Ecotourism Research Paper

1. Defining ‘Ecotourism’

It is no coincidence that much of the discussion about ecotourism parallels the weighty debate surrounding the definition of SD. This is because the high ground claimed by ecotourism is that it constitutes a form of sustainable tourism. The most commonly used definition of ecotourism is that coined by the Ecotourism Society as ‘responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people’ (Lindberg and Hawkins 1993, p.8). How this pivotal definition has evolved, and is evolving, mirrors the SD debate. The principles that ecotourism should embody fluctuate somewhere between a strong and weak green stance.

The first of these principles is that ecotourism should be ‘green’, recognizing a two-way link with nature conservation. This is incorporated in early definitions, such as that of Ceballos-Lascurain in 1987 (credited with first coining the term and giving it its preliminary definition) who suggested that ecotourism ‘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’ (Weaver 1998, p.15). Orams suggests that this perspective is essentially passive, requiring only that the activity does not result in negative impacts on the physical environment (Weaver 1998, p.16).

The second principle, incorporated in the Ecotourism Society definition, is that ecotourism should be responsible. This implies a more active position, involving behavioral lifestyle changes by participants together with actions that contribute to environmental conservation and local livelihoods (Weaver 1998).

The third principle, essentially pragmatic, is that in order to be sustainable, ecotourism must recognize the interests of all stakeholders, including the tourism industry and the tourists themselves. Tourism is an economic activity which must be capable of making a profit if it is to survive, and delivery of a successful product depends on tourist satisfaction.

If ecotourism embodies these principles, symbiotic relationships between the varying interests should follow, with environmental protection resulting both from and in enhanced standards of living for local populations, continued profits for the tourism industry, sustained visitor attraction, and revenue for conservation.

2. The Ecotourism Spectrum

The reality of ecotourism in practice is, more often than not, divergent from its conceptualization in theory. Inevitably, the identity of ecotourism as one of the fastest growing tourism market segments leads to the term’s widest use, and abuse, in the travel and tourism trade. Tour operators frequently relabel their products as a marketing ploy. Many travel experiences prefixed with ‘eco’ such as ecotour, and eco(ad)ventures are often little more than examples of environmental opportunism (Wight 1994). Ecotourism, thus interpreted, may be ecologically based but not ecologically sound. Furthermore, it is unlikely to incorporate sociocultural integrity or, especially in the longer term, economic viability, as it compromises the very resources upon which it is based.

It is therefore evident that ecotourists are not an homogenous group. Several writers have identified a spectrum of expectations, behavior, and consequent impacts. Lindberg suggests a fourfold typology, ranging from handcore, through dedicated and mainstream, to casual nature tourists (Fennell 1999, p.57). Orams suggests that the continuum of ecotourism paradigms is bounded by polar extremes representing high human responsibility on the one hand and low human responsibility on the other (Weaver 1998, p.16). Paralleling the deep : shallow ecology debate distinctions have also been made between deep, ecocentric, and shallow, human-centric, ecotourism.

Clearly ecotourists differ over many dimensions, but the typical profile is an average age of over 40 years, higher than average income and educational attainment, and a slight preponderance of males over females (Fennell 1999).

3. The Conservation Development Link

It has become increasingly recognized that unless the needs of host populations are considered ecotourism will not be sustainable, as there will be no incentive for local communities to conserve. The creation of National Parks and wildlife reserves may satisfy the viewing needs of tourists, the profit maximizing aims of the tourism industry, and, if properly managed, the requirements of conservationists, but frequently the local population not only may not benefit but also may actively lose out. Within such protected areas, particularly in developing countries, they may be physically excluded from the resources upon which their livelihoods depend. This has led to the accusation of ecotourism as ecoimperialism. The essential link between conservation and development is part of the much wider Parks People debate, but ecotourism is receiving increasing attention from policy makers and nongovernmental organizations as a theoretically nondestructive operationalization of the ‘use it or lose it’ philosophy, simultaneously making conservation pay and paying for conservation. It has also captured the interest of development agencies as a pro-poor strategy to enhance local livelihoods, although there is little evidence to date that tourism interventions have been driven by poverty elimination objectives.

4. Ecotourism Into The Millennium

4.1 Growth And Change

The general consensus is that ecotourism is here to stay and set to grow. This is because it is a reflection of much wider trends. Its increasing popularity may be attributable to being ‘new,’ alternative tourism, a reaction against the characteristics of mass consumption inherent in conventional mass tourism. Also, as the World Tourism Organization recently suggested, such travel may be regarded as a primary antidote to high-tech living. As well as constituting a lucrative niche, tour operators can respond to pressures of green-consumerism, increasing market credibility by offering a more responsible product. Inevitably, growth brings change and one of the most controversial aspects of change concerns scale of operation.

Many protagonists maintain that ecotourism must be small scale, low volume. Their view is that growth undermines sustainable ecotourism economies. However, the notion of small-scale, limited, specialist visitation, invariably highly priced, draws accusations of elitism; indeed Wheeller refers to ecotourism as ‘egotourism’ (Lew and Hall 1998, p.28). More fundamentally, David Western, the former head of the Kenya Wildlife Service, maintains that ‘the principles applied to the mass market can do more for conservation—and alleviate more harm—than a small elitist market. Ecotourism, accepted in this way, is shifting from a definition of small-scale nature tourism to a set of principles applicable to any nature-related tourism … Surely what matters is not scale or motive, but impact’ (Lindberg and Hawkins 1993, p.10). Coincidentally, many are also skeptical of the minimal economic impact, local, regional, or national, if ecotourism is restricted to small scale.

The question of scale however, raises issues of the carrying capacity of a locality. Certain problems arise if the scope of ecotourism is broadened to embrace all nature tourism.

4.2 Divergent Theory And Practice

The potential benefits of ecotourism are widely documented, but despite various guidelines (Lindberg and Hawkins 1993, Lindberg et al. 1998), there is a considerable gap between theory and practice. This is partly attributable to the inevitable lag ‘between the cutting edge of theoretical discussion and the application of theory to real-world situations’ (Lew and Hall 1998, p.202). However, the disappointing performance of ecotourism to date in achieving several of its goals, such as increased local involvement, indicates the need to identify not only the nature of this gap but also its cause.

4.3 The Context

One cause is the failure to recognize the wider context within which ecotourism is cast. As Butler (1998, p.34) asserts ‘tourism is part of the global system and cannot be tackled in isolation, spatially, economically or temporally.’ It is vital that a move is made beyond a tourism-centric view, as it is ‘inappropriate to discuss sustainable tourism any more than one might discuss any other single activity … we cannot hope to achieve sustainability in one sector alone, when each is linked to and dependent upon the others’ (Butler 1998, p.28). These linkages exist not only between sectors but also between levels and interests, but there are discontinuities. What is sustainable for one interest in one place at one point in time in unlikely to be so for another. Williams and Shaw (1998) suggest place as an integrative concept, whereby prospects for tourism sustainability are mediated by contingencies of place. However, such contingencies are shaped by economic, sociocultural, political, ecological, institutional, and technical forces which are endogenous and exogenous as well as dynamic. Witness, for example, the inextricability of the global and the local as priority tourism projects in the Mekong subregion were postponed by the Asian Development Bank because of the Asian financial crisis.

Not only does ecotourism need to be set into the much wider context, but also it is imperative that it is set into specific context with regard to tourism. Milne (1998, p.47) suggests that ‘in attempting to achieve more appropriate forms of tourism, it is also essential that we steer away from creating a dichotomy between ‘alternative’ and ‘mass’ tourism. Such a division serves little real purpose and diverts our attention away from the interlinked nature of all types of tourism development.’

The essential requirement of not examining ecotourism in isolation is also evident when considering the needs of foreign and domestic tourists. These two groups may construct divergent ‘imaginative geographies’ of the natural and cultural resources of the destination. This is particularly evident where cross-cultural differences are great. In China, domestic tourists favor artificial site enhancement compared with preservation in a pristine state, and have a higher tolerance of crowding and litter. These characteristics are clearly an anathema to foreign ecotourists.

This question of ethnocentricity may even create schisms between seemingly consensual viewpoints. Hinch (2001) surmises that, at first sight, the ecocentric world view of ‘true’ ecotourists should be congruent with that of indigenous cultures who tend to see themselves as being one with the land. However, he highlights potential discord should the ecotourists witness the hunting or trapping of species that may be an essential component of traditional livelihoods.

4.4 Geographical Perspectives

The contextual aspect is all important as ecotourism both shapes and is shaped by the social, cultural, geopolitical and geo-economic milieux within which it is set. Human geography and ecotourism thus share many common research foci. These include global–local relationships, and the constraining and enabling conditions according to scale and circumstance (Hall and Page 1999). It is evident that human geography and ecotourism can each inform, and be informed by, the other. Ecotourism is not insignificant as a face and force of contemporary tourism.

Bibliography:

1. Butler R 1998 Sustainable tourism—looking backwards in order to progress? In: Hall C M, Lew A A (eds.) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK, Chap. 3, pp. 25–34
2. Fennell D A 1999 Ecotourism: An Introduction. Routledge, London
3. Hall C M, Page S J 1999 The Geography of Tourism and Recreation. Routledge, London
4. Hinch T D 2001 Indigenous territories. In: Weaver D B (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Ecotourism. CABI, New York, Chap. 22, pp. 345–50
5. Lew A A, Hall C M 1998 The geography of sustainable tourism: Lessons and prospects. In: Hall C M, Lew A A (eds.) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK, Chap 16, pp. 199–203
6. Lindberg K, Epler-Wood M, Engledrum D (eds.) 1998 Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society, Bennington, VT
7. Lindberg K, Hawkins D E (eds.) 1993 Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 1. The Ecotourism Society, Bennington, VT
8. Milne S S 1998 Tourism and sustainable development: The global-local nexus. In: Hall C M, Lew A A (eds.) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK, Chap. 4, pp. 35–48
9. Weaver D B 1998 Ecotourism in the Less De eloped World. CABI, Wallingford, UK
10. Wight P 1994 Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In: Cater E, Lowman G (eds.) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? John Wiley, Chichester, UK, Chap. 3, pp. 39–55
11. Williams A, Shaw G 1998 Tourism and the environment: Sustainability and economic restructuring. In: Hall C M, Lew A A (eds.) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Longman, Harlow, UK, Chap. 5, pp. 49–59