is it really 'ecotourism?" the concept of ecotourism-evolution and trends

7/28/2019 Is It Really 'Ecotourism?" The Concept of Ecotourism-Evolution and Trends

1/30

TheConceptofEcotourism:EvolutionandTrends

DimitriosDiamantisLes Roches Management School, Tourism Research Centre, CH-3975, Bluche,

Switzerland

The research within the area of ecotourism still appears to be at its infancy stage. Thedefinitional perspective of the concept is lacking both in terms of scope and criteriaused, as well as in aspects of its planning and operationalisation. There are a variety ofecotourism definitions all reflectinga range of paradigms and perspectives. The viewthat this article has taken is that the definition of ecotourism is not really necessary ifthe discussion focuses on the concepts rather than the issues implied by ecotourism.Hence, it seems that ecotourism definitions could range from passive to active stancesincorporating the three common concepts in the form of trade-off scenarios. The threecommon concepts within ecotourism are natural-based, educational, and sustainable(which includes economic and social criteria).Within thesecomponents, both benefitsand costs exist, and in some circumstances there is disequilibrium towards greatercosts. Fundamentally, ecotourism could merit wider credibility, but only when thedifferent actors involved avoid overmarketing, and control the overuse of its productsby consumers. In light of these pitfalls, this paper focuses on the three components ofecotourism and includes a reviewof ecotourisms definitions followed by an examina-tion of itsnatural-based,sustainabilityand educationalcomponents. It concludes withthe future state of ecotourism research in light of the changes in trends in the tourismindustry.

Introduction

The term ecotourism emerged in the late 1980sas a direct result of the worldsacknowledgment and reaction to sustainable practices and global ecologicalpractices. In these instances, the natural-based element of holiday activitiestogether with the increased awareness to minimise the antagonistic impacts of

tourism on the environment (which is the boundless consumption of environ-mental resources) contributed to the demand for ecotourism holidays. Thisdemand wasalsoboostedby concrete evidence that consumershadshifted awayfrom mass tourism towards experiences that were more individualistic andenriching. In addition, these experiences were claimed to be associated with ageneral search for the natural component during holidays (Kusler, 1991a, b;Hvenegaard, 1994; Dowling, 1996). Generally speaking, the grounds in whichecotourism operates are associated with the alternative forms of tourism or

special interest travel, and the tourism products generated from these segments.Here, the concern which emerged was that although ecotourism generated alarge volume of demand both from the consumers and the stakeholders, itbecame subject to claims that it was a new form of mass tourism. Looking at theevidence of this claim, the literature on ecotourism is divided into two broadschools of thought (Jaakson, 1997; Diamantis, 1998a):

Discussion Web Site: http://divcom.otago.ac.nz:800/tourism/current-issues/homepage.htm

1368-3500/99/02 0093-30 $10.00/0 1999 D. DiamantisCurrent Issues in Tourism Vol. 2, No. 2&3, 1999

93


2/30

firstly, the location case-studies raising issues concerning the impacts ofecotourism; and

secondly the thematic studies illustrating issues regarding planning anddevelopment,where casestudies are focused on themethodological issues.

Inboth instances, there were a few concrete studies evaluating the definitionalperspective of ecotourism, which this paper aims to discuss. In examining theseissues the discussion centres around two main themes: the definitional frame-works of ecotourism;and thenatural-based, sustainable andeducational compo-nents of ecotourism.

ScopeandDefinitionalPerspectiveofEcotourism

Global estimates revealed that in Australia and New Zealand, 32% of visitorssearch for the scenery, wild plants, and wildlife, as part of their trip. In Africa,80% of tourists who visited countries in this continent named wildlife as aprimary motivationalattribute. In North America, 6988% of the European andJapanese travellers considered wildlife and bird-watching to be the most impor-tant attributes of their visits. In Latin America, 5079% of visitorsadvocated thatvisits to protected areas represented an important factor in choosing such desti-nations. In America, it was claimed that over 100 million people participated inwildlifeactivities,ofwhich 76.5million were related toviewing wildlife, and24.7million were interested in bird-watching (Filion etal., 1994;USTC, 1993).This has

generated over $20 billion in economic activitywith an estimated growth of 30%per year. In all the cases, it was estimated that tourism in the naturaland wildlifesettings accounted for a total 2040% of international tourism receipts, with anestimate that it will increase by 2050% per year (Filion et al., 1994).

However, despite the fact that these statistical estimates have not beenmatched by any commonly acceptable data, there is a growing concern that thissegmentaccountsfor a significant proportionofworldtravel.Herein lies the firstmajor concernaboutecotourism thatofmeasuring the number ofvisitors partici-

pating in ecotourism holidays, as there isa breadth of definitions and large scopeof activities. Certain limitations also arise from the spectrum within whichecotourism operates. A variety of terms have been introduced to describe thesame phenomenon which may be referred to as nature travel, nature-orientatedtourism, nature tourism, naturebased tourism, sustainable tourism, alternativetourism and special interest tourism (Laarman & Durst, 1987; Durst & Ingram,1988; Wilson & Laarman, 1988; Valentine, 1992; Hall & Weiler, 1992;Diamantis,1998a).

On this point, it has been noted that it is more feasible to treat ecotourism as aspectrum with a variety of products rather than attempting to define ecotourismfrom a specific stance or product (Wight, 1993a, b). More specifically, it wasclaimed that the spectrum includes both (Wight, 1993b: 57):

supply factors (nature and resilience of resources; cultural or local commu-nity preferences; types of accommodation); and

demand factors (types of activities and experiences; degree of interest innatural or cultural resources; degree of physical effort).

In this event, however, there is evidence to illustrate that ecotourism is not

94 Current Issues in Tourism


3/30

meeting existing demand, but is driven by a demand which evolved through themarketing practices of this form of travel by the supply side. Despite such recog-nition, this concept has still not got a common definition, making it the mostimportant tourism buzzword of this decade. However, there are a number ofconceptual attempts that define the concept of ecotourism. In particular, it was

claimed that the definitional structure of ecotourism is based on twoapproaches(Steward & Sekartjakrarini, 1994):

(1) the activity-based perspective of ecotourism; and(2) the definition regarding ecotourism as an industry.

Here, the former type is divided into definitions which attest the role ofecotourists or what ecotourists actually do, and definitions which detail thevalue-based component of ecotourism with focus on minimum impact and local

culture elements, or what ecotourists should do (Steward & Sekartjakrarini,1994:840). The latter typeattests the supply characteristicsofecotourism asa toolfor conservation and development based on the interrelationship between thelocal community and tourism. In addition, ecotourism definitions have beentreated as a continuum of paradigms based on polar extremes (Orams, 1995a: 4)(see Figure 1).

Orams (1995a) argues that the majority of ecotourism definitions lie betweenthe passive position and the active position towards the high responsibility poleonthe continuum. He further suggestedthat the desiredstate is tomove from theminimum passivepositiontowardsa higher or active pole of the continuum. Theactive pole mainly emphasises the actionsof protecting theenvironment and thebehavioural intentions of ecotourists, whereas the passive position concentratessolely on ecotourism development, not enhancing the antagonistic impacts or

the ecotourists need to be satisfied. Ecotourism has also been defined based on

Evolution and Trends of Ecotourism 95

Figure 1 The continuum of ecotourism paradigmsSource: Orams (1995a: 4)

Low humanresponsibilitypole

Ecotourism spectrum High humanresponsibilitypole

All tourismis ecotourism

Passive

seek tominimisedamage

Activecontributionto protectresources

Ecotourismimpossible


4/30

three criteria (Wall, 1994: 5): the characteristics of the destinations; the motiva-tions of its participants; and the organisational characteristics of the ecotourismtrip.

In the light of these criteria, the following sections review the different defini-tionsof ecotourism.This will eventually lead to the identification of the common

components of ecotourism among the different definitional studies.

EarlyDefinitionalApproachesofEcotourism

Ecotourism was first defined as:

travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areaswith the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the sceneryand its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifesta-

tions (both past and present) found in these areas. (Ceballos-Lascurain,1987: 14; 1991a, b)

Ceballos-Lascurains (1987) definition viewed ecotourismin the light of expe-riential and educational factors of the protected natural areas. He claimed thatecotourism is a multi-dimensional philosophical concept, which is a componentof eco-development andrequires planning based on strictguidelines and regula-tions that will enhance the sustainable operation (1991a, b, 1993a, 1993b). Hesuggested thatecotouristsprofile characteristicsattest an awareness and knowl-

edge about the naturalenvironment and culturalaspects, insucha way that willconvert him or her into somebody keenly involved in conservation issues(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991a: 25). Ceballos-Lascurain drew the comparisonbetween mass tourists and ecotourists over the natural-based utilisation. Bothgroups are keen to go to the natural areasbut the mass touristhas a morepassiverolewith nature, participatinginactivitieswhichdo notrelate to the trueconcernover nature or ecology such as watersports, jogging, and biking(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991a, b). On the other hand, ecotourists are attracted to a

natural area and have a more activerole througha non-consumptive useof wild-life andnaturalresources, through activities suchas nature photography,botani-cal studies, and observing wildlife.

It is evident from Ceballos-Lascurains definition of ecotourism that activitieswhich ecotourists participate in can only exist in well-preserved or protectedareas. Here, it was claimed that ecotourisms association with protected areas isvalid as it enhances the conservationelement (Norris, 1992:34;Warner, 1991:44;Wall, 1994: 5), although the definition does not mention the responsibility of theecotourism industry for environmental conservation (Wen & Tisdell, 1995).Neither does it address the economic impacts which this form of tourism cangenerate, the resource degradation, visitor satisfaction, and positive impacts onthe wildlife. On the other hand, ithas been proclaimed that it does not ignore theindigenous people who often inhabit such natural settings, who are both part ofthe environment and their culture enhances the visitors interests (Figgis, 1993:8). Further, Ceballos-Lascurains definition was also viewed as being situated inthe passive position towards the low responsibility pole (Orams, 1995a: 4) [seeFigure 1], mainly highlighting the characteristics of the destination such as the

natural settings (Wall, 1994: 5).



5/30

In this setting, Ziffer (1989) viewed ecotourism from an active stance high-lighting the conservation, natural-based, economic and cultural components ofecotourism(see Table 1). Theconcept notonly enhances the increased pattern ofvisits to the natural environment, but serves asanethic ofhow to turn to the natu-ral environment ensuring a minimum impact on its resource base (Ziffer, 1989).

Further, Ziffer highlighted that ecotourism requires planning or a managedapproach which balances economic, social and environmental goals. However,she distinguished between the concepts of ecotourism and nature tourism. Sheclaimed that ecotourism is a more comprehensive concept based on a plannedapproach by the destination authorities, whereas nature tourism is moreconsumer-based and not ecologically sound (Ziffer, 1989: 6).

Further, she suggested that ecotourism requires the destination to establish aprogramme based on a multi-faced conservation and development approach in

order for the destination to qualify as an ecotourism destination (Ziffer, 1989:58; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996: 22). The immediate limitation of such a proposalhowever, is which authority or organisation is going to assess the destinationprogramme and grade the eco-label for the destinations. This is at the center ofthe debate not only for the concept of ecotourism but it is also applicable to thesustainable development concept. The difficulty to implement such aprogramme is grounded in the definition of ecotourism. Ziffer (1989: 5) pointsout that perhaps one of the reasons why ecotourism has eluded a firm definition

isbecause of its multi-purpose in that it attempts to describe an activity, set fortha philosophy, while at the same time espouse a model of development. Never-theless ecotourism claimed to provide economic benefits through naturalresources preservation, offering potential benefits for both conservation anddevelopment (Boo, 1990; 1991a: 54; 1991b: 4; 1992; 1993).

In particular Boo (1990: 10) defined ecotourism similarly to the definitiongiven by Ceballos-Lascurain, emphasising the natural-based component of theconcept (see Table 1). Here, ecotourism not only encompasses the natural andconservationcomponents, butalso the economic andeducationalelements. In all

the cases, similar to Ziffers approach, Boo suggested that for ecotourism toreveal its benefits it requires effective planning strategies so that conservation ofresourcescouldaddressthesustainablemanagementof such resources (1991a,b;1992; 1993).However, she stressed that the benefits of ecotourism to the destina-tion largely depend on the scale of tourism, the country size and the intercon-nected partsof their economies.Additionally, benefits canbe increasedifvisitorsextend their vacation due to the natural aspects of the destination, thus theso-called add-on feature to visitors through ecotourism could be applied (Boo,

1990: 10).In short, Boo claims that ecotourists are generally more accepting of condi-

tions that are different from their home than other types of tourists (1990). Theircharacteristics often include living according to the local conditions, customsand food, with their activities ranging from a walk through the forest, to explor-ing and studying the natural attractionsof the destination (Boo, 1990: 1).Further,Boos definition can be seen to be situated in the activeposition towardsthe highresponsibilitypole (Orams,1995a:4), highlighting the characteristicsof the desti-

nation, the natural settings and characteristicsof the trip, and the motivationsofthe participants (Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).



6/30

DefinitionsofEcotourism

On a similar vein to Ceballos-Lascurains, Ziffers and Boos definitions, avariety of other definitions of ecotourism moved more or less along the sameprinciples (see Table 1):


Ecotourism is a form of tourism inspired primarily by the natural history of an area,including its indigenous cultures. The ecotourist visits relatively undeveloped areasin the spirit of appreciation, participation and sensitivity. The ecotourist practices anon-consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources and contributes to the visitedarea through labor or financial means aimed at directly benefiting the conservation ofthe site and the economic well-being of the local residents... (Ziffer, 1989: 6)

Ecotourism is a nature tourism that contributes to conservation, through generatingfunds for protected areas, creating employment opportunities for local communities,

and offering environmental education. (Boo, 1991b: 4)Nature-based tourism that is focused on provision of learning opportunities whileproviding local and regional benefits, while demonstrating environmental, social, cul-tural, and economic sustainability (Forestry Tasmania, 1994: ii)

Ecologically sustainable tourism in natural areas that interprets local environmentand cultures, furthers the tourists understanding of them, fosters conservation andadds to the well-being of the local people. (Richardson, 1993: 8)

Nature-based tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural envi-ronment and is managed to be ecologically sustainable. This definition recognizes that

natural environment includes cultural components, and that ecologically sustainableinvolves an appropriate return to the local community and long-term conservation ofthe resource. (Australia Department of Tourism, 1994: 17)

Travel to remote or natural areas which aims to enhance understanding and appreci-ation of natural environment and cultural heritage, avoiding damage or deteriorationof the environment and the experience for others. (Figgis, 1993: 8)

Travel to enjoy the worlds amazing diversity of natural life and human culture with-out causing damage to either. (Tickell, 1994: ix)

A responsible nature travel experience, that contributes to the conservation of the

ecosystem while respecting the integrity of host communities and, where possible, en-suring that activities are complementary, or at least compatible, with existing re-source-based uses present at the ecosystem. (Boyd & Butler, 1993: 13, 1996a: 386)

Ecotourism is a form of tourism which fosters environmental principles, with an em-phasis on visiting and observing natural areas. (Boyd & Butler, 1996b: 558)

Low impact nature tourism which contributes to the maintenance of species and hab-itats either directly through a contribution to conservation and/or indirectly by pro-viding revenue to the local community sufficient for local people, and thereforeprotect, their wildlife heritage area as a source of income. (Goodwin, 1996: 288)

Ecotourism is tourism and recreation that is both nature-based and sustainable.(Lindberg & McKercher, 1997: 67)

Responsible travel that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of lo-cal people. (Ecotourism Society in Orams, 1995a: 5)

Table 1 Definitions of ecotourism


7/30

Forestry Tasmania mainly emphasised the nature-based, educational,social and sustainability components of ecotourism by distinguishingbetween ecotourism and nature-based tourism. Here, ecotourism is asub-component of the nature-based tourism which has been generallydefined as a form of tourism which takes place in the natural environment

(Forestry Tasmania, 1994). In addition, the definition is situated at theactive stance of the high responsibility pole, mainly providing the charac-teristics of the destination (Orams, 1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).

Richardson highlighted the conservation, natural-based, sustainable andsocial and cultural components, in that it is a small-based form of tourisminvolving people searching for conservational and educational activities(1993). Richardons definition is predominantly situated in the activestance of the high responsibility pole combining mainly the characteristics

of the destination (Orams, 1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1). The Australia Department of Tourism suggested the natural-based,

ecological and cultural sustainability, education and interpretation, andprovision of local and regional benefits (1994). In this case, the AustraliaEcotourism Strategy claimed that ecotourism is a small subset ofnature-based tourism, in that it operates in the natural settings. It could beseen to incorporatean active stancetowardsecotourism mainly comparingthe characteristics of the destination (Orams, 1995a;Wall, 1994) (see Figure

1). Blameys dimensions of ecotourism includes four main components of

ecotourism which are nature-based, environmentally educated, sustainablymanaged and distance/time (Blamey, 1995a,b; 1997). In terms of his treatmentof the concept of ecotourism, his definition focused on the apprecia-tion/interpretation component as suggested by Ceballos-Lascurain. In allthecases, Blameys definition is an active stance definition that is primarilyapplicable for marketing research purposes. In terms of the ecotourists

characteristics, it highlighted the distance/time dimension of 40 km fromhome and one ecotourism trip during vacation time, hence clarifying thecharacteristics of both destination and trip (Blamey, 1995a; 1997; Orams,1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).

Figgis illustrated mainly the natural-based, cultural and social compo-nents of the concept by drawing the comparison between ecologicalsustainable development and ecotourism (1993). It mainly emphasised thedestinations characteristics and was situated on the passive position interms of the continuum due to the lack of focus on the other impacts ofecotourism, except those regarding the minimisation of environmentalimpacts (Orams, 1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).

Tickell raised the natural-based, cultural and non-damaging or conserva-tion components of the concept (1994). Tickell emphasised mainly theecosystemvulnerability and assuch ecotourismshouldbe seen asa form oftourism which could preserve the natural and cultural components (1994).This definition is situated on the passive position of the continuum illus-trating mainly the characteristics of the trip and destinations (Orams,

1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).



8/30

Boyds and Butlers first definition emphasised mainly the natural-based,conservation, social components of the concept in the case of NorthernOntario, with an emphasis on the minimisation of the impacts ofecotourism over existing resource uses in the destination (1993, 1996a).They claimed that ecotourism must be an environmentally and socially

responsible form of tourism, with the primary focus on the intrinsic attrib-utes of the natural environment. Ecotourism should mainly enhance theeconomic and social benefits, and as such should not be considered as aform ofdevelopment. Inlight of theabove, this definition ismainly situatedon the active stance of the continuum, illustrating the characteristics of thedestination (Orams, 1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).Their second definition included the natural-based and the sustainabilitycomponents of the concept (Boyd & Butler, 1996b) (see Table 1). As with

their first definition, the emphasis was on resource preservation of thedestination area, although this definition is broader as it is explicitly rele-vant to the assessment and planning of ecotourism development (Boyd &Butler, 1996b). This definition can be seen to be located at the center of thepassive position of the continuum, highlighting mainly the characteristicsof the destination (Orams, 1995a; Wall, 1994) (see Figure 1).

Goodwins definition suggested the natural-based, conservation, socialand economic components of the concept (1996). Goodwins definition is

closely related to Boos approach addressing more the role of conservationthrough economic development (1996: 288289). He further distinguishedbetween the concept of nature tourism with ecotourism in that the formerconcerns enjoyment of nature, whereas the latter contains a conservationflavour (Goodwin, 1996). This definition is situated in the active pole of thecontinuum containing theelements of the destination (Orams,1995a;Wall,1994) (see Figure 1).

LindbergsandMcKerchers (1997)definitionhighlights the natural-basedand sustainability components of ecotourism. Their definition is based onthe distinction that the natural-based component is descriptive, as it high-lights the setting of ecotourism, and the sustainability component isprescriptiveas it indicates the peoples opinions regarding the nature of theactivity(Lindberg & McKercher, 1997;Lindberg etal.,1998).Thisviewpointis located at a central or passive position of the continuum, acknowledgingboth the characteristics of the destination and the trip (Orams, 1995a; Wall,1994) (see Figure 1).

The Ecotourism Societys definition recognised the conservation andsocial aspects of ecotourism (Orams, 1995a). It is general in nature and assuch is located at a central or passive position of the continuum, acknowl-edging mainly the characteristicsof the trip (Orams,1995a;Wall, 1994) (seeFigure 1).

In comparing the definitions of ecotourism, the majorityof the examined defi-nitions aresituatedbetween a passive andmore active stance,mainly describingthe characteristics of the destination and the trip. There are few definitions,which are based on the motivational characteristics of the consumers, and assuch illustrate the lack of attention paid to the perspective attesting



9/30

consumer-selected attributes and/or consequences. In terms of the definitionalperspective of ecotourism, Weaver (1998) suggests that it includes the entirespectrum from a passive to an active stance with the proviso that host societiesbe included along with natural environment as aspectsof the destination that arenot intentionally affected in a negative way (p. 17). Although this view is a

contrast to Orams earlier indication of a more active stance towards the defini-tional perspective of ecotourism, Weaver argues that the active stance becomesrestrictive, and would result in a small number of participants (Orams, 1995a;Weaver, 1998).

In the light of this suggestion and in comparing all the definitions ofecotourism, three elements could be identified: natural-based,educational,and sustainable management that includes economic and/or socioculturalissues. Hence, it seems that ecotourism could include the entire spectrum

from passive to active in a form of trade-off scenarios based on the linkbetween the three elements, all depending on the setting in which it isexamined (Diamantis, 1998a).

Inevitably, this view raises another dilemma that of the exact nature of theelements which areinterwoven into theconceptofecotourism in termsof its defi-nitional treatment.

Natural-basedComponentAll the ecotourism definitions regardless of their stance (active or passive)

included the natural-based component. The inclusion of the natural-basedcomponent in the definition of ecotourism in a number of cases has not beenequated withthe sustainabilityelement, as the currentefforts focus onthe formerrather than the latter to operationalise the concept. This emphasis creates certainlimitations on the estimates of the size of the ecotourism market, all suggestingthat the current estimates of the market size of ecotourism actually refer to the

size of the nature tourism market. Here, the destinations of developing nationssuch as Central and Latin America, the Caribbean as well as Australia, NewZealand,andAntarcticaclaimed to be associatedwith the natural-basedcompo-nent of ecotourism activities (Australia Department of Tourism, 1994; Achama,1995; Courrau, 1995).

Limited ecotourism practices have been assigned to less exotic landscapes ofthe industrialised world, although there are certain claims that this trend may bechanging (Boyd & Butler, 1993).This claim was the outcome of a response to thepotential benefits that ecotourism may offer marginal local economies, and alsoin part to the realisation that there may be a declining number of natural attrac-tions available that can be marketedas ecotourism destination areas in the tradi-tional tropical regions (Boyd & Butler, 1993:21). As ecotourism hasdeveloped inthese traditional tropical regions, the natural-based experiences have been seento take placein the protectedareas (Agardy, 1993;Barnes, 1996),which is an areadedicated primarily to the protection and enjoyment of natural or cultural heri-tage, to maintenance of biodiversity, and/or maintenance of ecologicallife-support services (IUCN, 1991 in Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996: 29).

Apart from the protected areas, other attractions include the national parks,



10/30

wildlife and biological reserves, coastal and marine areas, which are simulta-neously used by both natural-based tourists and ecotourists (Laarman &Gregersen, 1996; Laarman & Durst, 1993; Long, 1991). Thus, it was claimed thatthe setting in which ecotourism operates includes the legally protected areas asthey offered a guarantee of their long-term attractivity (Ceballos-Lascurain,

1996).Theattractivityof these protectedareashowever, remains in somecasesanillusive goal. For instancein CentralAmerica,Asia andAfrica protectedareasarefacing serious internal and external problems (Courrau, 1995;Laarman& Durst,1993).

Some of the issues related to protected areas are habitat fragmentation, nega-tive impacts from development including activities from ecotourism and illegalactivitieswithinprotectedareas such as poachinganddeforestation.Meanwhile,according to Goodwin (1996), managers of protected areas could turn nature

tourism into ecotourism, based on the motivation of their consumers, in otherwords at the point of consumption or based on a sound management strategyboth in terms of numbers and activities. In this case, the Australia EcotourismStrategy claimed that ecotourism is a small subset of nature-based tourism, inthat it operates in the natural settings or protected areas focusing on its biologi-cal, physical and cultural features, which in turn are essential attributes to theplanning, development and management of ecotourism (Australia DepartmentofTourism,1994;Richins,1994;Dowling, 1995a,b,1996;Blamey,1995a,b, 1997).

In general terms, natural-based tourism has been claimed to contain threemain components (Valentine, 1992: 109):

Firstly the nature of experience which is nature-dependent, containingattributessuchas intensityof interactionwith nature, andsocial sensitivity.

Secondly, the style of this experience, where different product elementssuch as willingness to pay, group size and type, and length of stay areconsidered to be of significance.

Thirdly, the location of the natural-based tourism experience, such as

accessibility,ownershipoflocation,andthefragilityoftheresourcesused.In light of these suggestions, the natural-based component of ecotourism has

inevitably generated certain similarities with ecotourism, in terms of thecommon setting used by both forms of tourism (McKercher, 1995, 1998).However, the initial setting component of ecotourism (protected areas)has beencriticised from the sense that it is too restrictive, on the platform that ecotourismpromotes mainly the conservation and environmental issues of non-protectedareas (Blamey, 1995a, 1997; Bottrill & Pearce, 1995: 48).

Research on attitudestowards theprotectedareas,however,suggested that inthe Victorias Alpine National Park of Australia, around a quarter of the sampleexpressed negative attitudes towards ecotours or nature-based tours in the park(McKercher, 1995: 229). The overall results revealed that the people in questionfeared the potential environmental destructiveness of the park, a view whichopposes the long-term attractivityof ecotourism if it operates in protected areas(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). It was suggested that in order to dispel theseconcerns, ecotourism could take placeeither inprotectedor non-protected areas,but with a strong emphasis on conservation and educational components(Blamey, 1995 a, b, 1997).



11/30

Further, a distinction also emerged between these two concepts from thedefi-nitional evidence, in that natural-based tourism refers to travel motivatedtotally or in part by interests in the natural history of a place, where visitscombine education, recreation, and often adventure (Laarman & Gregersen,1996: 247), hence referring to tourists interest in travelling to specific destina-

tions. In addition, nature tourism includes the marketing of natural elements totourists, as well as the enjoyment of nature (Goodwin, 1996: 287288). On theother hand, all the definitions of ecotourism tend to proclaim that this conceptrelates to a type of integrated tourism with a particular emphasis on natureconservation (Goodwin, 1996; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Dowling, 1995a, b).

Moreover, these characteristics of ecotourism in natural settings weresuggested to be similar to the concept of wilderness recreation in North America(Boyd & Butler, 1993: 11), or simply a new name for an old activity (Wall, 1994: 4;

Nelson, 1994: 248). On this point it was suggested that ecotourism represents achanged pattern of visitation to the naturalareas,supported witha change in thestakeholders strategic goals attached to these ecotourism visitation patterns,hence it is not directly linked with historic recreational activities (Lindberg &McKercher, 1997:66). However, research on legitimacy of ecotourism focusedonthe crisis of stakeholders roles stemming from their different expectations andlack of institutionalised standards for ecotourism practices (Lawrence et al.,1997).

This review showed that the enhancement of the natural-basedcomponent ofecotourism, requires an approach that evaluates the different frameworks ofstakeholders involvement at three different levels (Charters, 1995):

at the ecotourism enterprises level the emphasis is on the change of percep-tions;

at the organisational field level the focus is on collaboration; and

at the industry level the emphasis isonmanagementandmarketingissues.

As with any caseof tourism product development, the natural-based compo-

nent of ecotourism often relies on the degree of cooperation between variousproviders of this product, and as such the conflict interest between these partiesis inevitable (Charters, 1995). Facilitating formal training, information educa-tional programmes and industry networks, as well as management of the differ-ent sub-elements of ecotourism components such as recreational activities couldideally assist a minimisation of such conflict.

ActivitiesandtheNatural-based Component

Initially, theactivitiesof natural-based tourismcanbedistinguished into threemain categories (Valentine, 1992: 110): activities dependent on nature (i.e.bird-watching); activities enhanced by nature (i.e. camping); and activitieswhere the natural setting is incidental (i.e. swimming).

For instance, in a discussion concerning the classification ofwater-recreationalactivities, Smarton (1988)lists four generalised types of recre-ation activities: kinetic; situation-based; harvest-based; and substitution-based.It wasclaimed, that because ecotourism would discourage a consumption use of

natural resources, the harvest-based experience does not apply to activities such



12/30

as hunting, and the collecting of flora and fauna. The other three formsmentioned claimed to be included in ecotourism activities (Smarton, 1988):

kinetic experiences were the non-mechanically powered activities such ashiking, diving, swimming;

situationalbased experiences entail the strongassociationwiththe destina-tion as a unique characteristic; and

a substitution or aesthetic experience includes observation of naturalphenomena such as bird-watching.

In addition, Duffus and Dearden (1990) treated the activities in terms ofhuman and wildlife interaction. They suggested that the continuum of humanand wildlife interaction could be treated in terms of consumptive use tonon-consumptive use. Thenon-consumptive use activitiesare thosein which theorganism is not affected by human interaction such as bird-watching, whalewatching, nature walks, and natural photography. On the opposite side,consumptive use activities impose certain purposefully intended impactson theorganism such as forms of hunting and fishing (Duffus & Dearden, 1990:215216). They further added low consumptive use activities, which are thoserelated to observation purposes in certainattractions such as zoos, animal parks,and scientific research.

In comparing all the latter approaches, the emphasis on ecotourism related toactivities focused on educationally orientated recreation activities, and on the

enhancement of knowledge through non-consumption usage of the naturalresources. In addition, all the activities are assessed on whether or not theyenhance and/or protect the environment. In particular, Lawrence et al. (1997)claimed that the major strength of ecotourism is that of its difference from othertraditional forms of tourism, whereas its weakness arises from the tensionbetween profitability and its altruistic goals, or between protection and profitgoals (Ziffer, 1989). Inall the cases, thenatural-basedcomponentof ecotourismisbased on the biological, physical, and cultural features both in protected and

non-protected environments, in which the sustainability and/or conservationelements should signify its practices.

SustainableManagementComponent

The emphasis on sustainability recognises the ecological and culturalelements as a key guiding principle in the management of human activity fromecotourism (Dowling, 1995a,b;Blamey, 1995a,b; 1997;Sano, 1997).Especially forecotourism purposes there have been certain suggestions that this sector should

emerge with the so-called nature-centred planning syndrome (Figgis, 1994). Inthat the tourism should be adjusted to natures needs not nature to tourismsneeds, or to adopt the jargon of economics, ecotourism should be supply-drivennot demand-driven (Figgis, 1994: 130).

Figgis (1994), argued that tourism-centred planning views that the naturalarea must be modified to meet the demands of tourism whereas nature-centeredplanning treats nature as a resource that should meet all human needs, in thisinstance the needs of this service sector. Although there is a well-defined point

with this approach, the issue that comes to light is similar to the limitations thathave been observed within sustainable tourism development. The issues of



13/30

geographical equity, single-sector development planning, resources utilisationand usage, and type of sustainabilityareat the heart of thisdebate (Hunter, 1995,1997). Therefore, it is clear that the tourism industry has to abolish the tour-ism-centric syndrome and however defined it must adopt a more sustainablebased approach.

In addition, Nelson (1994) suggested that this concept offers no solution forthe environmental losses, and lacks the equity and ethics perspective ofsustainability.Ecotourismis taken tobeno different from otherformsof tourism,as itstill has tobe planned and managedon the basisofsustainability.Further,hepointed out that it is imperative that the goals, prospects and opportunities forecotourismbe defined in economic, social andenvironmental terms, andoperateon the grounds where they are being proposed, given that conditions will varyfrom destination to destination (Nelson, 1994).

In examining the issues of sustainability within ecotourism however, it isgenerally associatedwith the directandindirect costandbenefits of the impact oftourism on the natural environment, economy, and local communities fromdestination to destination (see Table 2).


Environmental impacts

Direct benefits Direct costs

provides incentive to protect environ-ment, both formally (protected areas)and informally

provides incentive for restoration andconversion of modified habitats

ecotourists actively assisting in habitatenhancement (donations, policing,maintenance, etc.)

danger that environmental carrying capac-ities will be unintentionally exceeded, dueto:

rapid growth rates

difficulties in identifying, measuringand monitoring impacts over a longperiod

idea that all tourism induces stress

Indirect benefits Indirect costs

exposure to ecotourism fosters broadercommitment to environmentalwell-being

space protected because of ecotourismprovide various environmental benefits

fragile areas may be exposed to less be-nign forms of tourism (pioneer function)

may foster tendencies to put financialvalue on nature, depending uponattractiveness

Economic impacts


revenues obtained directly from

ecotourists creation of direct employment opportu-

nities

strong potential for linkages with othersectors of the local economy

stimulation of peripheral rural econo-mies

start-up expenses (acquisition of land,

establishment of protected areas, super-structure, infrastructure)

ongoing expenses (maintenance ofinfrastructure, promotion, wages)

Table 2 Hypothetical costs and benefits of ecotourism


14/30

EnvironmentalImpacts

The most proclaimed positive issue is ecotourisms contribution to sustain-able resource management through conservation of the natural resources on adirect or indirect basis (Commonwealth of Australia, 1993, 1995; Cater, 1993,1994; Dearden, 1995) (see Table 2).

Although this represents a shift from the tendency of protecting the environ-ment towards the enhancement of the quality of resources (Wild, 1994: 13), it isgenerally achieved through the enhancement of biodiversity. The termbiodiversity or biological diversity was defined as the variety of all life forms,thedifferent plants, andmicro-organisms, the genes they containandtheecosys-tems of which they form a part (Commonwealth of Australia, 1995: 11). In thiscase, biodiversity conservation is taking place at three different levels, that of

genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity.Certain cases around the globe illustrate attempts to benefit from certain

aspects of biodiversity conservation. For example in Australia, the protection ofthe ecosystem diversity assisted in the provision of a water supply, nutrientcycling, and waste assimilation. In Costa Rica the conservation of the ecosystemoffered positive incentives to deforestation programmes (Karwacki & Boyd,1995),aswell as assisted in thepreservationofmarineresources in theCaribbean(Weaver, 1998). InCentralAmerica,benefits included the stimulationof national

pride, historical value through cultural and natural sites, and ecological benefits



indirect revenues from ecotourists (highmultiplier effect)

tendency of ecotourists to patronise cul-tural and heritage attractions asadd-ons

economic benefits from sustainable useof protected areas and inherent existence

revenue uncertainties to in situ nature ifconsumption

revenue leakages due to imports, expa-triate or non-local participation, etc.

opportunity costs

damage to crops by wildlife

Sociocultural impacts


ecotourism accessible to a broad spec-trum of the population

aesthetic/spiritual element of experi-ences

foster environmental awarenessamong ecotourists and local popula-tion

intrusions upon local and possibly iso-lated cultures

imposition of elite alien value system

displacement of local cultures byparks

erosion of local control (foreign ex-perts, in-migration of job seekers).


option and existence benefits potential resentment and antagonismof locals

tourist opposition to aspects of localculture (e.g. hunting, slash-burnagriculture).

Source: Weaver (1998: 21)

Table 2 cont.


15/30

through watershed protection, and medicinal contributions from pharmaceuti-cal products from tropical forests (Courrau, 1995: 17).

While ecotourism-related practices enhance the symbiotic relationship, thereare numerous cases showing certain antagonistic impacts (Wade, 1994). Here,Wall (1994) claims that ecotourists visits to fragile landscapes, in conjunction

with the timing of such visits, together with the potential of small group sizesincreasing into mass tourism sizes, are among the reasons for the appearance ofsuch impacts. Mainly, the antagonistic impacts were also classified to occureither on a direct or indirectbasis (Weaver, 1998;McKercher, 1998),or an on-siteand off-site basis (Lindberg & McKercher, 1997) (see Table 2). These concernsare taking place in such a manner that there are certain similarities between theenvironmental impacts of tourism and those of ecotourism (Lindberg &McKercher, 1997; Figgis, 1994; Weaver, 1998; Haysmith, 1995) (see Table 3).


Activity/Factor Nature of impacts

Extraction of resources Deforestation, mangrove clearance, effectson species and ecosystems

Harvest of firewood and timber Habitat modification, disturb small mam-mals, erosion and ecological change

Improper dumping of waste Damage to species and ecosystems, poorwater quality

Untreated waste Poor water qualityInadequate disposal of waste Disturb wildlife movements

Infrastructure development in ecologicalregions and protected areas

Disturbance to breeding and wildlife thatcause effects on reproduction

Intensive use of visitors Changes in wildlife behaviour,disturbance to plant community

Traffic in the form of hiking, congestionon trails and rivers

Trail erosion and disturbance on vegeta-tion and wildlife, soil compaction, impactson sea turtle nesting and reproduction

Vehicle traffic: auto, boat, fishing andhunting

Disturb wildlife, displacement fromnesting, avoidance or emigration,mortality, potential over-harvest,competition with predators

Purchase of souvenirs Threatened species availability, disruptnatural process

Noise and litter generation Disrupt natural sounds, wildlife, naturalscenery, aesthetic and health hazard, dis-rupts animal distribution

Feeding wildlife Behaviour changes, poor nutrition, de-pendence on artificial food supply

Introduction of exotic plants and animals Effects on resident species, morality be-tween species, removal of vegetation

Snorkeling and diving Damage to corals from fins, removal of organisms

Source: Haysmith (1995)

Table 3 The nature of antagonistic environmental impacts of ecotourism


16/30

Boyd and Butler warned that the only positive issue concerning the environ-mental impacts of ecotourism is the small size of these impacts, on the basis thatecotourism and ecotourists are treated as being a less demanding form of tour-ism and tourist (1993:30). However, they pointed out that the scale of the impactis in fact meaningless, as it only requires a small amount of ecological change to

result in irreparable damage.In general terms, the impacts from ecotourism on nature are diverse, as these

also reflect visitors activities and behaviour (Haysmith, 1995). Certain researchshowed that the response of wildlife appears to be dependent upon the particu-lar behaviour of visitors who have contact with wildlife (Kusler, 1991a, b;Haysmith, 1995). Cases have demonstrated differential impacts to plant andanimal species with some species exhibiting high sensitivity and others showinglow sensitivity to visitor disturbance. Antagonistic impacts were also noted in

cases where certain animals or species that are more sensitive altered theirbehaviour and activities to completely avoid contact with visitors, resulting inpotential long-term existence (Haysmith, 1995).

Wildlife feeding as a common feature within ecotourism also creates certainissues of concern (Figgis, 1994; Haysmith, 1995). One is the welfare of the animalas tourists feed the animals unsuitable foods hence leading to nutritional prob-lems. The second issue concerns the degree of interaction with these species, ascertain contact with animals will give visitors an impression that animals are

there for instant human gratification, to be handled and consumed. This situa-tion will then lead to the demands that other species also be made available, andthat the respect for wildlifes rights irrespective of their utility value for humanswill not be developed. Meanwhile, the capacity of a setting to absorb visitorimpacts influences the characteristicsof the tour product and its environmentalsustainability (McArthur & Gardner, 1995).

As an ecotourism setting focuses on areas with the least resilience in both theprotected and non-protected environment, certain limitations arise in terms ofmode of transportation, activities and destinations, while potentially causing

certain antagonistic impacts (McLaren, 1998). Another issue of concern dealswith the quality controlof theecotourismexperience (Weber, 1993;Eagles,1995).Certain cases in Africa showed that visitors seem to be sensitive to issues such ascondition of trails, ability of guides, information availability and group sizes. InRwanda, for instance, the initial limit of six visitors per daily group wasincreased to eight people in order to increase the visitation patterns. As a resultcomplaintsabout displacements fromthe guide, limited visibility, jostlingoccur-ring, all revealing that an expanded groupsize resulted in lower visitorapprecia-

tion (Weber, 1993: 143144).In addition, constraints with carrying capacity issues and their effects on the

site modifications and development exist as certain ecotourism destinations aremoving from the exploration to development stage of their product-life cycle(Weaver, 1998: 2425). In general terms, ecotourism is facing the problems ofclassification, observation, monitoring and interpretation of its environmentalimpacts (Dimanche & Smith, 1996).

One of the recent attempts to overcome this limitation was derived from the

World Wildlife Funds (WWF) natural resource assessment, using a geograph-ical information system (Sano, 1997: 13). WWF has synthesised, in collaboration



17/30

with other organisations an attempt to assess global biodiversity through theso-called representation approach, to identify two hundred of the globes mostfragile marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

In turn, it was proclaimed that this would assist the different actors to placestrategically certain funding mechanisms for conserving these eco-regions. In

addition to this attempt, the techniques of carrying capacity, environmentalcontrol, environmental impact assessment and environmental auditing simulta-neously remain as controversial and important (Diamantis & Westlake, 1997;Westlake & Diamantis, 1998; Diamantis, 1998a, b, c; 1999). Finally, the environ-mental impacts of ecotourism areappearing at an alarmingrate more in terms ofcosts and less in terms of benefits to the environment, all an indication thatcertain limits to support conservation via significant economic growth andwelfare should be found.

EconomicImpacts

Thedirect andindirectbenefits whicharederived frombiodiversityconserva-tion, represent the fundamental goal of ecotourism, by attracting visitors to thenatural settings and using the revenues to fund conservation and fuel economicdevelopment (Commonwealth of Australia, 1995: 12; Cater, 1993, 1994) (seeTable 2).

Regularly, one of the strategies to integrate conservation and development is

through the so-called Integrated Conservation and Development Projects(Brandon, 1996; Weaver, 1998; Dominguez & Bustillo, 1995). These types ofprojects aim to finance conservationby intensifying and developing commercialactivities that encourage the preservation of the natural habitats.

Although the effectiveness of such projects has been argued on the basis oftheir cross-purpose impact through the exploitation of the ecosystem, othershave raised such projects and introduced new terms in order to narrow downtheir limitation, that of commercial Integrated Conservation and Development

Projects. In short, these types of projects aim to (Simpson, 1995): improve the economic welfare of the destination;

provide valuable tools for publicising conservation;

lay the mechanism by which consumers can contribute to conservation;

increase contribution in the form of donations.

Further, another critical issue in such efforts at a local level highlights thefinancial source for conservation through fees (Tisdell, 1994: 8, 1995: 384; Wild,1994: 13). Although this issue is more applicable to protected areas, it was

claimed that destinations which are dependent on high visitation patterns atlocal (specifically national parks) and national levels, could rejuvenate economicrevenue to support its entire park system. This has been demonstrated byecotourists stating a willingness to pay more to support the conservation of thedestination areas. The principle of willingness-to-pay represents a measure ofthe economic value of the natural area (often protected areas) to ecotourists,which has been used in a number ofcases to increase public support and fundingfor such areas. In turn however, the ability to increase revenues depends on the

visitors willingness to pay for an ecotourism experience. Nevertheless, there are



18/30

five main mechanisms to capture the revenue from these sites (Brandon, 1996: 8;Lindberg & Huber, 1993: 102103): user fees; concessions; sales/royalties; taxa-tion and donations.

Another alternative is indirect collection where park entrance fees are paid bytourism operators who include the fees in their tour package price, or other

sectors of the tourism industry (Lindberg & Huber, 1993: 102). The financialincome,which these mechanismsgenerate, has been suggested as representing asource of conservation in only a few countries, as in most of the cases the fundsare not handed to the agencies which manage the parks but to the central trea-sury of the destination areas.

There are numerous case-studies which revealed this failure of maintainingthe financial resources in theparks, all ofwhich suggest that a fee structuremodi-fication is necessary through the establishment of funds in special accounts for

protected areas, or earmarking a certain percentage of parks fees for individualparks (Dominguez & Bustillo, 1995: 36).

In turn, funds for protected areas can be used as counterpart funds to securelarger grants, only in circumstances where protected areas are able to have theirown source of external funds mechanism. In every case, a central point to fundgeneration concerns issues of regulation and its associated monitoring mecha-nism for such park accounts (Dominguez & Bustillo, 1995: 36).

Next, an increased practice concerns the economic rationale to valuate its

natural attraction stock, such as in the case of the game fees in Tanzania fromwhich 12% is contributed by lions, 12% by leopards, 8% by a zebras, and 2% byelephants (Roe et al., 1997: 37). This technique is used to forecast certain incomesfor the areas where the revenue should be regenerated towards the preservationof these sites. Hence, it appears that the so-called fair market pricing of wildlandresources can serve as a way of justifying protected areas to governments.

In turn,such a public body could directly increase fees to secure more revenueand indirectly ensure the sustainable management of such natural stocks, in theform of maintenance of the biodiversity (see Table 2). Although this may repre-

sent one of the advantages of ecotourism, in that it enables natural areas tobecome self-financing, others have claimed that certain considerations should begiven based on the following reasons (Tisdell, 1994: 8):

the social optimal limitation to charge fees which enhance the financialturnover of the protected areas;

when the costs and difficulties of collecting fees are taken into consider-ation, it may not be economicallyworthwhileto impose charges for the useof protected areas;

the economic value of a protected area cannot be assessed from the incomeperspective, as there areboth on-site earnings as well as off-site benefits: asa result income earned from on-site visits is liable to underestimate theeconomic value of the protected areas; and

the concern is that if the emphasis is placed on the achievement ofself-financing protected areas, the incorrect conclusion may be drawnwhereby a protected area which can not finance itself should not beprotected from an economic perspective.

Further, takingasanexample a non-protected area, in this casein the region of



19/30

the Caribbean, similar observations have emerged. Here, it was claimed thatadequateandunequal sourcesof finance were notdistributed in theseregions. Infact, both the domestic development banking sector and commercial leadingagencies indicated that requests for funding such tourism ventures have beenfew,allan indicationof the low levelofawarenessof ecotourismpossibilitiesand

the lack of viable projects. This study concluded that certain reforms are neces-sary throughout the regions inorder to facilitatefinancing for ecotourismrelatedprojects, in the form of coordination/joint ventures between the different actors,or the formation of a fixed body (OAS & IIC, 1995: 2226).

In Russia, however, it was suggested that high local capital investment forecotourism should be avoided. The reasoning behind this approach is based onthe lack of ecotourism infrastructure availability, as well as knowledge ofecotourismandas such itwassuggested thatanyinvestment funding must come

from internationalorganisationsorconservationcommunitygroups(IRG,1995:4).The overall results of the study showed that ecotourism generates nearly

$465,000 of additional income to the local communities, with the employmenteffect generating an average of 8.4 full-time equivalent years of employment inthe seven examined sites. In general terms, the employment generated byecotourismdevelopment, representsone of the tangible benefits attributed to thesociety.The levelof employment, however, seems to be varied around theworldas a result of differences among destination components, although there are

claims that in certain rural areas even a small increase in employment greatlyaffected the local economic structure.Further, other criticsof the economic valueof ecotourism suggest certain limi-

tations as a result of both the product availability for consumption in the truewilderness settings, and the small size of the ecotours, which do not generateenough revenue for the localeconomy. In addition,problems have been encoun-tered with the economic inefficiency of the open access sites of ecotourism incertain regions such as Thailand and Nepal, all raising issues of ownership andpolicy instruments (Steele, 1995).

In turn, only by changing ownership structures, regulations, and economicinstruments will this situation improve. There is also some criticism on invest-ment inecotourism,both from the privateandsocialperspective, asonly positiveprivate returns can enhance the conservation benefits of ecotourism (Tisdell,1995). In the caseof private investment failure, there will be someindirect conse-quences of the area management in order to generate funds for nature conserva-tion purposes.

In short, among the economic benefits of ecotourism there is a fear that the

presence ofan economic imperativesuggests that growth is possible in the direc-tionof masstourism (Dimanche & Smith, 1996;Warren & Taylor, 1994). Inavoid-ing this scenario, efforts should be placed to measure the capital stocks of thedestinations through an appropriate accounting framework such as environ-mental balance sheets, and measurement techniques of the capital flows such asthe travel cost methods and the maximum sustainable yield method (Fyall &Garrod, 1997).



20/30

Social/CulturalImpacts

Thesustainablecomponent ofecotourism oftenattestscertaindirect andindi-rect sociocultural benefits and costs at the sites and/or at the destination level(see Table 2). Generally speaking, it was proposed that the assessment of thecultural impacts of ecotourism could be based on four criteria (Brandon, 1996:

1719): commodification element; culture affecting social change; culturalknowledge; and cultural patrimony elements.

Alternatively, Weaver (1998:27) refers toShermans andDixons (1991)classi-fication of the option and experience benefits of ecotourism from the clienteleperspective. The option benefits refer to the individuals satisfaction of havingjust one option of visiting natural attractions, while the experience benefits referto the individuals satisfaction of knowing that certain conservation efforts areoccurring in the natural attractions.

In reviewing the sociocultural impacts from the host community perspective,the promotion of socio-development is channelled through both protected andnon-protected areas, and deals with the enhancement of community involve-ment (Harvey & Hoare, 1995; Dominguez & Bustillo, 1995; McLaren, 1998), orcommunity-based conservation (Horwich et al., 1993) (see Table 2). Communityinvolvement is seen to highlight the ability of local communities to influence theoutcome of the development process that hasan impact upon local communities(Larsen & Wearing, 1994). Thus, the community managed ecotourism develop-

ment process allowscommunities to decide what type of growth the communityneeds, and hence assist to manage the impacts.

In general terms, the involvement of local people could generate a sense ofpride anda form of ownership, and simultaneouslyactasa buffer against certainsources of investment outside the local area (Harvey & Hoare, 1995). It furthercreates opportunities for diversification through new forms of ecological enter-prises, or the so-called farming of exotic plants and animals (Karwacki & Boyd,1995: 227). Hence, the provision of local and regional benefits were claimed to

involve a commitment from providers of ecotourism experiences, to distributeequitably benefits to the local community, even though in certain casesecotourism enterprisesmaybe based inother communities or involvenationalormultinational ownership.

Ecotourism can also raise awareness of the value of traditional crafts andcultural interchange in twodifferent perspectives (Healy, 1994;Harvey& Hoare,1995):

Firstly,ecotouristspost-tripattitudesmaybedifferent asa resultofa better

understanding enhanced by the destination conservation and culturalissues. These touristsmaybecome activeor volunteer insomeconservationor cultural events in their own community.

can benefit especially from the sale of tourism merchandise, as it can beinvolved with theecotourismactivitiesthrough cultural/sustainable prod-uct development, use of local materials, which in turn can be used as a toolfor educating ecotourists about the resources and the local culture.

In addition to these pros of ecotourism, Wallace (1992) suggests the role that

ecotourism hasas a model of sustainablecommunitydevelopment, based on theclaim that the link between conservation of resources and the sustainable devel-



21/30

opment needs of local people is inseparable. In turn, certain case-studies havehighlighted that a limited amount of economic benefits remain at the local level(Dimanche & Smith, 1996; Harvey & Hoare, 1995), and others raised the signifi-cance of these incentives and high community involvement levels. Further, theimpacts of tourists on the society and culture of a host country is related to the

type of tourism, the nature of the tourism activity and the economic and socialstructures of the host country (Karwacki & Boyd, 1995; Richins, 1994).

In this context, the development of ecotourism sites has led to local popula-tions being removed from their land. Once ecotourism was established, the localcommunity were unable to return to their territory, and as such were engaged inother activitiessuchasagriculture (Achama,1995).Others have also claimedthatecotourism is often found in areas where practicesby the indigenous populationhave more often than not been sustainable and relatively environmentally

benign.In other situations, such as in Northern Thailand, local residents mayrelocate

to non-authentic village sites in order to cater/perform to the misperceptions ofecotourists. Another social concern is that the goals of ecotourism which areoften long term in nature, are markedly different than the short-term goals oflocal people such as stabilising local agriculture, and assisting with the localbuilding infrastructure (Wallace, 1992). On this point, Boyd and Butler (1993: 31)claimed that an overall antagonism may be created towards the ecotourist, as a

result of his/her degraded attitudes towards the environment, or becauseecotourism benefits bypass the indigenous population.In all the cases attention has to be given to the facilities and local purchases of

services and provisions, as well as on the employment and involvement of thelocal population in ecotourism operations and decision making. This can beachieved through planning andmonitoring, together with an educational provi-sion as well as a certain level of local control (Ayala, 1995).

Education/Interpretation Component

The education characteristic of ecotourism was claimed to be a key elementwhich distinguished it from other forms of nature-based tourism, in that it isbased on the development of a programme by ecotourism operators and/or adestination authority (Dowling, 1995a, b; Blamey, 1995a, b; Larsen & Wearing,1994). These types of programmes often include the natural area (protected andnon-protected) attributes, in an attempt to educate the visitors and locals aboutthe function of the natural setting. There are two main types of environmentaleducationwithin theprotectedandnon-protectedareas (Blamey, 1995a,b, 1997):

Firstly, education in terms of species and genetic diversity which takes theform of simple observationand in-depth learning. Here, there is someformof gazing, either in terms of intensive interaction with certain species, orsimply observing certain species. Although it was claimed that this type ofgazing in the natural settings is different from in-depth learning aboutcertain subjects (i.e. geology, ecology), it includes a form of on-site educa-tional experience, all reflecting the needs of the consumers.

Secondly, education in terms of ecosystem diversity and how to minimisethe conflict of environmental functions derived from tourism activities.



22/30

This type of educational experience can be seen as including both generalinformation about the ecology as well as certain codes of conduct, in turnthere was a claim that these codesof conduct refer to these individuals wholeast need it. In addition, different responses emerged from individualsbefore the tour and during the tour, as code utilisation did not allow

ecotourists to become more environmentally committed.In both these types of educational experiences the role of interpretation was

implied to be at the centre of their framework. Orams(1995b:84) refers to Tilden(1957)when he expands on interpretation as an educational activity which aimsto reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects byfirst-hand experience, and by illustrative media rather than simply to communi-cate factual information. Generally, the utilisation of interpretation offers thefollowing benefits (Cooper, 1991: 226):

enhances visitorsawarenessandknowledgeof thedestinationsattributes;

fostersvisitors behaviourandattitudes towardsspecific sites and/or sensi-tive areas; and

enhances the role of the community of the destination areas.

In this setting, interpretation can be an effective management tool forecotourism reserves from the hosts, the visitors and the environment. Much ofthe discussion on interpretation concentrates on value enhancement, throughplanning frameworkswhichwere illustrated mainlyby a six-phase managementprocess (Cooper, 1991: 226229; Masberg, 1996: 3738; Orams, 1995b: 9091).

In particular, for ecotourism purposes a situation specific model appeared totake place in three phases (Forestell, 1993: 271275): pre-contact, contact andpost-contact. The focus of the pre-contact interaction tended to beskill-orientated programs focusing on the anticipation and apprehension of theparticipant. During the contact interaction, the provision of specific scientificinformationabout the species, genetic andecosystems diversity wasprovided insuch a manner that it facilitated the participants ability to observe the different

relationships between organisms, rather than having these identified by theguide. During the post-contact phase, the emphasis was placed on the enhance-ment of the participants ecologically sensitive behaviour patterns,by providinga number of programs to further ecotourists environmental goals (membershipto certain groups, volunteer programs, signing a petition etc.) (Forestell, 1993).

Although this model represents one of the first attempts in ecotourismsettings, Orams (1995b) argues that not all the ecotourism programmes can bedesigned in these three stages, in that there isa need toutilise a range ofstrategies

or techniques for increasing the effectiveness of interpretation. In turn, hesuggested that interpretation should enhance some elements of the cognitivelearning theory, that of cognitive dissonance, affective domain, motiva-tion/incentive to act, opportunity to act and the evaluation and feedback. Thesetechniques should then be offered as a menu from which certain strategies canbe implemented. In all the cases, he pointed to the lack of interpretationprogrammes in ecotourism, especially regarding the empirical effectiveness ofsuch techniques.

Others, however, brought to light certain issues concerning the effectivenessof the planning process, by introducing the benefits of an external need assess-



23/30

ment. Here, the argument is that the current interpretation programmes ofecotourismconcentrateon the input of internal sources,orproviders ofa particu-lar organisation. Hence, Masbergs study showed that by utilising a regularassessment,based on the needs of the professionals, the public andthe recreationproviders, ecotourism interpretation programmes can be effective as they

espouse regular customer input (1996: 4850). This input can be utilised in orderto assist with the development of the programmes, identifying content needs ofspecific visitors groups or as a tool to formalise decision- making procedures.

Another toolusedprimarily toenhance the external market needs is the provi-sion of training programmes (Laarman & Durst, 1993). The role of trainingprogrammes for ecotourism purposes is to provide a specialist knowledge andexpertise to actors involved within ecotourism, either on a formal or informalbasis. The limitations of establishing a training programme were believed to

stem from the diversity and fragmentation of the stakeholders involved inecotourism as specific training programmes mainly differ in orientation andlevel of complexity (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996: 176).

Consider for instance, the content themes of two training programmes inAustralia and Costa Rica. There are some similarities in terms of the resourcesmanagement needs, low impact methods of operations, its indigenous cultureand its interpretation, as well as its customer profiles (Weiler & Crabtree, 1995;Jacobson & Robles, 1992). However research in Australia revealed that the focus

of the training should be on guide up-skilling, rather than entry-level guidetraining (Weiler & Crabtree, 1995: 189).In contrast, in Costa Rica, the training programme focused on the enhance-

ment of certain goals by providing conservation education to local people, tovisitors, and to the community sector. The outcome of the effectiveness of thesetraining programmes was also diverse. In Australia, among other recommenda-tions, there was a clear need to establish a single body to coordinate theecotourism training, aswell asallow the actorsof ecotourism to design their owntraining plans, and to focus on specific issues such as indigenous interpretation.

InCostaRica, thetraining recommendationrelated more towildlife interestsandless on knowledge concerning the local culture and indigenous people (Jacobson& Robles, 1992: 712).

In all the cases, there is a lack of empirical evidence of both interpretation andtraining effectiveness for ecotourism. This stems from evidence that both thesetools have to reflect the specific setting in which they are applied, in addition tothe fact that theyshould conveythe needs anddemandsofboth stakeholdersandcustomers. In every single case, however, there is wide recognition that both

interpretation and trainingcan enhance the symbiotic rather than the antagonis-tic relationships, in this case between natural resources and ecotourism.

ConclusionandTrends

The term ecotourism emerged in the late 1980sas a direct result of the worldsacknowledgment and reaction to sustainable practices and global ecologicalpractices. A decade on, this is still the case as a variety of practitioners treat theconcept of ecotourism as a buzzword phenomenon often examined in terms of

issuesof ecotourism rather than asa concreteagenda. Thereview of the literature



24/30

of ecotourism indicated that it is more appropriate to treat ecotourism as aconcept and illustrate the components and issues implied by ecotourism ratherthan the issues of ecotourism. Under this perspective, this article examined thedefinitions of ecotourism and its components. The majority of the definitionsrange along a spectrum from passive to active, depending upon the setting. In

addition, thesedefinitions of ecotourismmainlyattestto thecharacteristicsof thedestinationand the trip, and there is a lack of emphasis on definitions that reflectthe desires of ecotourists. On a positive side, however, most of the definitionscontained three common components:

(1) Within the natural-based component the main issue is that ecotourism takesplace in both protected andnon-protected areas,and that it hascertainsimi-larities with natural-based tourism.

(2) Within the sustainable management component, evidence suggests that

ecotourism should abolish the tourism-centered syndrome and adopt thenature-centered approach in order to reflect sustainability rather thantourism principles. This also arises from the different direct and indirectcosts and benefits associated with the environmental, economic, andsociocultural impacts.

(3) Within the educational/interpretation component, the different types of envi-ronmental education/training programmes highlighted a number ofissues. Currently, neither interpretation nor training programmes are

widely used within ecotourism and in cases where they do apply they tendtohave a different perspective. Inevitably, thecriticalissue withthis compo-nent centres around the curriculum of such programmes, in that they haveto reflect the needs and the demands of both stakeholders and consumers.This has to be supported by mechanisms which reveal their effectiveness interms of quality and delivery.

The three components of ecotourism also illustrated that there is a tremen-dous tendency of ecotourism to develop into a small form of mass tourism.

Although the evidence suggested that this could be possible in the undevelopedcountries, other cases illustrated that there is enough awareness that ecotourismcould remain small and sustainably managed.

Herein, lies the first challenge to ecotourism, in that, it has to remain an attrac-tive form of tourism embodied with sustainable and educational principles.Inevitably research needs to be conducted on the polar opposites concepts,ecotourism and mass tourism, in order to identify necessary preventativemeasures to stop ecotourism becoming a mass ecotourism phenomenon.

Another significant challenge lies in the sustainable monitoring practices ofecotourism components, where the issues of environmental auditing and envi-ronmental management systems need to be explored in their full potential.Proponents of ecotourism often disregard these monitoring techniques due totheir financial constraints, but at the expense of the ecosystem attractivityover along period of time.

A significant challenge has also been highlighted with regards to theoperationalised aspects of ecotourism. Certain changes are likely to occur from

the impactof theGeneralAgreement onTradein Services (GATS) in the whole ofthe tourism industry, with significant implications to ecotourisms demand and



25/30

supply structure. The extent towhich cross-border supply, consumption abroad,commercialpresence andpersonal mobility are likely to influence theconditionsto which destinations operate could also have significant implications onecotourism.

Finally, it has become clear that ecotourism is a more complex and interesting

area of research with distinct components ranging across a variety of researchgrounds from marketing to environmental management. With reference to callsin the literature highlighting that ecotourism is simply a new name in an oldactivity, there is a need for a re-orientation under a different perspective. In thecourseof such a reorientation, the traditional idiomof ecotourism as an environ-mentally friendly form of tourism does not have to be abandoned but its natural,educational and conservation strengths can be further extended by linking themto theories from the environmental and resources management.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Dimitrios Diamantis, LesRoches Management School, Tourism Research Centre, CH-3975, Bluche, Swit-zerland ([email protected]).

References

Achama, F. (1995) Defining ecotourism. In L. Haysith and J. Harvey (eds) NatureConservation and Ecotourism in Central America (pp. 2332). Florida: WildlifeConservation Society.

Agardy, M.T. (1993)Accommodating ecotourism in multiple use planning of coastal andmarine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 20 (3), 219239.

AustraliaDepartment of Tourism (1994)NationalEcotourismStrategy. Canberra:AustraliaGovernment Publishing Service.

Ayala, H. (1995) From quality product to eco-product: Will Fiji set a precedent? TourismManagement 16 (1), 3947.

Barnes, J.L. (1996)Economic characteristics of thedemand forwildlife-viewing tourism inBotswana. Development Southern Africa 13 (3), 377397.

Blamey, R.K. (1995a) The Nature of Ecotourism. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.Blamey, R.K. (1995b) The elusive market profile: Operationalising ecotourism. Paper

presented at the Geography of Sustainable Tourism Conference, University ofCanberra, ACT, Australia, September.

Blamey, R.K. (1997) Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 5 (2), 109130.

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

Boo, E. (1991a) Ecotourism: A tool for conservation and development. In J.A. Kusler(compiler) Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: A Collection of Papers (Vol. 1) (pp.5460). Madison: Omnipress.

Boo, E. (1991b) Planning for ecotourism. Parks 2 (3), 48.Boo, E. (1992) The Ecotourism Boom: Planning for Development and Management. WHN

technical paper series, Paper 2. Washington, DC: WWF.Boo, E. (1993) Ecotourism planning for protected areas. In K. Lindberg and D.E. Hawkins

(eds) Ecotourism: Guide for Planners and Managers (pp. 1531). North Bennington: TheEcotourism Society.

Bottrill C.G. and Pearce, D.G. (1995) Ecotourism: Towards a key elements tooperationalising the concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (1), 4554.

Boyd, S.W. and Butler, R.W. (1993) Review of the Development of Ecotourism with Respect toIdentifying Criteria for Ecotourism for Northern Ontario. Report for Department of



26/30

NaturalResources/Forestry, Ministry of NaturalResources. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,Canada.

Boyd, S.W. and Butler, R.W. (1996a)Seeing the forest through the trees using geographicalinformation systems to identify potential ecotourism sites in Northern Ontario,Canada. In L.C. Harrison and W. Husbands (eds) Practicing Responsible Tourism:International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development (pp. 380403).

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Boyd, S.W. and Butler, R.W. (1996b) Managing ecotourism: An opportunity spectrum

approach. Tourism Management 17 (8), 557566.Brandon, K. (1996) Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues. Environmental

Department Papers, Paper No. 033. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the third world: Problems for sustainable tourism

development. Tourism Management 14 (2), 8590.Cater, E. (1994)Ecotourism in the third world: Problems and prospects for sustainability.

In E. Cater and G. Lowman (eds) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? (pp. 6986).Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987) The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal (January), 1314.Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1991a) Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas. In J.A. Kusler

(compiler) Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, A Collection of Papers (Vol. 1) (pp.2430). Madison: Omnipress.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1991b) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Parks 2 (3),3135.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1993a) Ecotourism as a worldwide phenomenon. In K. Lindbergand D.E. Hawkins (eds) Ecotourism: Guide for Planners and Managers (pp. 1214).NorthBennington: The Ecotourism Society.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1993b) Overview on ecotourism around the world: IUCNs

ecotourism program. In Proceedings of 1993 World Congress on Adventure Travel andEco-tourism, Brazil (pp. 219222). Englewood: The Adventure Travel Society.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN.Charters, T. (1995)The state of ecotourism in Australia. In H.Richins, J.Richardson and A.

Crabtree (eds) Ecotourism and Nature-Based Tourism: Taking Next Steps (pp. 917). RedHill: The Ecotourism Association of Australia Conference Proceedings.

Commonwealth of Australia (1993) Biodiversity and Its Value. Biodiversity Series PaperNo. 1. Biodiversity Unit, Canberra, Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia (1995) Two Way Track, Biodiversity Conservation andEcotourism: An Investigation of Linkages, Mutual Benefits and Future Opportunities.

Biodiversity Series Paper No.5, Biodiversity Unit, Canberra, Australia.Cooper, C. (1991) The technique of interpretation. In S. Medlik (eds) Managing Tourism

(pp. 224230). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Courrau, J. (1995) Conservation issues in Central America. In L. Haysith and J. Harvey

(eds) Nature Conservationand Ecotourism in Central America (pp. 717) Florida: WildlifeConservation Society.

Dearden, P. (1995) Ecotourism, parks and biocultural diversity: The context in NorthernThailand. In S. Hiranburana, V. Stithyudhakarn and P. Dhaabutra (eds) Proceedings ofEcotourism: Concepts, Design and Strategy (pp. 1542). Bangkok: Institute ofEco-tourism, Srinakharinwirot University Press.

Diamantis, D. (1998a) Ecotourism: Characteristics and involvement patterns of itsconsumers in the United Kingdom. PhD dissertation, Bournemouth University, UK.

Diamantis, D. (1998b) Consumer behaviour and ecotourism products. Annals of TourismResearch 25 (2), 515518.

Diamantis, D. (1998c) Environmental auditing: A tool in ecotourism development.Eco-Management and Auditing Journal 5 (1), 1521.

Diamantis, D. (1999) The importance of environmental auditing and environmentalindicators in islands. Eco-Management and Auditing Journal 6 (2), forthcoming.

Diamantis, D. and Westlake, J. (1997) Environmental auditing: An approach towardsmonitoring the environmental impacts in tourism destinations, with reference to thecase of Molyvos. Progress of Tourism and Hospitality Research 3 (1), 315.



27/30

Dimanche, F. and Smith, G. (1996) Is ecotourism an appropriate answer to tourismsenvironmental concerns? Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 3 (4), 6776.

Dominguez, S. and Bustillo, J. (1995) Support to nature conservation from ecotourism. InL. Haysith and J. Harvey (eds) Nature Conservation and Ecotourism in Central America(pp. 3444). Florida: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Dowling, R.K. (1995a) Ecotourism and development: Partners and progress. Paper

presented in the National Regional Tourism Conference, Launceston, Tasmania,August.

Dowling, R.K. (1995b) Regional ecotourism development plans: Theory and practice.Paper presented at the Regional Symposium of

is it really 'ecotourism?" the concept of ecotourism-evolution and trends

Documents