tourism operators using the same site? and why?

5. What are some of the tourism-related activities that are currently practiced within the community’s qoliqoli? List the ones that you are more amiliar with?

Networking with ecotourism operators

6. Does the community work closely with the tourism operators around the area in the use of its community ‘qoliqoli’ for their tourism activities? If yes, please specify what the involvement has been? What has been the level of involvement? If low, please indicate why?

187

7. Have the tourism operators in any way helped influence you as an individual about the protection/conservation of the marine environment? If yes, briefly explain how?

8. How do you feel about the use of your community’s qoliqoli for the benefits of the tourism operators around the Nacula Tikina? ....Satisfied ..Not satisfied. Briefly explain for reason stated above

Community Practices

9. Shell harvesting has been a common activity for the locals (source of income), what then are some of the common species of shells that you collect and sell to tourists? What sort of income do you get from this? What possible methods do you used to harvest the shells collected? Are they harvested alive of dead? If shells are caught alive, do you still intend to keep them? From where do you commonly harvest these shells? How long has the area been used for? How many harvesting sites have you already used?

10. Are there any local conservation practices already implemented or are under

process within the community to help protect the marine environment for touristic purposes? Briefly explain if there are any

11. If there are none, do you think that the community is intending do implement

any? What do you think will it involve? Briefly explain? Who all have been or will be involved in the conservation process identified above?

Observation 12. What are some of the marine environmental problems that have you have generally observed over the years in your communities ‘qoliqoli’? 13. What do you think are the causes of these problems? 14. What do you feel has been the impact of the tourism activities in the marine

environment around the ‘qoliqoli’ of the communities? ..very good ..good ..neutral ...bad ….very bad …..dnt know.

For the option selected above, please briefly explain your reason 15 Do you in any way feel that the practice of the existing operators within the

Nacula Tikina has helped address some of the problems indicated above? If so, then explain how?

188

Community’s Participation

16. Do you think that your community has contributed in any way to the better use of the marine environment for current tourist benefits? If so, please explain how?

17. If no, do you then think that the community can help contribute to the future

use of the qoliqoli for future ecotourism purposes? In what way can do you think they could contribute. List all of the possible ways.

18. What are some of the conservation issues do you think are important to

address if the community is given a chance to manage its marine environment for future ecotourism purposes?

189

Appendix 4.0 Tourist Questionnaire Department of Tourism and Hospitality Studies, School of Social and Economic Development, University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus, Suva, Fiji.

Bula! This survey is conducted in order to gain a better understanding of how important your engagement as a tourist to some of the ecotourism activities offered by operators for your enjoyment and learning experience. By participating in the survey, you will help us understand your involvement and contribution to the protection and conservation of the marine environment. This will help develop better management policies that would encourage further conservation of the marine environment through the practice of ecotourism.

How to complete this questionnaire: Answer by ticking the appropriate box or by writing in the answers where possible Please add any comments you feel are necessary to clarify any of the answers that you may be providing. Please note that Nacula is the name of the district of where you are currently

spending your holiday which has been used at most times in this questionnaire.

1. What is your age group? …… 15-24 …25-34 …35-44..…45-54 …….55-64 …..65+ 2. Are you ……male or ……female? 3. Nationality ……………….. 4. Where do you normally live?…………………………………. 5. What is your highest level of education? ……..no degree ……..secondary degree (high school) ……..some tertiary qualification or technical degree ……..university qualification 6. Are you traveling ……alone ……in pair ……..in families?

190

7. How long have you been here in Nacula or how long do you intend to stay? ……..1-3 days ……4-7 days ……>7 days 8. What is the main purpose of your trip here to Nacula. Please tick one box ……….relaxation ………honeymoon ……..business ………culture …….adventure (engagement of extreme physical activities) …….nature experience others: please state ……………………………….. 9. How important were the following aspects to your holiday in Nacula? Please rank on the scale from 1-5, whereby 1 is not important at all and 5 is extremely important. Coral reefs 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Beach 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Marine life 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Coastal Vegetation 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) People 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Culture 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Food 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Cheap accommodation1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 10. Have you done any of the following activities while here in Nacula. If yes, how often? Please tick the boxes and indicate how many times ….Diving …..times; ….Snorkeling….times;…..Kayaking…times ….Game fishing….times; ….Surfing.…times; ….Boat cruise…times ….Cultural tours….times; ….Cave Visit....times Others: …………….., …times 11. What are the things that have interested you most in this trip? ….Coral reefs; ….Sandy Beach; ….Marine life; ….Coastal Vegetation ….People; ….Climate; ….Culture; ….Food; ….Accommodation ….Others: Please indicate………………… 12. Why do you say so? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13. What has been the most disappointing part of your holiday in Nacula in regards to your encounter with the marine environment either it be diving, snorkeling, beach walks etc?

191

………beach ……..coral reefs ………marine life ……….rubbish/litter 14. Give reasons to the above. Beach ……………………………………………………………………… Coral reefs………………………………………………………………….. Marine life………………………………………………………………….. Rubbish or litter……………………………………………………………. 15. What factors would you consider in visiting Nacula again in the future? Please rank on the scale from 1-5, whereby 1 is not important at all and 5 is extremely important Scenery/nature 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Learning experience of the natural environment 1( ) 2 ( )3 ( )4 ( ) 5 ( ) Enjoy the climate 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Culture 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Food 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) Accommodation 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 16. How informed or knowledgeable are you personally about the natural environment processes or interactions (especially for the marine environment) irrespective of what you have been provided during this trip? Please tick box that is appropriate from 1-5, whereby 1 is no knowledge at all and 5 is extremely knowledgeable 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 17. How informed or knowledgeable are you personally about conservation practices regarding the protection of the environment? Please tick box that is appropriate from 1-5, whereby 1 is no knowledge at all and 5 is extremely knowledgeable 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( )

18. Were you provided with enough information during your visit regarding responsible practices as tourist to protect the environment? Please rank between 1-5 whereby 1 is not informed while 5 is extremely informed.

1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( )

192

19. When using the marine environment for your enjoyment, are you satisfied with the information or regulations being provided to you about responsible use of the environment provided to you by the operators? Please rank on the scale from 1-5, whereby 1 is not satisfied at all and 5 is extremely satisfied. 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 20. How likely do you to follow the information or regulations provided? Please rank on the scale from 1-5, whereby 1 is not followed at all and 5 is extremely followed. 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 21.Do you feel that you have gained any new information at all about the importance of the marine environment and everything associated with it during this trip to Nacula? Please rank on the scale from 1-5, whereby 1 is not gained anything at all and 5 is extremely gained. What are some of the information that you would like operators to provide for you? 1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22. What are some of the responsible practices that you keep in mind and apply while enjoying some of the marine environment related activities offered by the backpacker operators in Nacula? (e.g. do not step on corals while snorkeling etc.). Please indicate as many as possible.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

23. How do feel about contributing to the conservation and protection of Nacula’s marine environment? Please rank on the scale from 1-5, whereby 1 is no support at all and 5 is extremely support.

1( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 24. How much do you feel you would contribute? ………………$FJ

193

25. What are some recommendations that you would recommend to the locals and operators about trying to protect and conserve their marine environment for future ecotourism activities? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

194

Appendix 5.0

Definitions of Ecotourism used for Operators Interview 1. ‘Nature-based tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural

environment and is managed to be ecologically sustainable’ (Queensland Government 1997).

2. ‘Purposeful travel to maintain areas to understand the culture and natural

history of the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem, while at the same time producing opportunities that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people’ (International Ecotourism Society 2003).

3. Tourism that consist of traveling to undisturbed or uncontaminated natural

areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations’ (Ceballos-Lascurain 1987)

4. ‘Any form of tourism activity that gains for a country, a tourist enterprise and

local communities, cash income, foreign exchange or other assistance required to make life safer, healthier, more productive and more enjoyable while at the same time focusing on the uniqueness, beauty and knowledge of the natural and cultural environment and the links that local communities have to the environment as a central tourist attraction or beneficial learning experience and as a resource that should be protected, restored and used sustainably for the benefit of future generation’ (Thaman 2001)

5. ‘Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and

improves the well being of local people. It also includes minimization of environmental and cultural consequences, contributing to conservation and community project in developing countries and environmental education and political consequences raising such as the establishment of code of conduct for travelers as well the various components of the travel industry’ (Honey 1996)

6. ‘The planned practice of tourism in which the enjoyment of nature and

learning about living beings and their relationship with their environment are brought together, it is an activity which does not result in the deterioration of the environment and which promotes and supports the conservation of natural resources, thereby producing economic benefits which reach most social strata of the population in such a way that a sustainable horizontal development is achieved. Moreover, real ecotourism promotes justice for people and for nature’ (Evans-Pritchard & Salazar 1992)

195

7. ‘Ecotourism can contribute to both conservation and development and involves a minimum, positive synergistic relationships between tourism, biodiversity and local people, facilitated by appropriate management’ (Ross and Wall 1999)

8. ‘It is a form of tourism that will achieve the potential benefit to environment

without the negative impacts’ (Australian Conservation Foundation 1994) 9. ‘It is an activity that can stimulate the economy and generate direct funding

for conservation, as well as provide employment and entrepreneurial opportunities that justify conservation of the natural areas and protection of assets upon which the industry depends on’ (Boo 1990)

10. ‘It can contribute to conservation by providing environmental education or

interpretation to participants which leads to awareness and understanding of the natural environment and promotes pro-environment attitudes, support for conservation and responsible environmental behavior’ (Wearing and Neil 1999)

11. ‘The kind of tourism which is: (a) based on relatively undisturbed natural

areas, (b) non-damaging, non-degrading, (c) a direct contributor to the continued protection and management of the natural areas used, (d) subject to an adequate and appropriate management regimes’ (Valentine 1993)

12. ‘A form of nature-based tourism which involves responsible travel to

relatively undeveloped areas to foster an appreciation of nature and local cultures, while conserving the physical and social environment, respecting the aspiration and traditions of those visited, and improving the welfare of the local people’ (Harrison, 1999)

13. ‘Ecologically sustainable tourism with a primary focus on experiencing

natural areas that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation’ (Ecotourism Australia 2003)

196

Appendix 6.0

Graphical Analysis and Discussion of Community Questionnaire Question 1

Have you heard of the term 'ecotourism'

42%

23%

35%

YesSlightlyNo

The pie-chart shows that 42% of the community respondents said ‘yes’ that they had heard of the word ‘ecotourism’ while 35% indicated ‘no’ and 23% indicated slightly. Question 4

Are you satisfied with how operators are gaining benefits from your environment

35%

65%

yesno

The pie-chart shows that 65% of the community respondents were not satisfied with how operators were gaining the benefits of using their marine environment while 35% were satisfied.

197

Question 6

What has been the level of involvement with operators on the use of the environment?

72%

28%

0%

NoneSlightlyMore

The pie-chart shows that 72% of community respondents were never involved with operators on any decision making regarding the use of their marine environment while 28% indicated that they were slightly involved to some level. No respondent indicated that they were involved in whatsoever (0%).

Question 7

Were you influnced by the operators to conserve the environment?

83%

17%

YesNo

The pie-chart shows that 83% of the community respondents were influenced by operators to conserve their environment while 17% did not feel influenced as all

198

Question 12

Do you see any changes to your marine environment now as compared to 10-years ago

68%

32%

NoYes

The pie-chart shows that 68% of the community respondents had observed changes to their marine environment over time while 32% did not observe any changes at all.

199

Appendix 7.0

Graphical Analysis and Discussion of Tourist Questionnaire Question 13

Dissapointing Experience

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Beach Coral reef Marine life Rubbish/litter

Perc

enat

ge

The bar-graph shows that 65.5% of the respondents related their disappointing experience to rubbish/litter, 29.1% to the beach, 27.3% to coral reef and 10.9% to marine life during their visit to Nacula.

Question 17

Conservation Knowledge

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

no knowledgable

slightly knowledgeable

knowledgable

slightly aboveknowledgeable

extremely knowledgeable

Percentage

The bar-graph identifies the ranking made to the different to knowledge level that tourists had in regards environmental conservation. The graph shows that at least 38.2% of the respondents ranked that they were slightly knowledgeable, 27.3% were knowledgeable and 20% were very knowledgeable.

200

Question 18

Provision of Information

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

no information at all

slightly informed

informed

slightly above informed

extremely informed

Percentage

From the bar-graph, 47.3% of the respondents indicated that they were not provided any information during their period of stay in Nacula. Only a small percent (1.8%) were extremely informed while 21.8% and 20% were slightly informed and informed respectively.

Question 19

Satisfaction

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

unsatisfied

slightly satisfied

satisfied

slightly above satisfied

extremely satisfied

Percentage

From the bar-graph, 29.1% of the respondents were unsatisfied with the type of environmental information provided to them while 23.6% were slightly satisfied and 25.5% were only satisfied to some level. Only 3.6% of the respondents indicated that they were extremely satisfied.

201

Question 20

Compliance to Information or Regulation Provided by the Operators

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

will not follow

slightly follow

follow

slightly above follow

extremely follow

Percentage

The graph shows that 72.7% are likely to extremely follow any information or regulation provided by operators regarding responsible use of the environment. There was a low responses made to those that will slightly and not follow any information or regulation provided to them

Question 21

New Information Gained

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

no information at all

slightly

average

slightly above average

extremely

Percentage

The graph shows that 30.9% of the respondents felt that did not gain new information apart from what they already knew regarding the importance of the marine environment while 27.3% indicate a fair knowledge. Only 3.6% indicated that they had some form of knowledge extremely.

202

Appendix 8.0

List of Operators Interviewed

(Listing of the operators provided here is not according to that of the ones

provided in the tables of Chapter 5. They have been provided as background

information to the types of management for those operators that were

interviewed)

1. Turtle Island Resort- Foreign owned and managed

2. Oarsman’s Bay Lodge- Locally owned

3. Otto’s and Fanny Dought’s Place- Locally owned

4. Safelanding Resort- Locally owned

5. Coral View Resort- Locally owned

6. Seaspray- Foreign owned

7. Nabua Lodge-Locally owned

8. Melbravo-Locally owned

9. Gold Coast Inn- Locally owned

10. Sunrise Lagoon- Locally owned

11. Tavewa Dive Operator- Foreign owned

203

Appendix 9.0

List of villages where interviews were conducted in Nacula District

1. Matacawalevu Village 2. Nacula Village 3. Naisilisili Village 4. Malakati Village 5. Navotua Village 6. Vuata Village

204

Appendix 10.0 Map of Nacula Customary Fishing Boundary

205

Appendix 11.0

NTTA Coral Friendly Snorkeling Guidelines

Page 1

206

Page 2- Continue

207

Appendix 12.0

Oarsman’s Bay Ecotourism Activities Pamphlets

208

Appendix 13.0 Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program- Workshop Notes (Source: Ministry of Tourism 2005)

Sustainability Principles

Environment Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Tourism – Tourism activities should not degrade the natural resources. Operations should be developed and managed to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural environment in which they exist, through the recognition and appreciation of ecological sustainable practices. These practices include waste and energy minimization and those relating to specific activities such as bush walking and snorkeling. Interpretation – Products provide opportunities to experience nature in ways that lead to greater understating, appreciation and enjoyment. It is not just information, but bring many pieces of information together and relating them to the setting or experience in such a way that it all becomes more meaningful and enjoyable. Good interpretation not only enhances the customers’ experience but also assist in the other objectives such as minimizing human impact on resources and promoting better public perceptions. Contribution to Conservation – Tourism involves active participation in the conservation and enhancement of the natural resources. This contribution may include the removal of customers’ litter or rubbish; the provision of physical, financial or in-king assistance for the rehabilitation of areas subject to negative visitor impacts; and the contribution to a conservation group.

Socio-cultural Sustainability Cultural Respect and Sensitivity – Tourism is sensitive to, interprets and involves different cultures, particularly indigenous culture. Working with Local Communities – Products provide constructive ongoing contributions to local communities. The benefits of tourism should be equitably distributed with significant benefits accruing to the local community. Local benefits may accrue from the use the employment of local guides, the purchase of provisions and services and the use of local facilities. These benefits should outweigh the costs.

209

Accreditation Levels For Green Fiji STAMP Workshop Session 1

Level 1 – Elementary: Satisfies all legislative requirements. Business should self register for certification and initial listing in tourism directory.

Cost in is nil

Level 2 – Evolving: Standards are provided for business is in the process of/moving towards achieving sustainable practices.

Small administration fee

Level 3 – Sustainable: Business practices are sustainable at a practical and operational level.

Fee to be determined…..

Level 4 – Superior: In addition to the minimum impact level, products encourage interpretation and conservation in customers.

Level 5 – Best Practice: Opportunity for innovations to be shared with other accredited business

The names of each level are still to be finalized, possible with Fijian words. For example Level 1 may be Tuyavu(meaning foundation/base) rather then elementary.

210

Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program.

Segments for Tourism Industry Product Standards. Segments for Accommodation Standards • Hotels/Resorts

• Ecotourism • Backpackers • Home-stay • Camping • Timeshare • Villas • Cruise Ships

\Segments for Tour Standards • Diving

• Cruising/Yachting • Liveaboards • Ecotours

- River/Rafting - Hiking - Horseriding - Caves - Scenic Attracting - Other - (Cultural)

• Tour operators

Segments for Transport Standards • Airlines • Ferries • Public Transport • Rental Hire • Travel Agents

Segments for Food Standards • Restaurants

• Cafes

Segments for Miscellaneous Standards • Cultural & Tourism • Health & Tourism • Sports & Tourism • Tourism & the Arts • Duty Free • Handicraft

211

Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program

Accreditation Levels

Symbol Requirements Assessment Benefits Level 1 – Elementary:

Satisfies all legislative requirements

Proof of licenses etc. provided with registration of business details

Listing with FVB & Awards Category

Level 2 – Improving: Business practices are not all sustainable but an operation meets the minimum sustainability requirements.

Self-assessment of operation submitted along with proof of licenses etc.

Marketing with FVB & Awards Category.

Level 3 – Sustainable: Business practices are sustainable at a practical and operational level.

Self-assessment of operation submitted along with proof of licenses etc

Marketing with FVB & Awards Category.

Level 4 – Superior: In addition to the minimum impact level, products encourage interpretation and conservation in customers.

Self-assessment of operation submitted along with proof of licenses etc & external assessment conducted.

Marketing with FVB & Awards Category & Economic Benefits

Level 5 – Best Practices: Opportunity for innovations to be shared with other accredited business.

Self-assessment of operation submitted along with proof of licenses etc & external assessment conducted.

Marketing with FVB & Awards Category & Economic Benefits

The names for each level are still to be finalized, possible with Fijian words. For example Level 1 may be Tauyavu(meaning foundation/base) rather than Elementary.

212

Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation Program

Proposed Institutional Arrangement This proposal outlines the recommended institutional arrangements for the implementation and management of Green Fiji Sustainable Tourism Accreditation and Monitoring Program (STAMP). The program will be piloted with the Accommodation sector of the tourism industry and once successfully established move into the remaining sectors through a continued phased approach. Consultations and workshops with the Accommodation sector have been carried out to develop this proposal. Additional workshops will be held with the other tourism sectors to page their support for the program in the next few weeks. Institutional Arrangement The management of Green Fiji should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism for the initial implementation phase. The Ministry has the necessary power and resources needed to successfully establish the program that an independence management body would not be able to provide at the outset. Once the program is established, the program could be privatized of incorporated depending on the resources available at the time. An assessment of the programs progress and operating environment should be carried out annually to determine the optimum timing for establishing independence from the Ministry. To maintain autonomy, an independent advisor body should be establish, the Green Fiji Advisory Board (GFA). The proposed members of GFAB and tasks that will be required of the board are listed below. A green Fiji Auditor(GFA) should be engaged to manage the day to day functioning requirements of the program. The job description and four options for filling this position are listed below but Option C is recommended for the first year(2006) considering the current resources available to the Ministry and operational constraints. Options B should be consider for 2007. Green Fiji Advisory Board (GFAB) The board should contain seven members from both the tourism industry representative bodies and relevant government departments. Possible members will be representative from: 1. Ministry of Tourism (Sustainable Development Section); 2. Department of Environment; 3. Department of Culture; 4. University of the South Pacific (Department of Tourism) 5. Fiji Islands Hotel and Tourism Association (Environmental Coordinator); 6. To be determined?? 7. To be determined??

213

The main tasks of the board will be to: Award the higher levels of accreditation upon the recommendation of GFA; Review any appeals requested from applicants; Advise on any issue raised with their relevant bodies and feed into the

ongoing development of the program; and Review reports from GFA on the programs achievements.

Green Fiji Auditor (GFA) The following tasks will be the key duties of the auditor:

Review all applications, regardless of level applied for and provide and assessment on the accreditation level achieved, including recommendations to the applicant;

Audit facilities of higher level applications and present findings with recommendations to GFAB for approval;

Participate in the review of all appeals at the directive of the board; Perform the daily functions required in the management of the program

including responding to applicant enquiries; Coordinate with the Ministry (particularly the Sustainable Development

Section) in the promotion of the program; Conduct Green Fiji awareness training and assessment training as required; Conduct quarterly workshops for accredited business to facilitate the sharing

of best practice case studies and experiences; and Present quarterly reports to GFAB on the programs achievements.

GFA Staffing Option A A current staff member of the Sustainable Development Section of the Ministry of Tourism could perform the tasks of the auditor. The nominated staff member would need to undergo auditing training (possible overseas) to ensure they have the necessary qualifications and skills to credibility undertake product audits. Although there would be no additional funds required for wages, considering the current responsibilities of the sections, it would be overburdening them and unfeasible to pursue this option. GFA Staffing Option B The auditor could become a new position within the Sustainable Development Section of the Ministry of Tourism. The responsibilities of the position would require the appointment to be at the level of Senior Tourism Officer (starting wages of $24,00 per year). This option would be ideal financially and the auditor could provide additional support for the section while the program is building up its operations. However, due to the operational requirements of the Public Service Commission (PSC), it does not seem possible to have this position approved and fund until 2007 and is therefore not recommended. GFA Staffing Option C Following the structure of option B but looking at the possibility of using Program funds (PSIP funds), the third possibility is for the Ministry to tender an

214

individual to be contracted to fill the position of auditor on a full time basis for a year. It should be possible to hire this person from within Fiji and cost of approximately $40,000 per year and avoid the time constraint established with hiring a new staff member. GFA Staffing Option D It may be possible to tender a contractor on a needs basis, where they would only work with the Ministry when tasks were required such as carrying out audits, assessments and training. In this option the costs of employing a consultant would be increased to a daily rate of approximately $1000 (including VAT and expenses). In this situation, the Sustainable Development Section would need to complete some of the daily tasks required of the position, as the contractor would not be available. Initially this option would be practical but could easily become too expensive as the program increases popularity and the section is unable to provide the time to complete the daily tasks required.

215

Sustainability Principles For Green Fiji STAMP Workshop Session 1 Environment Sustainable Tourism – Tourism activities should not degrade the natural resources. Operations should be developed and managed to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural environment in which they exist, through the recognition and appreciation of ecological sustainable practices. Theses practices include waste and energy minimization and those relating to specific activities such as bush walking and snorkeling. Interpretation – Products provide opportunities to experience nature in ways that lead to greater understating, appreciation and enjoyment. It is not just information, but bring many pieces of information together and relating them to the setting or experience in such a way that it all becomes more meaningful and enjoyable. Good interpretation not only enhances the customers’ experience but also assists in the other objectives such as minimizing human impact on resources and promoting better public perceptions. Contribution to Conservation – Tourism involves active participation in the conservation and enhancement of the natural resources. This contribution may include the removal of customers’ litter or rubbish; the provision of physical, financial or in-kind assistance for the rehabilitation of areas subject to negative visitor impacts; and the contributions to a conservation group.

Socio-cultural Sustainability Cultural Respect and Sensitivity – Tourism is sensitive to, interprets and involves different cultures, particularly indigenous culture. Working with Local Communities – Products provide constructive ongoing contributions to local communities. The benefits of tourism should be equitably distributed with significant benefits accruing to the local community. Local benefits may accrue from the use the employment of local guides, the purchase of provisions and services and the use of local facilities. These benefits should outweigh the costs.

Economic Sustainability Business Management and operational Planning – Sound business management and operational procedures are integral to the delivery of economic sustainability. This includes legal compliance through meeting all regulation, licensing and permitting requirements. Insurance such as public liability insurance would also be included in this.

216

Business Ethics – The business and all it’s staff adopt and follow ethical business practices. Responsible Marketing – Tourism marketing is accurate and leads to realistic expectations though operation providing clients with an accurate and responsible depiction of what to expect from the product. Customer Satisfaction – Products consistently meet customer expectations. The is achieved through formal and informal monitoring of customer satisfaction, which is subsequently acted upon.

217

Green Fiji STAMP Workshop Outcomes Background In December 2004, cabinet endorsed the drafting of a Fiji Tourism Standards & Risk Management Guide. This process has been initiated with preliminarily consultation held with a small sample of relevant industry and government stakeholders. These consultations provided a broad view of what an appropriate Green Fiji accreditation program should be. To ensure the program is developed in accordance with all of Government of Fiji’s policy strategies and legislations requirements, a Green Fiji working Group was formed and will meet at regular intervals. The first working group was held on 24 June 2005. As a next step in the development of the drafting of the accreditation program, a series of five industry workshop will be held. Each workshop will be attended by representative from the tourism industry in Fiji and will focus on a particular segment of the industry. This workshop is for the first workshop focusing on accommodation stakeholders. The supplementary workshops are proposed for:

Workshop 2. for Tours on 21 July 2005 Workshop 3. for Food and Miscellaneous on 27 July 2005 Workshop 4. for Transport on 9 August 2005; and Workshop 5. to be held in Fijian on 16 to 17 August 2005 Workshops Objective: To provide representatives of the tourism industry with the opportunity to express their view and ideas on the proposed ‘Green Fiji’ accreditation program. Workshop Outcome: The main outcome of all five workshops, including this one, will be a report detailing the tourism industry’s view on the proposed Green Fiji accreditation program. Specifically the report will address: • What the fundamental principles for environmental, socio-cultural and economic sustainability should be; • What should be the sectors or product groups within the program; • Who should be responsible for the management and the administration of the accreditation process; • Who should carry out the accreditation assessments and audits (including an appropriate appeals process) and how this should be done; • What fees the industry is willing to pay for accreditations; and • What they would like to receive as insensitive or benefits for achieving accreditation.

218

Appendix 14.0 (from the http://www.pacificpeoplespartnership.org/takeaction/docs/Responsible_Tourism_Code.pdf) Nacula Tikina Tourism Association (NTTA) CODE OF CONDUCT from Fiji’s magical Yasawa Islands brochure Properties in this brochure have agreed to and adopted the following Code of Conduct and Practice, and have agreed to implement and be bound by its principles in their Resort operations. Waste Management • To implement recycling programs in each property by separating waste and returning bottles, tins and plastics to town monthly; • To ensure each property has installed best practice sewage disposal facilities; • To educate staff on what is biodegradable and compostable and to establish a composting program; • To have a weekly clean up of all litter on beaches, in the sea and around property generally. Fijian Culture • To educate guests on Fijian customs important to the Villages and Yasawas including appropriate dress, sevusevu, ceremonies and mekes; • To train staff members to provide interpretation of local Yasawa history, and to explain operations of village social structure and cultural protocols. • To respect privacy of Fijian villages and to visit Fijian villages only on Sunday to attend church after permission has been granted. • To only use beaches and other islands where permission has been obtained. Protection of Ecology and Environment • To stop selling shells and precious marine resources and to substitute this income with sales of woven baskets, coconut oil and fruit; • To educate guests and staff on fragility of marine resources and encourage responsible usage; • To minimize impact of buildings and structures on the natural and visual environment; • To have concern for the environment of other properties, other beaches and other islands in Nacula Tikina; • To observe proper practices in marine resource management including not catching undersize fish; • To implement program for de-sexing unwanted dogs and cats to eradicate stray and malnourished animals around properties;

219

• To only use cleaning and chemical products that do not damage or harm the environment. Guest Safety and Care • To ensure all boats used for guest transportation are seaworthy and contain all necessary safety equipment; • To educate staff on safety procedures in the event of fire or cyclone and to provide written safety instructions for guests; • To provide sufficient drinking water storage for both guests and staff to go through a dry spell; • To train all staff in provision of basic first aid assistance, and to have essential first aid equipment at the properties; • To maintain high standards of hygiene in food management and in bar and dining areas. Education and Training • To educate all key staff members on which products in the resorts can be used safely for specific purposes; to train key staff members to deal calmly but firmly with difficult circumstances including dissatisfied guests, emergencies and cyclones. Communication • To utilize V.H.F. radio frequency between NTTA members to maintain communication on guests and safety issues; • To regularly attend NTTA meetings to share information and experiences. Self Improvement • To implement a system of incentive rewards for NTTA properties that continually improves their performance towards best practice.

220