EcotourismChap1 (1)

8/12/2019 EcotourismChap1 (1)

1/33

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Among practitioners, academics and other participants in the tourism indus-

try, there is a palpable awareness of the rapid change being experienced within

the sector (Poon, 1993). Terms such as sustainable tourism, alternative

tourism and ecotourism, which were not even in the lexicon 20 years ago, are

now the objects of intense scrutiny, debate and controversy. At present, thereis no consensus at all surrounding the use of the term ecotourism (Buckley,

1994; Orams, 1995) and, indeed, the question of semantics appears to be

occupying a significant portion of the current research agenda. Further con-

fusion results from the use of related terms, such as sustainable tourism and

alternative tourism, to name only two of the more prominent ecotourism affili-

ates (e.g. Valentine, 1990; Gilbert et al., 1994). As there is virtually no possi-

bility that any widespread agreement on the meaning or use of these terms

will be achieved in the foreseeable future, it is necessary to establish definitions

and interrelationships that will be deemed valid at least for the purposes of

this publication. This chapter begins by clarifying the overall phenomenon of

tourism and then proceeds to define and address the relationship between

sustainable tourism, alternative tourism and ecotourism. The status of mass

tourism within this typology is also addressed. The latter sections focus upon

ecotourism itself, in terms of its magnitude, growth and potential costs and

benefits.

1.2. TOURISM

The term tourism itself is characterized by conflicting interpretations (Morley,

1990; Hunt and Layne, 1991). Hall (1995a) points out that one of the most

frustrating aspects for those studying tourism is the proliferation of ad hoc and

personalized definitions among researchers and practitioners. One way of

overcoming this problem is to first arrive at an understanding of the tourist;

Chapter 1

Introduction to Ecotourism

1


2/33

tourism may then be considered to be the phenomena associated with those

who are so classified. Three elements must be combined in arriving at a work-

ing definition of the tourist:

thepurposes of travel that qualify as tourism;

the origins of the traveller relative to the destination;

the length of stay in the destination.

This text adheres to a fourfold tourist categorization that incorporates

much of the spirit, if not terminology, of the working tourist definitions formu-

lated by the World Tourism Organization (WTO). In general, tourists (visitors

in the WTO terminology) are defined as those who travel away from their

usual environment for a period not exceeding one consecutive year, for pur-

poses of leisure, business (providing there is no remuneration from a source

within the destination), visiting family and friends and other motives, such as

pilgrimage, sport, health and study. Depending upon origin and duration of

stay, four broad tourist categories may be recognized:

International stayovers are those who stay at least one night in a destination

that is located outside the country where they are usually resident. (In the

WTO terminology, stayovers are synonymous with tourists.)

International excursionists are the same as international stayovers, except

that the stay does not include an overnight component. (Stopovers are trav-

ellers in transit, who, because they do not normally clear customs or leave

the airport, are usually excluded from the typology. Excursionists are syn-

onymous with same-day visitors in the WTO terminology.)

Domestic stayovers are the same as international stayovers, except that the

travel is away from their usual environment within their own country.

Demarcation of the usual environment varies from destination to destina-

tion, with 50 miles (80 km), for example, being commonly employed in

North America (Smith, 1989). As will be seen later, the incipient nature oftourism-related data collection in lesser developed countries necessitates a

less rigorous approach to the definition of the domestic tourist. This text

considers the latter (unless noted otherwise) to include all domestic visitors

to identified attractions, other than those engaged in wage occupations or

subsistence.

Domestic excursionists are the same as domestic stayovers, except that the

duration of stay does not include an overnight component.

As for tourism, the following definition proposed by McIntosh et al.(1995, 10) (with the authors modification in italics) eloquently expresses

the importance of interaction among several participant groups, including

tourists:

Tourism may be defined as the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising

from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host governments, origin

governments and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting these

tourists and other visitors.

2 Chapter 1


3/33

1.2.1. Magnitude of Modern TourismThe following subsections offer a brief commentary on the overall global mag-

nitude of tourism. A more detailed examination of growth and impacts, from

the perspective of less developed countries, is provided in Chapter 3.

Introduction 3

Table 1.1. Growth in total international stayover arrivals and revenues 19501995(from WTO, 1996).

International stayover arrivals Receipts from international tourism

Total Index Total IndexYear (000s) % Change (1950 = 100) $US m. % Change (1950 = 100)

1950 25,282 100 2,100 100

1960 69,320 10.6 274 6,867 12.6 3271961 75,323 8.7 298 7,284 6.1 3471962 81,381 8.0 322 8,029 10.2 3821963 90,071 10.7 356 8,887 10.7 4231964 104,601 16.1 414 10,073 13.4 4801965 112,863 7.9 446 11,604 15.2 5531966 119,980 6.3 475 13,340 15.0 6351967 129,782 8.2 513 14,458 8.4 6881968 131,201 1.1 519 14,990 3.7 714

1969 143,511 9.4 568 16,800 12.1 8001970 165,787 15.5 656 17,900 6.6 8521971 178,853 7.9 707 20,850 16.5 9931972 189,129 5.8 748 24,621 18.1 1,1721973 198,906 5.2 787 31,054 26.1 1,4791974 205,667 3.4 813 33,822 8.9 1,6111975 222,290 8.1 879 40,702 20.3 1,9381976 228,873 3.0 905 44,436 9.2 2,1161977 249,264 8.9 986 55,637 25.2 2,6491978 267,076 7.2 1,056 68,845 23.7 3,2781979 283,089 6.0 1,120 83,340 21.1 3,9691980 286,249 1.1 1,132 105,198 26.2 5,0091981 288,616 0.8 1,142 107,432 2.1 5,1161982 288,586 0.0 1,141 100,873 6.1 4,8031983 291,854 1.1 1,154 102,448 1.6 4,8781984 319,052 9.3 1,262 112,467 9.8 5,3561985 329,538 3.3 1,303 117,374 4.4 5,5891986 340,549 3.3 1,347 142,067 21.0 6,7651987 366,858 7.7 1,451 174,232 22.6 8,297

1988 401,710 9.5 1,589 201,540 15.7 9,6971989 430,933 7.3 1,705 218,369 8.4 10,3991990 459,212 6.6 1,816 264,714 21.2 12,6051991 465,844 1.4 1,843 271,880 2.7 12,9471992 503,258 8.0 1,991 308,745 13.6 14,7021993 517,607 2.9 2,047 314,249 1.8 14,9641994 545,878 5.5 2,159 345,540 10.0 16,4541995 561,027 2.8 2,219 380,693 10.1 18,128


4/33

1.2.1.1. International tourismThe explosive growth of the postwar tourism industry is a well-documented

and well-discussed phenomenon which need only be considered briefly here.

According to the WTO, international stayover arrivals have increased fromapproximately 25 million in 1950 to an estimated 561 million in 1995. This

22-fold increase in arrivals has been accompanied by an estimated 180-fold

increase in associated revenues, from about $2.1 billion to $380 billion (Table

1.1). Only a few events, including the recession of the early 1980s and the

1991 Gulf War, have interrupted this pattern of robust post-Second World

War growth, which has been associated with a variety of conducive develop-

ments within the major market and destination regions during the period.

These may be summarized as follows:

Economic change: rising discretionary incomes between 1940 and the

mid-1970s.

Demographic change: growing populations, increased urbanization, smaller

family size, increased life expectancy.

Technological change: development of air and road transportation technology

Social change: increased discretionary time, importance of the work in

order to play ethos in the postindustrial or leisure age;

Geopolitical stability: avoidance, during the latter half of the 20th century,

of wars and depressions comparable to the world wars or to the Depression

of the 1930s.

The first four factors apply mainly to the traditional tourist markets of

North America, western Europe, Japan and Australia/New Zealand in

accounting for most of the growth in global tourism to date. However, other

Asian countries, such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, are now dis-

playing similar characteristics and are therefore emerging as significant con-

tributors to the outbound tourist population. These countries have evolved

through the development sequence in a shorter period of time than the tradi-

tional markets, in part because of their ability to adopt innovations introduced

by the first wave of developed countries. If this notion of a condensed develop-

ment sequence can be extrapolated to much larger potential tourist markets,

such as China and Indonesia, then the positive implications for the continued

growth of the tourism industry are readily apparent. In any case, tourism is

already widely purported to be the worlds largest industry, although this

status really depends upon how one draws up a list of comparative sectors. For

example, tourism is larger than any particular type of mining, such as oil, butis not as large as the cumulative mining industry.

1.2.1.2. Domestic tourismDomestic tourism is more difficult to quantify than international tourism

because of the absence of monitoring mechanisms comparable to the border

formalities faced by international travellers and because of great disparities

in definition among and within individual countries. However, the WTO

4 Chapter 1


5/33

ventures the estimate that domestic tourism exceeds international tourism by

a factor of 2.7 in terms of revenue and by a factor of ten in terms of actual

arrivals (Inskeep, 1991). International and domestic tourism together were

estimated to have contributed about $3.4 trillion, or 6%, to the 1994 globalcumulative gross national product, and to have created 204 million direct and

indirect job opportunities (McIntosh et al., 1995).

1.3. SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

The concept of sustainable tourism is inextricably linked to the ethic of sustain-

able development, which in theory advocates that people strive to meet theirpresent needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs, presumably measured against the standard of living cur-

rently enjoyed (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

Sustainable development, then, is essentially a trade-off between the needs

and aspirations of the present, and those of the future (Archer and Cooper,

1994). Butler (1993) contests the use of the term sustainable tourism, despite

its currency, arguing that it implies the maintenance of tourism itself, what-

ever its impacts, rather than the maintenance of the human or physical con-

text within which the tourism occurs. Accordingly, Butler advocates the term

sustainable tourism development, entailing

tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, 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 (human and physical) in

which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and

well being of other activities and processes.

(Butler, 1993, 29)

Thus, sustainable tourism is conceived as a form of tourism that facilitates

sustainable development. Some researchers (e.g. Pigram, 1990) equate sus-

tainable tourism with alternative tourism, although it seems clear that most, if

not all, modes of tourism can be potentially sustainable in the sustainable

development sense, if managed in an appropriate way within suitable settings.

Murphy (1994), for example, cites Disney World as an example of successful

sustainable mass tourism. Such a broader approach is also apparent in the

recently establishedJournal of Sustainable Tourism.

1.3.1. Magnitude of Sustainable TourismThe contemporary magnitude of sustainable tourism is impossible to estimate,

not only because the concept is still novel, controversial and ill-defined, but

also because it is defined by future outcomes, which cannot be predicted in

advance; practices that appear sustainable at the present time may prove

otherwise in another 10 years. All that can be said with confidence is that

interest in the concept has increased dramatically during the past decade,

Introduction 5


6/33

within both the public and the private sector and across the entire tourism-

product spectrum. It has become de rigueurfor practitioners to claim, justifi-

ably or not, that their enterprises are based on principles of sustainability or

that such principles are being actively implemented. Indeed, a number of well-known corporations, such as British Airways and Canadian Pacific Hotels, as

well as smaller-scale operations, have been lauded for their implementation of

effective environmental practices (Hawkes and Williams, 1993; Goodall,

1994; Wight, 1994).

1.3.1.1. Green Flag and Green GlobeAlthough Archer and Cooper (1994) argue that the tourism industrys recog-

nition of sustainable development has been somewhat belated compared with

other sectors, tourism-related companies do seem to be more aware that con-

sumer interest in green issues is not just a passing fad (see Section 1.6) and

that responsible environmental and social practices also make good business

sense (Zimmer, 1991; Poon, 1993; WTTERC, 1993; Brown, 1994; Goodall,

1994; Sisman, 1994; Wight, 1994). The establishment in recent years of sev-

eral high-profile environmental-monitoring and management programmes is

indicative of the increased corporate interest in sustainability. These include

Green Flag International, established by the industry in the late 1980s

(Sisman, 1994), and Green Globe, established in 1992 by the World Travel andTourism Council (WTTC), which represents many of the largest companies in

the travel and tourism industry (Green Globe, 1995). Although financial diffi-

culties threaten the continued existence of Green Globe in its present form,

membership had reached 210 in 1996, distributed among 48 countries, and

including representation from a cross-section of corporations and government

tourism agencies (Hoon, 1996). Such numbers, however, should not be taken

as an indication of the actual magnitude of sustainable tourism practice, but at

best a measure of intent. This is partly because of the unforeseen outcomes

argument advanced earlier, but also because the codes of ethics and guidelines

associated with these organizations, such as the WTTC code (Table 1.2), are

meant only as general guidelines and recommendations which do not formally

obligate members to meet specific objectives within a defined time-frame.

1.3.1.2. Sustainability and mass tourismIt must be reiterated that the trend toward sustainable tourism does not neces-

sarily imply a deviation away from the notion of mass tourism, although one

important manifestation, alternative tourism, certainly does entail such ashift (see Section 1.4). Basic corporate premises of profitability, economies of

scale and the free market are implicit in such programmes as Green Globe,

wherein the adoption of green practices may be seen as a rational business

decision designed to increase profitability through reduced waste, improved

public perception, etc. (Wight, 1994). As a sort of having ones cake and eat-

ing it too construct, the term geonomics has been tentatively applied to the

theory that a pattern of continuing economic growth (and not just mainte-

6 Chapter 1


7/33

nance of current standards) can be reconciled with the preservation of the

natural environment (Carson and Moulden, 1991). If this comment appears

sceptical, such sentiments are reinforced by a scrutiny of the various industry

codes (Hawkes and Williams, 1993; Hall, 1995a), which, like the WTTC code,not only lack specific objectives and time-frames, but operate on principles of

voluntary adherence and self-regulation rather than third-party intervention.

Nevertheless, such efforts are still to be applauded if they serve to actually

facilitate more responsible corporate practices, since corporate-driven mass

tourism in the past has not been generally distinguished by its exemplary

record in advancing the interests of host communities, especially within less

developed regions.

Introduction 7

Table 1.2. World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) environmental guidelines (fromHawkes and Williams, 1993).

Travel and tourism are the worlds largest industry. A clean, healthy, and safe environment

is essential to further growth. The WTTC commends these guidelines to companies andgovernments to take them into account in policy formulation.

Travel and tourism companies should state their commitment to environmentally com-patible growth.

Targets for improvements should be established and monitored. The environment commitment should be company-wide. Education and research into improved environmental programmes should be encouraged. Travel and tourism companies should seek to implement sound environment principles

through self-regulation, recognizing that national and international regulation may beinevitable and that preparation is vital.

Environmental improvement programmes should be systematic and comprehensive.They should aim to:

1. Identify and minimize product and operational environmental problems, payingparticular attention to new projects.

2. Pay due regard to environmental concerns in design, planning, construction andimplementation.

3. Be sensitive to conservation of environmentally protected or threatened areas,

species and scenic aesthetics, achieving landscape enhancement where possible.4. Practise energy conservation.5. Reduce and recycle waste.6. Practice fresh-water management and control sewage disposal.7. Control and diminish air emissions and pollutants.8. Monitor, control and reduce noise levels.9. Control, reduce and eliminate environmentally unfriendly products, such as

asbestos, CFCs, pesticides and toxic, corrosive, infectious, explosive or flammablematerials.

10. Respect and support historic or religious objects and sites.

11. Exercise due regard for the interests of local populations, including their history.12. Consider environmental issues as a key factor in the overall development of travel

and tourism destinations.

CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons.


8/33

The contrary, and often ideologically driven, perspective is that such codes

and practices seldom constitute anything more than a token veneer of

respectability that disguises the inherently insidious and environmentally,

socially and economically unsustainable nature of large corporate entities andtheir mass-tourism operations (e.g. Wheeller, 1994a, b). But, whatever the

sentiments of its detractors or supporters, mass tourism is not likely to disap-

pear, and Butler (1990) rightly cites its potential role as a legitimate and

appropriate mode of tourism for certain types of destinations and markets,

assuming adherence to the principles of sustainability. Wight (1993) also

injects a note of common sense in the assertion that corporations, like any

other human institution, range along a continuum from the highly responsi-

ble and positively proactive to the irresponsible and deliberately deceptive.

1.3.1.3. Sustainability indicatorsWhatever the intentions and motives of practitioners, the implementation of

sustainable tourism, and thus also its quantification, is impeded by the unso-

phisticated state of understanding with regard to relevant indicators.

Attempts are being made by various groups to identify nationwide and site-

specific sustainability indicators, such as those reported by a working group of

the Environment Committee of the WTO (1993a) (Table 1.3). However, this

process, not to mention the implementation of common monitoring pro-grammes, is still in its incipient stages, and there is no consensus as to a model

which could be applied across an array of destinations. Even once this is

achieved, there remains the problem of determining the extent to which

tourism, as opposed to other forces, is culpable for either the positive or nega-

tive impacts experienced by a destination.

1.4. ALTERNATIVE TOURISM

The term alternative tourism has been used in a number of distinct ways, with

the common characteristic of representing an alternative to mass or large-scale

tourism. As such, alternative tourism could theoretically entail any contrary

option, including those generally regarded as detrimental to the host society

(e.g. sex- and drug-motivated tourism), host economy (e.g. ultraexclusive

resort enclaves) or host natural environment (e.g. illegal hunting expeditions).

However, the more widely accepted understanding of alternative tourism is a

highly judgemental one involving modes of tourism thought to be morebenign with respect to their impacts upon the destination. In this context, the

term is often capitalized or abbreviated (AT).

1.4.1. Mass Tourism vs. Alternative TourismAccording to Lanfant and Graburn (1992), advocates of this perspective usu-

ally present AT characteristics as the idealized polar opposites of those

ascribed to mass tourism (see for example Weaver, 1991). Thus, where mass

8 Chapter 1


9/33

Introduction 9

Table 1.3. Nationwide and site-specific sustainability indicators (from WTO, 1993a).

Nationwide indicators

Area protected; % of national territory Endangered spaces (area under stress); proxy indicator = endangered species Cultural protection; % of cultural themes and sites protected Travel intensity; no. of domestic and international trips per capita Use intensity; no. of hotspots, % UNESCO sites under stress, concentration of

activity, % of all tourists visiting top 5 sites Key-resource consumption; water, energy, fuel Ratio of tourists to residents; annually and during peak periods Health/social impact; % of tourists involved in crime, % reporting communicable

diseases Foreign or non-resident ownership Political-stability index Environmental standards; % of homes and hotels with potable water, % of communi-

ties with sewage-treatment facilities, % of beaches meeting blue-flag or equivalentstandard

Infrastructure capacity utilization Tourism employment; % local employment, ratio of managerial to menial jobs, job

creation

Environmental planning; national and subnational strategies, adoption of codes ofconduct Environmental review process Foreign-exchange leakage

Site-specific indicators

Destination attractivity index Site-stress index Site protection; % of site for visitor use

Endangered spaces; is site under stress? Use intensity Consumption; energy and water consumption per visitor day Ratio of tourists to residents Development density; site m2 per tourist (average and peak); existence of development

density controls or limits % of sites foreign-owned Environmental quality; % of days exceeding air-quality standards, availability of

potable water, % of waste treated, days of beach closure

Capacity utilization of infrastructure; sewage, water, power, transportation Existence of integrated site/area management strategy with tourism/environmental

component Existence of comprehensive environmental review policy Expenditures; amounts spent to maintain site and mitigate damage; these as a % of

funds required Critical habitats; are rare or endangered species known to occupy the site?

UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.


10/33

tourism is large-scale, AT is small-scale; where mass tourism leads to the

homogenization of the tourism product, AT promotes desirable differences

between destinations and also what Relph (1976) calls the sense of place(Travis, 1982); where mass tourism is externally controlled, AT is locally

controlled; where mass tourism is high-impact, AT is low-impact, etc.

(Table 1.4). Such semantic differentials are useful in contrasting two idealized

models at opposite ends of a tourism continuum and in capturing the essential

nature of each idealized construct. However, it must be borne in mind that

such ideal types are rarely encountered in reality, and it is therefore more

appropriate to refer to specific enterprises or destinations as tending towardor

10 Chapter 1

Table 1.4. Semantic differentials, mass tourism vs. alternative tourism (adapted fromWeaver, 1993a).

Characteristic Mass tourism Alternative tourism

MarketsSegment Psychocentricmidcentric AllocentricmidcentricVolume and mode High; package tours Low; individual arrangementsSeasonality Distinct high and low seasons No distinct seasonalityOrigins A few dominant markets No dominant markets

AttractionsEmphasis Highly commercialized Moderately commercializedCharacter Generic, contrived Area specific, authenticOrientation Tourists only or mainly Tourists and locals

AccommodationSize Large-scale Small-scaleSpatial pattern Concentrated in tourist areas Dispersed throughout areaDensity High density Low densityArchitecture International style; obtrusive, Vernacular style, unobtrusive,

non-sympathetic complementaryOwnership Non-local, large corporations Local, small businesses

Economic statusRole of tourism Dominates local economy Complements existing activityLinkages Mainly external Mainly internalLeakages Extensive MinimalMultiplier effect Low High

RegulationControl Non-local private sector Local community

Amount Minimal; to facilitate private Extensive; to minimize localsector negative impacts

Ideology Free market forces Public interventionEmphasis Economic growth, profits; Community stability and well-

sector-specific being; integrated, holisticTime-frame Short-term Long-term


11/33

approaching either the AT model or the mass tourism model. Usually included

under the AT rubric are such interrelated activities as ecotourism (Section

1.5), home stays (Dernoi, 1981), vacation farms (Pizam and Pokela, 1980;

Dernoi, 1983; Neate, 1987) and other specialist accommodation, such asguest-houses, nature retreats, cottages, bed and breakfast, hunting lodges and

health farms (Moscardo et al., 1996). Alternative tourism is also affiliated

with Murphys more general conceptualization of community-based tourism

(Murphy, 1985), which tends to occur at a broader destination-wide or

regional scale (as with the CowichenChemainus Valleys Ecomuseum in

British Columbia, Canada (Murphy, 1994)).

1.4.2. The Evolution of Alternative Tourism

1.4.2.1. The advocacy and cautionary platformsAlternative tourism, as an articulated concept, is a recent phenomenon which

emerged as a consequence of broader developments within the field of tourism

studies. The first such development was the emergence of an advocacy platform

as an initial response to the post-Second World War growth of international

mass tourism (Jafari, 1989). This perspective tended to perceive tourism as an

unalloyed good, and was prominent through the 1960s. By the 1970s, the

advocacy camp was challenged by a cautionary platform, which responded to abroad pattern of apparently negative economic, sociocultural and environ-

mental impacts resulting from tourisms rapid and largely unplanned develop-

ment. The appearance of this counterpoint, moreover, cannot be divorced

from the broader ideological dynamics of the era. Where the advocacy camp

was essentially right-wing and protourism, the cautionary platform could be

interpreted as a left-wing construct opposed to the laissez-faire capitalist

tourism status quo. The cautionary platform derived its evidence from case-

studies within all parts of the world, although the Third World examples

were especially emotive because of the ideological sensitivities of this region

(see Chapter 2).

1.4.2.2. The adaptancy platformBy the early 1980s, an adaptancy platform emerged which moved beyond the

emphasis on criticism to the proposal of tourism modes that were deemed to

address the concerns of the critics. The overall trend toward sustainable

tourism was one, perhaps more conventional, manifestation of this platform.

The first formal references to AT also appeared at that time (e.g. Dernoi, 1981;Holden, 1984), although it was soon apparent that this more unconventional

concept was evolving along two distinct trajectories. The sociocultural stream

was most critical of the social and cultural impacts of tourism and advocated

forms of tourism development that were more respectful of host-community

values and interests; few references were made to the impact upon the natural

environment. Because much of this early concern was focused upon the

impact visitors from the wealthier regions were having upon Third World

Introduction 11


12/33


13/33

be characterized by authentic hostguest interaction, small-scale, locally

controlled facilities, etc. However, rather than occurring as the consequences

of an intentional strategy, such AT-conforming traits simply reflect the

absence of any concerted attempt to develop mass tourism, due to the circum-

stances typical of the early phases, such as isolation, inadequate infrastruc-

ture, lack of destination awareness in the tourist markets, etc. Another way of

indicating the difference between circumstantial and deliberate AT is to see

the former as embodying most or all of the AT traits depicted in Table 1.4,

except for those listed under regulation. The significance of the distinction is

that circumstantial AT (which is therefore really not AT at all in the sense of

being a conscious policy alternative) may be a prelude to less benign forms of

development, while deliberate AT is more likely to ensure that the development

and subsequent stages are avoided, if that is considered to be in the interests of

the local community.

1.4.4. Criticisms of Alternative TourismSeveral criticisms of AT have been suggested (Fig. 1.2), and these are relevant

to the text in so far as ecotourism is commonly perceived as a variety of AT.

One compelling criticism is that the advocates of AT occasionally demonstrate

a navety which assumes that this option will result in little or no disruption to

host communities. Butler (1990) avers that all forms of tourism function as

agents of change for host communities, and the challenge is therefore to

Introduction 13

Critical Range ofElements of Capacity

Consolidation

Stagnation

Rejuvenation

DeclineNo. ofTourists

Exploration

Involvement

Time

Development

Fig. 1.1. The Butler sequence.


14/33

ensure that the change is gradual and positive once the decision is made to

pursue the tourism option. The danger with AT is that host communities,

because of this assumed benignancy, are often eager to adopt AT in a band-

wagon-type effect without due consideration of the possible negative conse-

quences (hence the Trojan Horse in Butlers title).

A potentially insidious characteristic of AT is that, while the actual num-

ber of visitors within a destination may be small, contact may occur over a

much longer period of time and in a more invasive manner, infiltrating into

the backstage regions of the host society, as the alternative tourist seeks a

more authentic form of interaction with that community (MacCannell,

1976; Archer and Cooper, 1994). The alternative tourist, with affinities to

Cohens explorer and drifter (Cohen, 1977) and to Plogs allocentric (Plog,

1987), can also inadvertently function as an agent for opening up remoteperipheral regions to a cycle of tourism growth, possibly culminating in far

more intensive and detrimental patterns of development (Christaller, 1963;

Butler, 1980; Zurick, 1992). In the short term, deliberate AT can, in spite of

itself, generate uncontrolled and sprawling spatial developments as local com-

munities respond to this emergent traffic with good intentions, but sometimes

flawed execution (Nielsen, 1984). Even if a more low-impact AT sector can be

implemented, questions have also been raised as to whether such a model can

14 Chapter 1

Bandwagon Effect Naivety of Some Advocates:Assumption of Positive Outcomes

Inadvertent Role of AT touristsas Pioneers Facilitating LessBenign Forms of Tourism

Intrusiveness ofContact

Erosion of LocalControl to Outside

Interests

Sprawling SpatialDevelopment

AT as a reflection oflite external values

Control assumed by

local litesPossible Preference ofLocals for Mass Tourism

Modest Economic Returns:Low Potential for EconomicDevelopment

ALTERNATIVE TOURISM

Fig. 1.2. Criticisms of alternative tourism.


15/33

generate enough of an impact to function as a legitimate vehicle for economic

impact, especially at a national level.

Other criticisms concern the class prejudices which may sometimes

underlie AT, wherein only the educated and often moneyed lite is acceptedwithin privileged fraternities of alternative tourists whose travel patterns are

largely driven by ego enhancement and status-building (Butler, 1990). On the

host side, the mandatory AT call for local control often ignores the tendency of

the local lite to appropriate the organs of participation for its own benefit or

the possibility that these communities will become dependent on outside

experts due to their lack of prior experience in tourism planning (de Kadt,

1992). A related complication is that the locals may actually prefer a more

intensive mode of tourism development, creating problems for those experts

who do not recognize the legitimacy of mass tourism. If these experts attempt

to impose an AT model or to re-educate the local people so that they change

their preferences, the entire issue of local decision-making control and com-

munity-based tourism is called into question. According to Millman (1984),

the real challenge of AT is to navigate a middle ground between massive and

destructive change, on the one hand, and the stagnation (or museumifica-

tion) of a culture, on the other, as attempts are made to preserve an idealized

traditional image of the society to the tourist. As with tourism in general, a

more detailed discussion of AT within the context of the Third World is pro-vided in Chapter 3.

1.5. ECOTOURISM

The following subsections constitute an overall introduction to ecotourism,

without specific reference to the circumstances of less developed countries.

Problems of definition and magnitude are addressed, and a generic indicationof potential environmental, economic and sociocultural costs and benefits is

provided. A major task of this section is to establish a reasonable working def-

inition of ecotourism which can be employed throughout the remainder of

the text.

1.5.1. DefinitionsAs a starting-point, ecotourism is widely perceived as a subset of AT which

places primary emphasis on the natural environment as the main motivation

for travel (Cater, 1994a). Coinage of the term is attributed to Hector Ceballos-

Lascurin, who in the early 1980s, provided a definition that is still widely

quoted because of its citation in Boos seminal text, Ecotourism: The Potentials

and Pitfalls (Boo, 1990):

[ecotourism is] tourism that consists in traveling to relatively 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 (both past and present) found in these areas. In these

Introduction 15


16/33

terms, nature-oriented tourism implies a scientific, aesthetic or philosophical

approach to travel, although the ecological tourist need not be a professional sci-

entist, artist or philosopher. The main point is that the person who practices eco-tourism has the opportunity of immersing himself/herself in nature in a manner

generally not available in the urban environment.

(Ceballos-Lascurin, cited in Boo, 1990, 2)

While Boo (1990) is also widely credited with popularizing ecotourism

(Wild, 1994), there remains a great deal of confusion and dispute over the

meaning and application of the term (Nelson, 1994; Orams, 1995). Miller and

Kaae (1993) have made a useful contribution to the debate by pointing out

two extremes of a theoretical ecotourism continuum, namely: (i) that alltourism is ecotourism because humans have moral rights no different from

any other form of life, and are therefore incapable of unnatural or environ-

mentally immoral behaviour; and (ii) that no human activities, including

tourism, can be considered natural, and therefore there can be no such thing

as ecotourism. Orams (1995) refers to the former as the low human-responsi-

bility pole and the latter as the high human-responsibility pole (Fig. 1.3).

1.5.1.1. Active and passive ecotourismWithin this continuum, there is a segment encompassing the more reasonable

ecotourism options, which range from the passive perspectives to the more

active. The latter tend to emphasize that ecotourism: (i) entails a

behavioural/lifestyle change in the participant; and (ii) must involve actions

that contribute to the well-being of the environment. In contrast, the passive

definitions do not ascribe such a transformational character to ecotourism

(participant satisfaction and well-being are sufficient) and require only that

the activity does not result in negative impacts on the physical environment.

Among the plethora of proffered ecotourism definitions, Ceballos-Lascurinfalls into the passive category, as does Rymer (1992), who defines ecotourism

as centered on tourists desire for immersion in a relatively natural environ-

ment in which they and their support facilities have low impact upon the envi-

ronment. The term passive, in reference to ecotourism, is associated with

the adjective casual, which denotes a visitor who participates in ecotourism as

just one element in a multipurpose trip. An active ecotourist can also, of

course, be casual, although this association is less commonly made. Where

16 Chapter 1

Low HumanResponsibility Pole

All tourism isEcotourism

Passive Active

Ecotourism Spectrum

High HumanResponsibility Pole

Ecotourismis Impossible

Fig. 1.3. Human responsibility poles and ecotourism spectrum (from Orams, 1995).


17/33

ecotourism is the main purpose for travel within a destination, a primary

purpose ecotourist can be identified. These terms are similar to Lindbergs

recognition of hard-core and dedicated nature tourists, on the one hand,

and mainstream or casual nature tourists on the other (Lindberg, 1991).Active definitions are offered by Kutay (1989, 4), who suggests that eco-

tourism is nature tourism which directly or indirectly promotes conservation

and supports sustainable economic development; Boo (1992, iii), who sees it

as nature travel that advances conservation and sustainable development

efforts, and the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, which perceives

ecotourism as an enlightening nature travel experience that contributes to

conservation of the ecosystem while respecting the integrity of host communi-

ties (Scace et al., 1992, 3). The latter definition is notable in recognizing the

importance of respecting not only the natural resource base, but the integrity

of host societies as well.

1.5.1.2. Text definition and qualificationsThis book adopts a definition of ecotourism that incorporates the entire spec-

trum from passive to active, with the proviso that host societies be included

along with natural environments as aspects of the destination that are not

intentionally affected in a negative way. Several aspects of the latter statement

merit clarification. First, the rationale for inclusiveness is that a restriction ofthe definition to the active end of the spectrum would probably result in a very

small number of participants, assuming in the first instance that it were possi-

ble to identify those who tangibly benefited the environment and who conse-

quently achieved some sort of enlightenment as a result of their experiences.

The reality appears to be that, however meritorious the active element, most

participants in ecotourism probably fall into the passive end of the spectrum,

and many or most even display certain mass tourist traits. According to

Kearsley et al. (1997, 71):

At present, the bulk of demand is less likely to be for the back country of wilderness

and remote places than it is to be for the front country of relatively easily accessible

natural settings with a good but unobtrusive infrastructure of basic facilities.

The Queensland (Australia) draft ecotourism strategy (Queensland,

1995) recognizes the legitimacy of variable ecotourism intensity levels by dis-

tinguishing between three levels of the activity:

Self-reliant ecotourism involves individual travellers or groups of less than

ten, visiting relatively remote areas using non-motorized transportation;services are non-existent.

Small group ecotourism is somewhat more open in terms of utilizing less

remote locales (but still off the beaten track) and larger groups; rudimen-

tary services may be made available.

Popular ecotourism involves larger numbers of tourists using mechanized

transport to gain access to readily accessible natural attractions; usually a

significant level of services is required.

Introduction 17


18/33

The popular mode of ecotourism is, of course, more likely to be affiliated with

casual and passive ecotourism, and is thus recognized in this text as a legiti-

mate manifestation of the activity. The abbreviation PCPD, derived from the

first letters of the words popular, casual, passive and diversionary (seeSection 1.5.1.3 below), is used throughout the book as an adjective denoting

that form of ecotourism which incorporates these non-active related terms.

Secondly, any insistence that ecotourism must not negatively affect the

environment or host society is unduly restrictive, since there is no means at

present of ensuring, categorically, that a particular action or development will

not result in any significant long-term negative consequences, particularly as

the development of effective sustainability indicators is in such a rudimentary

state. Also, even the most intrepid active ecotourists travelling to Ecuador or

Antarctica will contribute to ozone depletion and other environmental prob-

lems through the necessity of gaining access to these venues by air. The most

that can be expected is that every reasonable measure is taken by the tourists

and industry to ensure that negative impacts do not arise in either the short or

long term as a result of their actions. This implies the need for continual moni-

toring, and readjustments to practice and/or behaviour if necessary.

Thirdly, a definition that strongly recognizes the secondary status of cul-

tural and historical resources as ecotourism attractions is adopted, since most

natural environments have been modified or utilized in some way by long-standing human populations. The latter may therefore be considered a com-

ponent of these environments. This ancillary role is recognized in the seminal

definition of Ceballos-Lascurin, provided earlier, although some confusion

may still result as to whether a particular tourist experience should be classi-

fied as ecotourism or cultural tourism. In general, where the cultural compo-

nent is the primary basis for attraction (a distinction that is often difficult to

make), it is more pertinent to speak of sociocultural AT than ecotourism.

A fourth clarification concerns the extent to which ecotourism occurs

within a natural or almost natural setting. Some commentators, such as

Dowling (1997), aver that ecotourism can only occur within this type of

environment. While the latter are, of course, more likely to provide a suitable

high-quality venue for nature appreciation, and while most ecotourism analy-

ses have emphasized the role of national parks and other protected areas as

the most popular venues for ecotourism (Boo, 1990, 1992; Goriup, 1991),

this book takes the view that ecotourism opportunities may also potentially

occur in highly modified settings, such as reservoirs, plantation forests and

agricultural lands.

1.5.1.3. Comprehensive, regional and diversionary ecotourismDestinations adopting a deliberate ecotourism strategy may do so at various

geographical and political scales. Based on earlier work (Weaver, 1993a), this

author proposes a tentative typology of ecotourism destinations, ranging in

basic form from the comprehensive, where an entire country (or dependency) is

orientated toward deliberate ecotourism, to the diversionary, where isolated

18 Chapter 1


19/33

ecotourism sites are provided in the vicinity of mass-tourism products as an

augmentation to this other type of tourist activity. In between, a regional type

involves the adoption of deliberate ecotourism at a subnational scale. This

could entail, for example, a suitable geopolitical unit, such as an isolatedprovince or county, or a geophysical entity, such as a mountain range or

wilderness area.

1.5.2. Magnitude of EcotourismBecause there are no universally accepted definitions of ecotourism or the

ecotourist to clearly distinguish this activity from other forms of tourism,

there are no reliable overall data to confirm or refute the oft-repeated state-

ment that ecotourism is one of the fastest-growing components of the tourist

industry. Some major tourism data compilers, such as the US Travel and

Tourism Administration, have not even bothered to collect such data because

of the ambiguities (Rymer, 1992). Cater (1994b) points out that estimates of

the magnitude of activities deemed by various sources to constitute eco-

tourism range from worldwide revenues in 1989 of $10 billion (by the

Economist Intelligence Unit) to $200 billion in 1990 (by the Canadian

Wildlife Service). Hawkins (cited in Giannecchini, 1993) is even more liberal,

estimating that 2025% of all leisure travel (which Hawkins estimates is

about one-half of the world travel market) could be broadly defined as eco-tourism. In contrast, the USA-based Specialty Travel Index estimates that

special-interest travel by outbound US tourists during the late 1980s repre-

sented 35% of all travel, of which about one-half was deemed to be eco-

tourism (Whelan, 1991). Studies such as the latter two, which attempt to

identify market share, are constrained by the multipurpose nature of a

high proportion of travel. The typical 7-day beach-resort holiday may, for

example, involve a half-day trip to a game sanctuary. In any event, the top-

end estimates no doubt adhere to a definition that includes and perhaps even

expands upon the PCPD ecotourism mode outlined above.

1.5.2.1. Indications of growthIn the absence of a broader database, the best which may be expected at pre-

sent is the availability of reliable and more than purely local anecdotal evi-

dence for growth in activities related to ecotourism. For example, the

comprehensive National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, con-

ducted in the USA during 1994/95 (Cordell et al., 1995), revealed that,

among adults (defined as those 16 and older), the fastest growth in participa-tion numbers between 1982 and 1995 occurred among activities related in

fairly obvious ways to ecotourism (Table 1.5). These results corroborate spec-

ulative research in Canada that identified bird-watching, pleasure walking,

pleasure driving and sightseeing as the recreational activities expected to

experience the highest rates of growth into the 21st century (Foot, 1990).

Anecdotal evidence involving self-described ecotourism products was

obtained through a non-probability convenience sampling of 41 US

Introduction 19


20/33

ecotourism operators and tourism agencies undertaken in the early 1990s.

This survey revealed an increase in the number of offered ecotours (to both

the developed and developing worlds) from 33,738 in 1980 to 45,842 in 1985

and 75,727 in 1989, for a compounded annual increase of 13.4% in the

1985/89 period. Estimated revenues during that interval increased even more

dramatically from $21 million to $44.2 million (based on average cost per eco-

tour), representing a compounded annual increase of 20.4% (Rymer, 1992).

Unfortunately, it is such isolated anecdotal evidence that has given rise to the

often cited but almost certainly exaggerated assertion that ecotourism, as a

whole, is growing by about 2025% per year. One further indication of the

growing popularity of ostensibly ecotourism-related opportunities is the recent

proliferation of guidebooks, still largely published by the alternative press,

which purport to list this kind of travel experience (Ocko, 1990; Holing, 1991;

Wood and House, 1991; Elkington and Hailes, 1992; Daniel et al., 1993).

Notwithstanding such evidence, there is validity to the observation that eco-tourism research to date is characterized by a serious deficiency in quantitative

evidence and analysis (International Resources Group, 1992), a situation

which, while often characteristic of the early developmental stages of a field,

nevertheless impedes any attempt to undertake a comprehensive study.

1.5.3. Potential Costs and Benefits of EcotourismTable 1.6 provides an inventory of the potential costs and benefits that may

be associated with ecotourism across an array of settings. To organize the

burgeoning amount of information (albeit almost all anecdotal) which is

available on the subject of impact, the costs and benefits are disaggregated

into environmental, economic and sociocultural categories and are further

differentiated between those which are direct and indirect. Such categoriza-

tions, however, should not obscure the interrelationships that extend across

the categories. The purpose of this section is to outline the framework in a

generic way, illustrating in the process that ecotourism remains a highly

20 Chapter 1

Table 1.5. Fastest-growing recreational activities among US adults, 19821995 (fromCordell et al., 1995).

Number 16 years+ Number 16 years+ Percentage

Activity 198283 199495 growthBird-watching 21.2 54.1 155.2Hiking 24.7 47.7 93.0Backpacking 8.8 15.2 72.7Downhill skiing 10.6 16.8 58.5Primitive camping 17.7 28.0 58.2Walking 93.6 133.6 42.7Motor boating 33.6 46.9 39.9Sightseeing 81.3 113.4 39.5

Developed camping 30.0 41.5 38.3Swimming in natural waters 56.5 78.1 38.2


21/33

Introduction 21

Table 1.6. Hypothetical costs and benefits of ecotourism.

Environmental impacts

Direct benefits Direct costs Provides incentive to protect environment, Danger that environmental carryingboth formally (protected areas) and capacities will be unintentionallyinformally exceeded, due to:

Provides incentive for restoration and rapid growth ratesconversion of modified habitats difficulties in identifying, measuring

Ecotourists actively assisting in habitat and monitoring impacts over a longenhancement (donations, policing, periodmaintenance, etc.) idea that all tourism induces stress

Indirect benefits Indirect costs Exposure to ecotourism fosters broader Fragile areas may be exposed to less

commitment to environmental well-being benign forms of tourism (pioneer function) Spaces protected because of ecotourism May foster tendencies to put financial

provide various environmental benefits value on nature, depending uponattractiveness

Economic impacts

Direct benefits Direct costs Revenues obtained directly from Start-up expenses (acquisition of land,

ecotourists establishment of protected areas, Creation of direct employment superstructure, infrastructure)

opportunities Ongoing expenses (maintenance of Strong potential for linkages with other infrastructure, promotion, wages)

sectors of the local economy Stimulation of peripheral rural economies

Indirect benefits Indirect costs Indirect revenues from ecotourists Revenue uncertainties due to in situ

(high multiplier effect) nature of consumption Proclivity of ecotourists to patronize Revenue leakages due to imports,

cultural and heritage attractions as expatriate or non-local participation, etc.add-ons Opportunity costs

Economic benefits from sustainable use Damage to crops by wildlifeof protected areas (pharmaceuticals,research) and inherent existence(e.g. flood control)

Sociocultural impacts

Direct benefits Direct costs Ecotourism accessible to a broad Intrusions upon local and possibly isolated

spectrum of the population cultures Aesthetic/spiritual element of experiences Imposition of lite alien value system

Fosters environmental awareness among Displacement of local cultures by parksecotourists and local population Erosion of local control (foreign experts,in-migration of job seekers)

Indirect benefits Indirect costs Option and existence benefits Potential resentment and antagonism

of locals Tourist opposition to aspects of local

culture (e.g. hunting, slashburnagriculture)


22/33

controversial phenomenon; aspects of the framework can then be revisited

as appropriate in the chapters that consider the extent and impacts of eco-

tourism in the less developed world.

1.5.3.1. Misrepresentation of ecotourismThe first difficulty in critiquing ecotourism is in making a distinction between

those criticisms which apply to some reasonable understanding and applica-

tion of the concept (hopefully such as the one proposed in this text) and those

which arise from its deliberate or nave misuse. While it is the former distinc-

tion that forms the basis of Table 1.6, much of the recent ecotourism critique

has been directed toward forms of tourism that purport to be ecotourism, but

do not, upon examination, meet reasonable ecotourism criteria with respect

to motivation or practice. Wight provides a cogent commentary on the delib-

erate exploitation of the term ecotourism by those who have come to appreci-

ate its positive marketing value:

In the last few years ecotourism has become a buzz word to sell a variety of prod-

ucts. In some ways this resembles the tendency of manufacturers to label numer-

ous products as green or ecologically friendly. The problem has been that

consumers did not know what they were getting, nor its impact on the environ-

ment, and did not know how the product differed from others, if, indeed, there was

any difference.There is no question that green sells. Almost any terms prefixed with eco will

increase interest and sales. Thus, in the last few years there has been a prolifera-

tion of advertisements in the travel field with references such as ecotour, ecotravel,

ecovacation, ecologically sensitive adventures, eco(ad)ventures, ecocruise, ecosa-

fari, ecoexpedition and, of course, ecotourism.

(Wight, 1993, 4)

Similar observations, as noted in Section 1.3, apply to sustainable

tourism. The difference with ecotourism is the extent to which the tourism

market has become familiar with the term in such a brief period of time.

Unfortunately, according to Boo (1992), this awareness has not been matched

by any comparable increase in the number of working prototypes available to

the market for good practice reference. Instead, because the underlying credo

of business is based on growth and profits, companies must aggressively seek

out new destinations to remain competitive, while maintaining as much con-

trol as possible over the tourism product (Prosser, 1994). This may result in

the creation of unsustainable products, within physically and socially fragile

environments, which go by the name ecotourism for marketing purposes.Accordingly, Giannecchini (1993) argues that the lead role in ecotourism

development should not be conceded to the private-sector tourism industry,

but assumed by conservationists and others, who are seen as more reflective of

the public interest.

Perhaps the most extreme critique of ecotourism is that which has been

articulated by Wheeller (1994a, b), who avers that all tourism, including

ecotourism, inherently entails an element of exploitation, on the part of

22 Chapter 1


23/33

companies motivated by short-term profits, tourists seeking, above all, a self-

rewarding travel experience and host communities seeking maximum eco-

nomic benefit from the tourists. Thus, according to this argument, ecotourism

is inherently misrepresentative and even dishonest, given its tendency toassume a mantle of self-righteousness. Wheeller argues that ecotourism is

being touted by two very distinct but equally destructive interest groups: the

distressingly nave, who (like some AT advocates) fail to recognize this

exploitative nature of tourism, and the disturbingly devious, who recognize

the positive marketing connotations of ecotourism and cynically exploit the

opportunity in order to maximize financial returns. Furthermore, Wheeller

(1994b) notes with concern the close connection between ecotourism and

adventure travel (as in the annual World Congress on Adventure Travel and

Ecotourism), with the latter in some ways constituting the antithesis of the

former, with its intrinsic motivation of risk confrontation rather than nature

appreciationper se.

The main difference between Wheeller and Wight is the latters contention

that the interests of the entrepreneur and the environment can be made com-

patible with careful attention to planning and monitoring (i.e. the geonomics

referred to earlier). Wheeller, in contrast, believes that the relationship between

business and pure ecotourism is one of mutual incompatibility. This difference

to some extent illustrates the contrasting perspectives of the more extreme cau-tionary platform and the more moderate advocacy platform.

1.5.4. Hypothetical Environmental Costs and Benefits ofEcotourism

1.5.4.1. Direct and indirect environmental benefitsIn theory, the most prominent direct environmental benefit of ecotourism is its

incentive value for preserving natural and seminatural environments which

might otherwise be severely altered or removed altogether by activities such as

intensive agriculture. The incentive derives from the increasing popularity of

ecotourism, which may in some cases have reached a critical mass, allowing it

to outbid competing land uses, such as agriculture, hunting and forestry. As

population and economic growth put increased pressure on national parks

and other protected areas, ecotourism may be emerging as the single best

rationale for establishing and retaining such limited-use zones. Moreover, eco-

tourism could even provide an incentive for the restoration of already-altered

landscapes to a state capable of attracting ecotourists.Financial contributions to the environment are another major potential

direct benefit of ecotourism. Ecotourists are major users of protected areas and

tend to display above average income profiles (Section 1.5.5). Park entry fees,

which tend to be minimal in most countries, could thus probably be increased

by a substantial margin without significantly affecting demand, especially if

the ecotourists are provided with some assurance that most or all of the rev-

enues are allocated to the park system (Dixon and Sherman, 1990). With

Introduction 23


24/33

their concern for nature and environmental issues, ecotourists are also more

likely to provide donations for the same purposes. Through user fees, dona-

tions and other sources, ecotourism therefore has an unfulfilled potential to

generate much-needed funds for protected-area systems and other naturalhabitats. An additional contribution is the in situ involvement of the more

activist component in litter removal, habitat monitoring, trail maintenance

and perhaps even policing.

Among the indirect benefits of ecotourism is the environmental ethos,

which is fostered and reinforced through direct contact with the natural envi-

ronment (Devall, 1988). Environmentalism itself was founded in part by those

(i.e. ecotourists) who were able to witness firsthand the degradation and

destruction of natural areas, and who thus placed this issue on the public

agenda. The environmental movement, in turn, has played a significant role

in popularizing the concept of ecotourism, by providing a recruiting ground

for new participants and by continuing to publicize the awareness of environ-

mental issues.

Where the cause of a natural habitats preservation is associated with its

actual or potential ecotourism revenues, the environmental benefits resulting

from such spaces must be considered to be an indirect environmental benefit

of ecotourism. These benefits are related to the protection of watersheds, the

maintenance of biodiversity and the facilitation of ecological processes (Dixonand Sherman, 1990).

1.5.4.2. Direct and indirect environmental costsA major direct environmental cost of ecotourism is the possibility that local

carrying capacities will be inadvertently exceeded by the direct actions of eco-

tourists, or by modifications associated with ecotourism, such as the construc-

tion of fixed visitor accommodation, basic infrastructure, waste-disposal

facilities, etc. While the temporary site impacts of such developments may be

severe, they are usually acceptable within the larger context of the destination

(e.g. clearance of a 5-ha campsite within a 50,000-ha park). In some cases,

however, site modifications may foster unexpected negative consequences

which are detrimental to a wider area, as in the habituation of local animals to

the presence of humans, the siting of such services within a critical breeding

or migration habitat and the introduction and dispersal of exotic flora and

fauna. Such scenarios recognize that carrying capacities are extremely diffi-

cult to gauge because of the great complexity of interrelated factors involved

in their calculation; frequently, they become apparent only after they havebeen exceeded. Also, as suggested with respect to sustainable tourism gener-

ally, practices that appear sustainable in a short-term framework may prove

otherwise in the longer term.

The high growth rates of ecotourism which characterize at least some

destinations clearly serve to exacerbate the problem by not allowing sufficient

response time for planners and managers to cope with the influx. Attempts to

control visitation are often thwarted because the lucrative revenues so derived

24 Chapter 1


25/33

may take precedence over due consideration for the capacity of sites to accom-

modate such increases (although in these cases it may no longer be legitimate

to refer to such forms of tourism as ecotourism). Other factors compound

this problem of carrying capacity. For example, a fundamental dilemma ofecotourism is that people are most attracted to the rarest phenomena, which

because of their vulnerability are probably least able to cope with this atten-

tion (Weaver, 1997). In extreme cases, even the apparently most benign visi-

tation levels may induce significant or even irreparable harm.

Among the indirect environmental costs, ecotourism is a form of AT that

is particularly apt to pave the way for less benign forms of tourism, owing to its

particular affinity for remote, natural venues. As implied by the Butler

sequence and other resort-cycle models, ecotourism ventures may begin with

the best of intentions, but eventually attract less benign types of tourist and

tourism development as the area becomes more popular and accessible.

Initially, this escalation may entail a transition from small-group to PCPD eco-

tourism, beyond which a transformation to full mass tourism is not inconceiv-

able if the necessary precautions are not implemented.

The danger exists that the increasing prevalence of the financial rationale

for ecotourism (e.g. a lion or elephant calculated as deriving a certain amount

of revenue per year) may become an obsession which supersedes due consid-

eration for the intrinsic ecological value of such natural phenomena. Withinsuch a calculation, an informal hierarchy of flora and fauna emerges based on

aesthetics, anthropomorphism and attraction (and hence revenue-generating

potential), rather than on ecological criteria, such as importance to the food

chain. Management practices may thus neglect the less attractive, but vital,

components of the ecosystem, such as the decomposers and parasites.

1.5.5. Hypothetical Economic Costs and Benefits of Ecotourism

1.5.5.1. Direct and indirect economic benefitsFor all levels of government, as well as local communities, potential economic

benefits, such as income and jobs, usually constitute a more compelling incen-

tive to pursue ecotourism than the environmental considerations. At least

four considerations underlie the direct economic valuation of ecotourism.

First, there is the aforementioned contention that ecotourism is growing

rapidly, perhaps more so than the overall tourism industry, which itself has

displayed remarkable resilience in its post-Second World War pattern of

growth (see Section 1.2.1.1). Therefore, ecotourism may provide a par-ticularly lucrative long-term revenue source for communities that decide to

pursue this option. Secondly, there are indications of a correlation between

ecotourists and higher incomes, as well as higher trip expenditures

(Backman and Potts, 1993; Eagles and Cascagnette, 1995; Wight, 1996).

Thirdly, a significant portion of these benefits should accrue to small-scale

entrepreneurs within the local community, rather than to external and/or

large-scale stakeholders, given the proclivity of this more adventurous

Introduction 25


26/33

clientele to consume local products, if available, and the tendency of AT to

emphasize local participation. The fourth consideration derives from the con-

tention that options for sustainable rural development are limited, especially

in remote areas. Ecotourism is therefore promising in being one of the veryfew tertiary-sector activities suited to such peripheral, disadvantaged loca-

tions.

Regarding the indirect economic benefits, ecotourists, because of their

higher-than-average education levels and extrinsic motivations, are liable to

patronize available heritage and cultural forms of tourism as complementary

add-ons to the nature-based product, thereby dispersing the benefits of their

expenditures more widely. As with other forms of AT, the revenues derived

directly from ecotourism are also more likely to generate a high multiplier

effect because of the consumption propensities of the ecotourist. Other indirect

economic benefits include the financial benefits (both direct and indirect)

obtained from the sustainable use of spaces that are preserved because of their

ecotourism revenue-generating potential. Direct financial benefits from pro-

tected and other natural areas include pharmaceuticals, research activity, the

sustainable harvest of natural products, controlled grazing and other compat-

ible forms of agriculture, such as bee-keeping. Indirect benefits potentially

include a reliable and high-quality water-supply, stable microclimate and

reduced erosion and flooding risks (Dixon and Sherman, 1990).

1.5.5.2. Direct and indirect economic costsThe major direct economic costs of ecotourism are the funds required to initi-

ate viable and appropriate operations. These include the acquisition of lands

for the establishment of protected areas, restoration costs, the development of

a suitable management plan and other aspects of the necessary regulatory

environment, the training of local personnel, promotion and marketing and

the construction of both superstructure (e.g. accommodation, interpretation

centre) and infrastructure (e.g. roads, car parks, trails, waste-disposal and

energy systems). Subsequently, costs are incurred on an ongoing basis for the

maintenance of these facilities, upgrading of skills, habitat protection and

enhancement and promotion. Also, compensation may have to be provided

for local farmers who experience crop and livestock predation by wildlife rang-

ing forth from their protected-area sanctuaries.

Indirect economic costs relate in part to the uncertainties of an activity

dependent upon in situ product consumption. As in all other forms of tourism,

reduced visitor intakes and hence reduced revenue flows may be triggered bypolitical uncertainty, social unrest (regional, national or local), natural disas-

ters, epidemics, the vagaries of fashion, the establishment of intervening

opportunities, local hostility, increased crime or the unintentional deteriora-

tion of product. Despite the tendency of ecotourism to emphasize the con-

sumption of local goods and services, revenue leakages will inevitably occur

through the necessity of importing at least some of those goods and services,

and through the expatriation of profits generated by non-local entrepreneurs.

26 Chapter 1


27/33

Other indirect costs include damage to crops and domestic animals by wildlife

and the opportunity costs incurred by not utilizing the land for alternative

purposes, such as lumbering, agriculture, hydroelectric dams, etc.

1.5.6. Hypothetical Social and Cultural Costs and Benefits ofEcotourism

1.5.6.1. Direct and indirect sociocultural benefitsUnlike costly, high-risk or high-skill activities, such as cruise-ship tourism,

hang-gliding, abseiling or mountain-climbing, ecotourism opportunities in at

least some form are accessible to a broad spectrum of the population.

Consequently, large numbers of people are able to benefit from the high aes-

thetic qualities of interacting with wildlife and natural habitat, as well as asso-

ciated cultural attractions. Increased public awareness of environmental and

cultural issues, among both tourists and hosts, may also be seen as a social as

well as environmental benefit. From the host perspective, ecotourists may be

seen as a benign, adaptable clientele who convey a favourable impression,

especially given their willingness to purchase local products and services.

Sherman and Dixon (1991) refer to the option and experience benefits of

ecotourism. The former allude to the satisfaction demonstrated by persons

who are aware that they have the option of eventually visiting a certain nat-ural attraction, while the latter describe the satisfaction derived from just

knowing that some valued resource is protected, even if the person has no

realistic expectation of obtaining a first-hand experience of that resource.

1.5.6.2. Direct and indirect sociocultural costsBecause ecotourism penetrates into isolated environments, contact with less

modernized cultures is inevitable. However well intended, the more intimate

interaction sought by some ecotourists may result in intrusive or inappropri-

ate behaviour and the introduction of potentially harmful alien values. This

notion of the ecotourist as an agent of modernization is controversial, as

some might argue that the exposure of the culture to modern impulses is

inevitable in any event and that ecotourism is preferable to certain other

activities as the vehicle of such diffusion. Even where the host culture is not

perceived as being traditional or premodern, ecotourism has been criticized

as an aspect of an litist environmentalist ideology, which is imposed on a

host society whose ways may be perceived as incompatible with that ideology

or, more cynically, with the revenue-generating potential of ecotourism.According to one commentary:

Environmentalism often utilizes a powerful rhetoric that is virtually identical to

that of nationalism. With it, however, comes an element of privileged discourse

that harks back to the formulations that gave such authority to development the-

ory, especially as it was applied to the Third World. In both cases, ideology legit-

imizes interventionist policies. Problems are defined and solutions formulated not

within the societies in question but by outside experts who are accorded extensive

Introduction 27


28/33

power and prestige. Under the blanket of environmentalism, the options open to

local populations could be further restricted, for . . . a managed environment is

bound to translate into an environment managed by outsiders chiefly to satisfy

the needs of outsiders. It is a short step from external direction to what can betermed a process of appropriation, by which the physical environment, and within

it human societies and historical remains, become subtly redefined as global patri-

mony universal property.

(Daltabuit and Pi-Sunyer, 1990, 10)

This could be manifested, for example, in attempts by ecotourism stakeholders

and outsider experts to prohibit hunting, slash-and-burn agriculture and

other traditional activities, or, as mentioned earlier, to even freeze the culture

and its milieu into some form that matches the idealized image conjured up by

outsiders. Ironically, these attempts to ossify the true culture may occur just

as ecotourism induces radical changes to that culture through the displace-

ments caused by land acquisitions (for protected areas) and through the in-

migration of non-local labour attracted by the new economic activity. The end

result of any combination of such developments is rapid change and loss of

local control over their own situation.

With respect to indirect impacts, one likely response to the above scenario

is the resentment and antagonism of locals toward ecotourists and eco-

tourism operators. Dissent may also arise within the local communitybetween those who support the activity and those who are opposed. In some

cases, ecotourism has been identified as an activity that has reinforced the

power of the local lite, at the cost of wider community disempowerment

(Hall, 1995b). Those opposed to ecotourism, for any reason, may try to elimi-

nate ecotourism by displaying direct antagonistic behaviour toward the eco-

tourist or by disrupting the resources (e.g. wildlife) which are attracting the

ecotourist to the destination in the first instance. In their turn, the tourists

may express open disapproval toward the local practices that are deemed

incompatible with their environmentalist ideology and with their own qual-

ity ecotourism experience.

As with sustainable tourism, various ecotourism concerns are attempting

to pre-empt negative impacts within destinations by formulating and popular-

izing codes of ethics and guidelines that will provide an appropriate frame-

work for the behaviour of tourists, tour operators and resource managers. The

Ecotourism Society (1993), for example, has published guidelines for tour

operators encompassing a range of programmes, with specific guidelines,

objectives, techniques and visitor benefits. The Ecotourism Association ofAustralia is just one of several national organizations that has produced a list

of behavioural guidelines for ecotourists (Table 1.7). As prototypes of appro-

priate ecotourism practice emerge, a more comprehensive, experiential and

action-specific set of guidelines should emerge. It is desirable for these codes to

build in some form of third-party monitoring, so as to avoid one of the major

problems associated with the sustainable tourism codes proffered by the

broader tourism industry.

28 Chapter 1


29/33

1.6. THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW TOURISM MODEL?

1.6.1. The Green Paradigm vs. the Dominant WesternEnvironmental Paradigm

Ecotourism, AT and sustainable tourism may be interpreted as interrelated

manifestations of a much larger trend evident within the tourism industry

Introduction 29

Table 1.7. Ecotourism Association of Australia: guidelines for ecotourists (from Hall,1995a).

Before you go

Ensure that you prepare well for the trip by reading about the places you are about to visit.Choose your ecotours after asking the following questions: Does the ecotourism operator comply with the Ecotourism Association Code of Practice

for Ecotourism Operators? Is a percentage of the economic benefit going back to or staying in the local commu-

nity/environment? Does the tour operator have local guides and use local services and supplies when

needed?

While you are away

Minimize the negative impacts of your visit by:

Social impacts

Be culturally sensitive and respect local customs Remember you are a guest Try to allow enough time in each place

Environmental impacts

Leave an area cleaner than when you found it Be efficient with natural resources

Travel by your own muscle power wherever possible Stay on the trail Take only pictures to remember the places visited Be careful not to introduce exotic plants and animals Do not exploit an area when food gathering Respect animal escape distances Familiarize yourself with local regulations Do not use soaps or detergents in natural water bodies Consider the implications of buying plant or animal products; ask if they are rare or

endangered species, or taken from the wildEconomic impacts

When travelling spend money on local enterprises Do not encourage illegal trade by buying products made from endangered species

When you return

Foster and generate a natural and cultural understanding of places you have visited.Consider the environmental and cultural effects of your visit. Provide feedback to touroperators, your travel agent and government agencies (who manage the areas visited)


30/33

and, indeed, within society as a whole. Knill (1991) refers to this trend as the

transition to a green paradigm, which he suggests is emerging in response to

the inherent contradictions and anomalies being revealed in the dominant

western environmental paradigm (DWEP). The DWEP, which has under-pinned the western worlds attitude toward nature at least during the past

300 years, is based upon an atomic, mechanistic view of reality. Accordingly,

nature is seen as being apart from, and subservient to, the needs of humanity,

possessing no intrinsic value. This anthropocentric perspective is affirmed by

the purported ability of science and technology to solve any problem and to

facilitate a continuous linear pattern of economic growth and progress

within an ideal context of either capitalism-individualism or (a currently dis-

credited) socialism-communalism.

1.6.1.1. Anomalies and contradictions within the dominantwestern environmental paradigm

A variety of concurrent contradictions and anomalies have forced a reassess-

ment of the DWEP. Within science, subatomic physics is hypothesizing that

there can be no precise knowledge existing external to the observer (i.e. no

subject/object dichotomy). The notion of the universe as a predictable

machine is being challenged by chaos theory, which emphasizes the role of

uncertainty and the butterfly effect, among other departures from tradi-tional scientific logic. Further, the field of ecology views ecosystems as holistic

systems which must be studied as wholes, given that there is a potentially infi-

nite number of unexpected results of any action (Knill, 1991, 55), and it is

thus impossible to dissect and analyse individual components in isolation.

Within economics, the major anomaly is that economies must continue to

expand and economic expansion requires environmental exploitation, and yet

the environmental deterioration associated with this exploitation constrains

the very capacity for further economic growth. This is not to say that the

DWEP lacks any kind of ecological impulse at all, but that such concern was

based more on the management or harnessing of nature to lessen its impacts

on humans and to optimize the benefits derived from the natural environ-

ment. Naess (1973) has referred to this model as shallow or reform ecology.

1.6.1.2. Antecedents of the green paradigmAntecedents of the green paradigm have been discerned in ancient pagan god-

dess movements, in eastern or non-western philosophies, and in certain

western impulses, such as the Christianity of St Francis of Assisi and thephilosophy of Henry David Thoreau. However, its articulation as a green para-

digm is much more contemporary. Leopolds A Sand County Almanac (Leopold,

1949) and Carsons Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) are among the seminal pop-

ular works to flag the environmental problems resulting from the DWEP.

Subsequent milestones that have reinforced this awareness include The Limits

to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), Schumachers Small is Beautiful

(Schumacher, 1973), Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis (Lovelock, 1979), the Global

30 Chapter 1


31/33

2000 Report (Barney, 1980) and the so-called Brundtland Report (World

Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

Carson and Moulden (1991) provide evidence that the green paradigm,

rather than being a mere fad, is gradually being translated into a shift in pub-lic attitudes and actions. A Decima Research poll during 1989/90 revealed

that the environment was the number one public issue for 85% of the indus-

trialized worlds residents. The new green consumer market was estimated

then to encompass between 16 and 20 million households in North America

alone. Other indications include the 15% of the British electorate that voted

for the Green Party during the 1987 election and the capture by various green

parties of about one-tenth of the seats in the European Community parlia-

ment.

It is in response to just such shifts in consumer behaviour and because

business itself may becoming more aware of the hidden long-term costs of a

deteriorating environment that the private sector has been forced to reassess

its operational philosophy (Howatson, 1990). However, as the critique of sus-

tainable tourism demonstrates, many of the changes are still superficial, and it

may be safely stated that modern societies are still operating under the basic

premises of the DWEP, as indicated by the continuing deterioration of the nat-

ural environment and by the continuing dominance of econometric perspec-

tives and priorities in public discourse.

1.6.2. The New TourismThere appears to be a direct relationship between the emergence of the green

paradigm and the interest in a new tourism, which encompasses such related

phenomena as sustainable tourism, AT and ecotourism. In the same way that

the green paradigm addresses the contradictions and anomalies of the DWEP,

the new tourism responds to the problems raised by mass tourism, which is a

sector-specific outcome of the DWEP philosophy seemingly fated to culminate

in the stagnation or decline stage of the Butler sequence (see Fig. 1.1).

References to the new tourism include Krippendorf s new postindustrial

tourist (Krippendorf, 1987), DAmores third generati

Documents

EcotourismChap1 (1)