Ecotourism development and principles and management

1
Chapter 1. Introduction to Tourism
1.1. Concepts and Definitions of the Tourism
As one of the world’s largest industries, tourism is associated with many of the prime sectors of
the world’s economy. Any such phenomenon intricately interwoven into the fabric of life
economically, socio-culturally, and environmentally and relies on primary, secondary, and tertiary
production and service levels is difficult to define in simple terms. There is no accepted definition
of what constitutes the [tourism] industry; any definition risks either overestimating or
underestimating economic activity. Various tourism definitions, each with disciplinary attributes
that reflect research initiatives corresponding to various fields. At its simplest, the industry gets
people from their homes to somewhere else (and back), providing lodging and food for them while
they are away. As established by the World Tourism Organization, tourism is defined as a person
traveling for pleasure for a period of at least one night, but not more than one year for international
tourists and six months for persons traveling in their own countries, with the main purpose of the
visit being other than to engage in activities for remuneration in the place(s) visited.
Over the last decade, Travel & Tourism has been an important driver for job creation and a
dynamic engine of employment opportunities. There are resort towns and other popular vacation
destinations that would shrivel up and die without spending by visitors. However, the more
significant impact of travel and tourism on global GDP may surprise you. Before the pandemic,
travel and tourism accounted for 1 in 4 new jobs worldwide. Workers in Travel and tourism across
the globe also accounted for 10.3% of all jobs, 333 million. In 2019, the sector supported 334
million jobs (10.6% of all jobs) and created 1 in 4 net new jobs worldwide between 2014 and 2019.
Before the pandemic, Travel & Tourism was among the most diverse sectors globally. Women
account for 54% of Travel & Tourism employment worldwide. The sector has almost twice as
many women employers as other sectors. Travel & Tourism employs a higher share of youth than
the overall economy. Youth employment reached around 30% in Canada, the United States, and
the UK, more than double that of the broader economy.
More than 10% of the global GDP was driven by global travel and tourism, and much of that was
provided by international travel. Of course, before the pandemic, 2019 was the last full year of
normal travel activity. Comparing the 2019 numbers above to numbers from 2020 and 2021
provides a unique glimpse into how COVID-19 affected the travel and tourism industry and the
global economy. Travel and tourism’s contribution to global GDP dropped by almost 50.4%. In
2021, travel and tourism’s contribution increased by $1 trillion (21.7%), but there remains a long
way to go to get back to 2019 levels. In 2020, the travel and tourism industry shed 62 million jobs,
a decrease of 18.6%. The travel and tourism workforce that had reached 333 million in 2019 fell
to just 271 million in 2020. More than 18 million of those jobs came back in 2021, but there
remains a gap between current employment levels and what the industry experienced in 2019.
Spending by international visitors was significantly affected, too. Spending fell 69.7% from 2019
to 2020, and it only bounced back by 3.9% in 2021. Overall, the contribution of travel and tourism
to the global GDP amounted to 5.81 trillion U.S. dollars in 2021, denoting an increase of around
one trillion U.S. dollars from 2020 but not catching up with pre-pandemic figures.

2
Global Comparison Figure 1: Regional Overview, 2019and 2022

3
Few Terms of Tourism
Visitor: any person visiting a country other than his usual place of residence for any other reason
than following an occupation from within the country visited.
Excursionist: a day visitor who stays for less than 24 hours at a place. Excursionists do not stay
overnight.
Tourist: a temporary visitor to a place. People who leave their usual place of residence and work
to have a change from their usual routine for a short time stay at the place overnight, i.e., for at
least 24 hours.
Traveler: a person who travels from one place to another, irrespective of the purpose of travel or
duration of stay.
Transit visitor: a traveler who passes through a country without breaking a journey other than
connecting transport.
Destination: the place where the tourist travels for leisure or business-related activities. There can
be no tourism without a destination. For a destination to develop and sustain itself, the following
five A’s (classic five ‘A’s of tourism) are:
1. Accessibility – refers to transport and transport infrastructure.
2. Accommodation –refers to a place to stay
3. Amenities- facilities available at the destination, which help meet the tourist's needs.
4. Attraction- the reason for travel (natural, human-made, cultural, social)
5. Activities- things to do.
Tourism is made up of Five Elements:
 Traveler-generating region
 Transit region
 Tourist destination region
 Tourist
 Tourism industry
1.2. Main Constituents Tourism Industry:
A. Transport- means the means of travel. It includes
 Airways
 Roadways
 Railways
 Waterways
 Parking areas
 Airports
 Runways
 Bus stands
B. Hotel- Tourists need a place to stay.
C. Food and beverage- Tourists require catering services, which include
 Non-commercial outlets or welfare outlets- like institutes etc.
 Commercial outlets-
 Residential- including hotels, guesthouses, resorts etc.
 Non-residential- include specialty or fine dining restaurants, fast food restaurants,
coffee shops, bars and pubs, lounges, vending machines etc.

4
D. Tourism attractions
The tourism industry includes some key elements that tourists rely upon to achieve their general
and specific goals and needs within a destination. Broadly categorized, they include facilities,
accommodation, transportation, and attractions. A tourist attraction is a systematic arrangement of
three elements: a person with touristic needs, a nucleus (any feature or characteristic of a place
they might visit) and at least one marker (information about the nucleus). Entertainment or
attractions:
 Natural attractions- hills, beaches
 Built attraction- resorts, amusement or theme parks
 Business attraction- MICE
 Relatives and friends-
 Historic attraction- heritage buildings, monuments, palaces
 Cultural and ethnic attractions- customs, traditions, fairs, festivals
 Special events- commonwealth games, Olympic games
 Medical attraction-spa, sanatorium
 Religious attraction- pilgrim
 Government attraction– white house, parliament
E. Retail and shopping- shopping malls, markets, hawkers etc.
F. Travel agents and tour operators are intermediaries between service providers and travel
consumers. Travel agencies perform functions such as providing travel information, planning
itineraries, liaising with vendors, costing, ticketing, reservation and documentation, settlement of
accounts, MICE, and foreign exchange.
Tour operators are different from travel agents. The tour operator assembles all the travel
components and sells them as a package tour to and from a destination, with complete ground
arrangements.
G. Guides and escort- guides are travel industry representatives and a public relations
representative for their city, region, and country- an educator, an entertainer, and a public speaker.
There are many types of guides: location guide, monument guide, museum guide etc.
The escort has to accompany the tourist right from the commencement until the end of the tour.
An escort facilitates check-in facilities, and customs clearance accompanies the tour during
sightseeing, shopping etc.
H. Tourism organizations are formed when people come together for a common purpose.
Tourism organizations are important in marketing destinations and managing the tourism industry.
There are many levels of organization, including international, national, state, and local. World
Tourism Organization is an international organization founded in 1975. A few tourism
organizations are:
 Airlines- IATA
 Travel agencies- UFTAA, TAAI, ASTA
1.3. Secondary Constituents of Tourism:
 Shops and state emporium
 Art and craft
 Local transport

5
 Banks
 Insurance companies
 Communication services include public phones, mobiles, internet cafés,
videoconferencing, television, radio, telex, and fax.
 Performing artist
 Publisher
 Advertisers
 Hawkers and coolies
 Agents and brokers
 Essential services- electricity, waste disposal, sewage, health facilities, security
1.4. Historical Development of Tourism
Throughout history, people have needed to travel for survival, trade, conquests or curiosity. Very
little is known about the prehistoric period between 40000 BC and 10000 BC, as no written records
exist. However, after that period, we have archaeological records, cave paintings, stories, epics
etc. The growth of tourism can be studied during different periods.
1. Ancient period or early civilization- Civilization developed around 10000 BC to 8000
BC in the Neolithic period when people began living together and developed settlements.
Agriculture developed, and trade began amongst various settlements. Travel on animals
began, and the military movement to acquire land and conquer tribes started. The journey
was difficult and dangerous; by land and sea, the journey was slow and time-Consuming.
During this period, paths, modes of transportation, and the growth of cities near main roads
were created.
2. Imperial or early empire period- tourism was established during the early empires of
Egypt, Persia, Rome, China and India. Transport was made available, and the development
of road networks, highways, roads, and paths started during this period. The development
of accommodation check posts started during this period. People used to travel with
servants, kitchen utensils, tents and animals.
3. Pilgrimage.Forreligion,belief,releasefromwarandsickness,earninggod’s grace, fairness
and rituals. Advantages- knowledge of geography, adventure, spiritual and social
approval, cultural enhancement group and family tour.
4. European Renaissance –a great cultural movement that began in Italy in the early 1300
AD and spread to England, France, Germany, Spain, and other countries in the late 1400s
and ended about 1600 AD. The Renaissance, or the Rebirth, was a period of change and
revival of Greek and Roman culture. During this period, painters and sculptors tried to
give their works a spiritual quality and unrealistic human figures represented religious
ideas.
Grand tour – in Western Europe, tours were conducted by wealthy social elite classes
for Culture, Education and pleasure, literacy, health, science and business. Impact of the
grand tour- increase in knowledge of art, intellectual, craft, skills, and social and economic
status.

6
5. Transition period or industrial era- the industrial revolution, which occurred in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, was when major changes occurred in
agriculture, manufacturing and transportation. It started in Britain and then spread
throughout the world. The first product of the Industrial Revolution that affected tourism
was the development of the steam engine. Later, changes in technology increases in
income, rapid industrialization, and market professionals helped tourism grow fast. The
British era brought much development, such as railways, education, adventure, leisure
travel, and circuit houses. Modern period- development in railways, airlines, formation
of the ministry of tourism in 1990.
1.5. Types of Tourism
Travel Motivators: factors that create a desire in people to travel. Motivators are the internal
psychological influences affecting individual choices.
Physical motivators-these are related to
 Physical rest
 Relaxation
 Sports
 health
Cultural motivators- these are related to
 Culture
 Lifestyle
 folk art
 music and dance
 spiritual
Interpersonal-these are related to meeting
 friends
 Family
 New people
Status and prestige motivators-
 Personal esteem
 Status symbol
 Education
 Pursuit of hobbies
 Business and work
Different Forms and Types of Tourism:
The tourism market is divided into two categories:
1. Leisure tourist- recreation activities or enjoyment
2. Business tourist – the main motive for travel is to make a profit or expand their
business. Tourism is of two types:
1. Domestic tourism: residents of a country traveling within the borders of that country

7
2. International tourism: traveling from one country to another
 Inbound tourism - this refers to incoming tourists or tourists entering a country
 Outbound tourism refers to outgoing tourists leaving their country of origin to travel to
another country.
Leisure or Holiday- change in climate and place, enjoy the scenery, de-stress, rest and relax. The
destination includes a hill, beach, and island. Facilities include body massage, steam and sauna bath,
yoga, facials etc.
Adventure-
 Adventure on land includes jungle safari, desert safari, motor racing, wall climbing,
trekking, camping, rock climbing, mountain biking, skiing, heliskiing,
 Water adventure includes diving, scuba diving, snorkeling, parasailing, water scooters,
water skiing, windsurfing, and white water rafting.
 Aerial adventure-ballooning, parachuting, skydiving, paragliding, parasailing, gliding,
hang gliding, bungee jumping
 SPORTS-oldest form of hunting and skiing. Cricket, white water rafting, football,
windsurfing, yachting, river rafting, hover crafting, racing, tennis, soccer, golf
 RELIGIOUS- is also known as pilgrimage or spiritual tourism.
 HEALTH- people are traveling to improve and rebuild their health and stamina. Include a
visit to the spa( sanus per aquam) means good health through water, yoga, massage, body
scrub, facial, reiki, pain relief
Health tourism includes the following aspects:
 Change in climate
 Alternative therapy, like hot sulfur spring, ayurvedic treatment, mud therapy,
naturopathy, and the art of living.
 Medical tourism- tourists visiting for medical treatment, i.e., Hospitals, technology, doctors,
nursing, paramedical staff
Cultural- lifestyle, dress, jeweler, dance, music, architecture and painting, customs,
beliefs, fairs, festivals, the religion practiced
 VFR- interpersonal relationship.
 BUSINESS AND MICE- The motive for travel is work, such as attending meetings,
conferences, conventions, trade fairs, selling products, and meeting clients. 85% of air
travel is business related, and 50% of hotel occupancy is business travel segment. The
company pays business traveler looks for the best facilities as expenses. Duration of stay is
short, destination business based, a frequent and experienced traveler, more demanding.
MICE- MEETING, INCENTIVES, and CONVENTIONS AND EXHIBITION: It is not
mainstream business travel but the subset of business travel. It includes small meetings, training
courses, seminars, and workshops. MICE travelers expect a high level of comfort, hassle-free
movement, and value for money.
Infrastructure Required For MICE
1. Accommodation
2. Convention Centre

8
3. Transportation
4. Convention and meeting planners
5. Exhibition grounds and halls
6. Food and beverage service
7. Trained human resource
8. Communication aids
9. Internet accessibility
10. Security services
11. Sightseeing
12. Entertainment
Areas that require special planning for MICE are:
 venues- enough space for international delegations to hold meetings,
conventions and exhibition
 transportation- both air and ground
 accommodation- near meeting, conference, and exhibition venues and should be equipped
with fax, laptop, internet connection, telex, and video conference facilities
 other support services- catering, shopping, entertainment
Alternative Forms of Tourism-
Alternative tourists are different from regular tourists. Alternative tourism establishes a
friendly rapport between visitors and the local hosts. These tourists normally avoid the services
used by the tourists, such as accommodation, transport and other services. They prefer to use
and share the services used by the local people. Their main motive is to experience and get an
insight into their way of living. It is regarded as a key to sustainable development. While mass
tourism can hurt a destination, alternative tourism promotes a balanced growth form that is
more in line with local environmental and sociocultural concerns. Special Interest in Tourism:
 Ecotourism
 Rural Tourism
 Ethnic Tourism
 Senior Citizen Tourism
 Wildlife Tourism
 Space Tourism
 Special Interest Tourism: special interest tourism can be defined as people traveling
to a particular destination to fulfill a particular interest, which can be pursued only at
that destination. Product ranges from historical, culinary, archaeological, and other
interests such as golf, fishing, and underwater adventure, e.g., Tal Mahal, Red Fort;
special interest tourism in India can include visiting Mughal architecture, gardens of
India, textile centers of India, gourmet tours, tribal areas, safari, car racing,
commonwealth games, world cup etc.
 Ecotourism: it is often defined as sustainable nature-based tourism. Ecotourism is
usually used to describe tourism activities conducted in harmony with nature. This
tourism fosters environmental principles with an emphasis on visiting and observing
natural areas; it controls the impact of tourism on the environment.

9
“Ecotourismcanbedefinedas purposeful travel to natural areas to understand the culture
and natural history of the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the
ecosystem while producing economic opportunities that make the conservation of
natural resources financially beneficial to the local citizens.”
Large movements of people (carrying capacity) and unplanned tourism destroy forests,
consume firewood, create pollution and destroy flora and fauna diversity. It upsets
wildlife, the ecosystem, and the local people's lifestyles. Ecotourism reduces all these
ill effects of tourism.
 Rural tourism: tourists nowadays are shifting their interest in traveling to new
destinations to explore and experience the destination and have first-hand knowledge of
the local people, cuisine and actual way of living. Lately, rural tourism has gained
importance in India throughits‘INCREDIBLEIndia’promotionalcampaign. InIndia,states
likeRajasthan,Gujarat, M.P., U.P., etc., have heritage hotels, forts, havelis and palaces
converted into hotels, giving the tourist the true taste of that state.
 Ethnic Tourism: ethnic tourism involves travel to observe the cultural expression of
lifestyle and customs of the indigenous and exotic people. This type of tourism focuses
directly on the local people. The tourist visits the local homes, observes and participates
in their traditional rituals, ceremonies, dances, festivals, etc.
 Senior Citizen Tourism: This is a new emerging trend in tourism meant for senior
citizens or older people. Tours packages are specially designed for older adults. This type
of tourism is common in the west.
 Wildlife Tourism: wildlife is a term used to refer to a natural environment's floral and
faunal components. Enthusiasts, young and natural lovers, and adventure seekers are
exploring this new tourism area. This comparatively new form of tourism has become
popular in the last decade. Wildlife tourism is also considered an important element in
wildlife protection. The wildlife tourism industry includes luxury safaris, wildlife
backpacking, zoos, aquaria, and safari parks.
Space Tourism: space tourism is broadly applied to paying customers traveling beyond the
Earth’s atmosphere. New and not-so-popular types of tourists.
Potential benefits derived from an alternative tourism strategy
Accommodation
• Does not overwhelm the community.
• Benefits (jobs, expenditures) are more evenly distributed.
• Less competition with homes and businesses for the use of infrastructure.
• A larger percentage of revenues accrue to local areas.
• Greater opportunity for local entrepreneurs to participate in the tourism sector.
Attractions
• Authenticity and uniqueness of the community are promoted and enhanced.
• Attractions are educational and promote self-fulfillment.
• Locals can benefit from the existence of the attractions even if tourists are not present.
Market
• Tourists do not overwhelm locals in numbers; stress is avoided.
• ‘Drought/deluge’ cycles are avoided, and equilibrium is fostered.

10
• A more desirable visitor type.
• Less vulnerability to disruption within a single major market.
Economic impact
• Economic diversity is promoted to avoid single-sector dependence.
• Sectors interact and reinforce each other.
• Net revenues are proportionally higher; money circulates within the community.
• More jobs and economic activity are generated.
Regulation
• Community makes critical development/strategy decisions.
• Planning to meet ecological, social, and economic carrying capacities.
• Holistic approach stresses integration and well-being of community interests.
• Long-term approach takes into account the welfare of future generations.
• Integrity of foundation assets is protected.
• Possibility of irreversibility is reduced.
1.6. Impacts of Tourism
A. Positive Impact of Tourism
1. Economic impact
 Employment generator
 Increase tax revenue
 Foreign exchange earner
 Rural development promoter
 Improved infrastructure
 Increase in gross domestic products
 Multiplier effect
 Environmental impact
 Some tourist destinations like parks, wildlife and bird sanctuaries help maintain the
ecological balance.
 Historical sites are preserved and restored
 Endangered species protected
 Forests are protected
 Create awareness about the environment
 Sociocultural impact
 Develops entrepreneurship
 Provides jobs
 Increase income
 Improve the quality of life
 Preserves heritage
 Revive art and craft
 Helps national and international integration develop facilities and infrastructure
 Revives vernacular languages
Demonstration effect
 Welcoming Attitude
 Dressing and fashion
Cultural impact
 Helps in the preservation of culture

11
 Rejuvenation of art forms, folk dance and music retain authenticity
Political impact
Negative Impact of Tourism
Economic impact
Leakage refers to the process through which tourism receipts are withdrawn or leave the
destination’s country. This happens when money is spent buying goods and services from
another economy.
Environmental impact
 Environmental pollution
 Depletion of natural resources
 Land erosion
 Loss of natural resources
 Traffic congestion
 Garbage trails
Sociocultural impact
 Rural-urban migration
 Disruption of lifestyle
 Narcotics and drug abuse
 Decreased use of local language
 Health issues like HIV, AIDS, flu and virus
 Prostitution
 Alcoholism
 Crime- pickpocketing, mugging, rape, murder
 Money laundering
 Disrespect for local customs
Demonstration effect
 Local or host irritation
 Hostility from locals
Cultural impact
 Social norms and customs are affected
 Cultural arrogance
 Dilution of culture
Political impact
 Leads to Terrorism
1.7. Sustainable Development and Tourism
For sustainable tourism to be successful, humans must consider the following: (1) how tourists
value and use natural environments; (2) how communities are enhanced through tourism; (3) the
identification of tourism’s social and ecological impacts; and (4) management of these impacts.
Sustainable tourism is an extension of the new emphasis on sustainable development. Tourism,
then, is one of many sectors, albeit a prime one, that drive as follows:
1 Be as culturally sensitive as possible in developing a sustainable development strategy.
2 Work within existing institutional frameworks as opposed to creating new ones.
3 Multi-sectoral planning is critical to a sustainable development strategy, and means
must be created to allow all affected stakeholders to participate in decision-making.

12
UNIT - II- Ecotourism
2.1. Concepts and Definitions of Ecotourism
Ecotourism's Definitions have evolved from an emphasis on nature-oriented tourism to one that
stresses natural and cultural goals. The Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as: “purposeful
travel to natural areas to understand the cultural and natural history of the environment; taking
care not to alter the integrity ecosystem; producing economic opportunities that make the
conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people.
This definition gives no baseline about the scale of tourism, although it implies low impact and
little ecosystem disruption. A recent review describes four types of travel that are commonly
given the ecotourism label: (1) nature-based tourism, (2) conservation-supporting tourism, (3)
environmentally aware tourism, and (4) sustainability-run tourism. Most conservation groups
would assume that all of these attributes make up Ecotourism. In contrast, industry
representatives and governments generally regard ecotourism as equivalent to nature-based
tourism and argue that all tourism should be environmentally sustainable.
One of the advantages of ecotourism is that it is more ecologically and culturally sensitive and
less likely to bring the negative impacts associated with mass tourism. The demand for nature-
based tourism and ecotourism has been increasing steadily. Ecotourism has been advocated
within the academic literature as an important community economic development strategy
due to the potential economic and social benefits that the sector can generate.
Lesson 2.1 - Ecotourism - An Alternative to Mass Tourism
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
➢ Understand the concept and characteristics of mass tourism
➢ Find out the mass tourism impacts at the tourism destinations
➢ Search for practical solutions for the onslaught of mass tourism
➢ Find the significant roles of ecotourism as an alternative to mass tourism
➢ Suggest for the implementation of sustainable tourism principles
Mass tourism
Mass tourism is generally seen as being an overarching term for tourism that is undertaken by the
majority of travelers. Exploring the specificity of a particular tourist experience in-depth may
contribute to understanding the significant divergences and convergences between mass tourism
and alternative tourism, as well as the subtle nuances that subtend these tourist experiences.

13
Alternative tourism: The common feature of ‘alternative tourism’ is the suggestion of an attitude
opposed to what is characteristically viewed as mass tourism. Alternative tourism is often
presented as existing in fundamental opposition by attempting to minimize the perceived negative
environmental and sociocultural impacts of people at leisure in the promotion of radically different
approaches to tourism. Examples include ecotourism, green tourism, ‘nature-oriented tourism,’
‘soft tourism’ and ‘defensive tourism.’
Ecotourism: There is no general definition currently in circulation, but any conception of it must
involve traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the objective of
studying, admiring, and enjoying the natural environment of that area. The important point is that
the person who practices ecotourism has the opportunity to immerse themself in nature in a way
that most people cannot enjoy in their routine urban existences. As there is no strict consensus on
a specific definition of ecotourism, it has been suggested that it is also responsible travel that
conserves natural environments and sustains the well-being of local people.
The Supply of Ecotourism Services
Distribution channels typically involve up to four parties: suppliers, wholesalers, retailers,
and consumers. Most of the supply chains are owned or controlled by developed countries
for all types of tourism, including ecotourism. The majority of consumers also tend to be
from developed countries. In the tourism industry, a large geographic distance between
tourism suppliers and potential consumers normally prevents suppliers from selling
directly to consumers. This is especially true for ecotourism ventures, which are often
located in remote areas. More than other kinds of tourism, ecotourism requires high levels
of coordination throughout the distribution channel. This is in part because ecotourists
place more specialized demands on destination points than other types of tourists (guides,
equipment, transport)
Factors that Limit Ecotourism Potential
While global prospects for the tourism industry are promising, success for individual countries
and projects are subject to a number of factors, many of which are beyond the control of tourism
suppliers, wholesalers, or operators. The key factors are political, social, environmental,
economic, and technological. Ecotourism is affected by all these factors, as well as trends that
have little bearing on the rest of the industry.
Political factors such as ethnic conflicts in the host country can adversely hurt tourism revenues.
Sri Lanka, Haiti, Guatemala, and Rwanda have all had substantial drops in tourism because of civil
and ethnic unrest. A rise in international airline terrorism can also hurt tourism revenues in some
countries.
Social factors include concerns about personal safety, health, and general impression of the
country. Negative press reports and a lack of adequate knowledge about the destination country
can deter some tourists from choosing some countries. The fear of disease can lead to tourism

14
declines. The Kenyan coast and Thailand have both seen significant drops in tourism due to the
fear of HIV/AIDS; tourists also avoid parts of Africa because of malaria.
Environmental Factors include seasonality, natural disaster, and pollution. Two types of
seasonality need to be considered: in the original country of tourists (e.g., school summer
vacation) and the destination country (e.g., monsoon season). Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
hurricanes, prolonged drought and a variety of other natural disasters can scare off tourists.
Economic Factors such as global exchange rates may help one region or country while hurting
another. Recessions and exchange rates have a profound influence on who travels and where
they go. Economic factors strongly influence the operator’s choice of destination.
Finally, technological issues of communication and marketing affect information flows.
Operators and tourists are more likely to go where communications are most likely to help with
trip planning and last-minute changes. In the remote regions where ecotourism is most popular,
communications are often poor or non-existent.
There is evidence that factors that would normally deter more conventional tourists (different
food, simple lodging) may, in fact, be preferred by the “hard” ecotourists. Yet, the basic problems
of difficult access to sites and lack of communication complicate ecotourism from the industry
perspective. Other problems are inconsistent local service suppliers in remote areas and a lack
of local tour operators. These all present problems for organized tours but are unlikely to deter
ecotourists traveling independently, who are more likely deterred by external factors. Internal
factors are more likely to influence the quality of their trip, not its selection.
Table Concerns of mass tourism and alternative paradigm (ecotourism) views
Mass tourism Alternative tourism
1 Management of ‘evolutionary’ change (survival of the fittest)
within a Western rationalist approach based on existing economic
principles
1 Radical change moving towards cooperatives and community-
based approaches outside of the existing tourism industry
2 Maintaining social order, existing tourism systems
unquestioned
2 Transforming social systems, analyzing structural conflicts
and contradictions and including nature in the equation
3 Greater efficiency of current tourism systems, hence increased
profitability
3 Creating more just and equitable systems that can
step beyond the tourism system
4 Appearance of harmony, integration and cohesion of social
groups involved in the tourism process
4 Contradictions between social ideals and reality, attempts to
demonstrate this and alleviate it
5 Focus on ways to maintain cohesion and consensus 5 Ways to dismantle or change systems of domination
6 Solidarity 6 Emancipation
7 Identifying and meeting individual needs within
existing social system
7 Current tourism systems incapable of equitably
meeting basic human needs
8 Focused on actuality, discovering and
understanding what is
8 Focused on potentiality: providing a vision of
what could be
4. ECOTOURISM AND CONCEPTS OF CARRYING CAPACITY
4.1. Ecological Carrying Capacity

15
Social impacts of tourism
One of the most persuasive socially oriented frameworks developed to analyze the impact that
tourism has on local people and their environments is based on the work of Doxey (1975), who,
in a general context, was able to encapsulate the evolving sentiment that local people express
as tourism expands and occupies greater proportions of a local economy over time. Doxey
wrote that there are essentially four main stages to consider in the assessment of local feelings
toward the tourism industry. These include:
1 Euphoria. Tourists are welcomed, with little control or planning.
2 Apathy. Tourists are taken for granted, with the relationship between both groups becoming
more formal or commercialized. Planning is mostly concerned with the marketing of tourism
products.
3 Annoyance. As saturation in the industry is experienced, local people have misgivings about
the place of tourism. Planners increase infrastructure rather than limit growth.
4 Antagonism. Irritations are openly displayed towards tourists and tourism. Planning is
remedial, yet promotion is increased to offset the deteriorating reputation of the destination.
There are myriad examples of regions that have been subject to this form of cycle within
tourism (see also Butler, 1980, later in this chapter). As a case in point, Bermuda experienced
visitor numbers of some 10 times its local population in 1980 (some 600,000 people) in an area
approximately 21 square miles in size. This type of tourist-to-local ratio is indicative of the
conditions that have led to social conflict (as identified by Doxey). Although such a proliferation
of visitation no doubt has its economic rewards, what the host country gives up to attract
tourism dollars cannot be measured simply in economic terms. It is no accident that the most
vital and creative parts of the Caribbean, for example, have been precisely those that have
been most touched by tourism (Chodos 1977:174). The oft-quoted claim of Evan Hyde, a Black
Power leader in Belize in the early 1970s, that ‘Tourism is whorism’ (Erisman 1983:339) reflects
the frequent claims that tourism leads to conflict between locals and hosts.
A notable impact of tourism on traditional values is the demonstration effect (Britton 1977;
Hope 1980; Mathieson and Wall 1982), where local patterns of consumption change to imitate
those of the tourists, even though local people only get to see a side of tourists that is often not
representative of their values displayed at home (e.g., spending patterns). Alien commodities
are rarely desired prior to their introduction into host communities, and for most residents of
destination areas in the developing world, such commodities remain tantalizingly beyond reach
(Rivers 1973). The process of commercialization and commodification may ultimately erode the
local goodwill and authenticity of products, as identified by Britton (1977:272):

16
Cultural expressions are bastardized in order to be more comprehensible and, therefore,
saleable to mass tourism. As folk art becomes dilute, local interest in it declines. Tourists’
preconceptions are satisfied when steel bands obligingly perform Tony Orlando tunes (and
every other day, the folklore show is narrated in German).
Such fragmentation of culture has been found to occur on many levels within destinations,
most notably from the standpoint of prostitution, crime, the erosion of language in favor of
more international dialects, the erosion of traditions, either forgotten or modified for tourists;
changes to local music and other art forms; food, in the form of more international cuisine;
architecture; dress; family relationships (e.g., young children earning more than their parents
from toting bags at airports); and, in some cases, religion. In recognizing the potential for social
impact within a tourist region, Ryan (1991:164) has identified a number of key points, all of
which may be used as indicators or determinants of impact. These are as follows:
1 the number of tourists;
2 the type of tourists;
3 the stage of tourist development;
4 the differential in economic development between tourist-generating and tourist-receiving
zones;
5 The difference in cultural norms between tourist-generating and
tourist-receiving zones;
6 the physical size of the area, which affects the densities of the
tourist population;
7 The extent to which an immigrant worker services tourism
population;
8 the degree to which incoming tourists purchase properties.
9 the degree to which local people retain ownership of properties and tourist facilities;
10 the attitudes of governmental bodies;
11 the beliefs of host communities and the strengths of those
beliefs;
12 the degree of exposure to other forces of technological, social,
and economic change;
13 the policies adopted with respect to tourist dispersal;

17
14 The marketing of the tourist destination and the images that
are created for that destination;
15 the homogeneity of the host society;
16 the accessibility to the tourist destination; and
17 the original strength of artistic and folkloric practices, and the
nature of those traditions.
As ecotourism continues to diversify and exploit relatively untouched regions and cultures,
there is the danger that a cycle of events similar to that identified by Doxey will occur. The
lessons from the Caribbean model of tourism development, for example, are that the industry
must tread lightly in securing an equitable relationship between how the industry is planned
and developed and the needs of local people. Britton (1977) recognized the importance of
small-scale, local architecture, tourism zoning, gradual growth, reliance on locally produced
goods, joint ventures, and diversification in the market in releasing the Caribbean from
metropolitan domination (see Chapter 6). All these elements, as identified in Chapter 1, are
indicative of the alternative tourism development paradigm to which ecotourism must
subscribe.
Ecological impacts
The early years
Concern over the ecological effects of tourism started to mount during the 1960s and 1970s
(Pearce 1985) through the realization that the industry had the capability of either moderately
altering or completely transforming destination regions in adverse ways. For example, the
National Geographic Magazine, as far back as the early 1960s (Cerruti 1964), was enquiring as
to whether Acapulco had been spoiled by overdevelopment, while Naylon (1967) discussed the
need to alleviate some of the stress caused by a high
concentration of tourism in the Balearic Islands and the Costa Brava in Spain by employing
regional development strategies designed to promote other areas that were as yet
undeveloped. Pollock wrote that although tourism had begun to play an important role in the
economy of Tanzania, the ‘vital necessity for game conservation in the interests of ecology,
tourism, game farming and ranching, and for moral, aesthetic, philosophical and other reasons
has been recognized increasingly both at national and international levels’ (Pollock 1971:147).
Others have commented on the physical impacts of tourism in city and regional environments,
including Harrington (1971), who illustrated that the unregulated development of hotels in
London threatened the quality of life in the city, and Jones (1972), who refers to tourism
development as a classic case of the battle that exists between conservation and preservation
on the island of Gozo. Crittendon (1975) illustrates that while tourism has transformed much of
the world’s natural beauty into gold, the industry may have planted the seeds of its destruction.

18
Sensitivity to environmental issues in the realm of tourism studies gained a tremendous boost
in the mid-1970s from the efforts of Budowski (1976), Krippendorf (1977), and Cohen (1978) in
their work on tourism and the environment. Budowski identified three different ‘states’ in
tourism’s relationship with environmental conservation: conflict, coexistence and symbiosis. He
felt that tourism’s expansion resulted in an unavoidable effect on the resources upon which it
relied, and therefore, felt that the relationship at the time was one of coexistence moving
towards conflict. Krippendorf was one of the first to write on the importance of planning and
the dispersion of tourists and tourism developments as a means by which to minimize impacts,
while Cohen reviewed the work to date (academic and non-academic) on tourism and the
environment. He speculated on the apparent ‘mood of the day’ by insisting that there was
indeed a distinct difference between development for purposes of improvement and aesthetic
appeal versus the vulgar, undesirable, and irreparable damage created by modern tourism.
More research on the ecological impacts of tourism began to emerge in the early 1980s from
Krippendorf (1982), who, like
S O C I O L O G I C A L A N D E C O L O G I C A L I M PA C T S
Budowski recognized that the resource base acted as the raw material of tourism, which,
through improper use and overuse, lost its value. Krippendorf cited ski slopes, holiday villages,
camping and caravan sites, and airfields as examples of developments that, when fully
functional, seem to subsume the environment forever for their uses. Travis (1982) suggested in
his review of literature that while most studies on tourism concentrated on the economic
benefits of tourism, there was also a tremendous range of topics related to its negative impact,
including pollution, crowding and congestion, damage/destruction of heritage resources, land
use loss, ecosystem effects, loss of flora and fauna, and increased urbanization. Concurrently,
Coppock (1982) identified similar areas in which tourism has had an adverse impact on nature
conservation in the UK. These were identified as loss of habitat, damage to soil and vegetation,
fire, pollution, and disturbance of flora and fauna. In the 1980s, books started to emerge that
dealt with the development and impacts of tourism, including Pearce’s Tourist Development
(1991) and Mathieson and Wall’s work on economic, social, and ecological impacts (1982).
Tourism research on ecological impacts further intensified throughout the 1980s on the basis of
a wealth of information surfacing on the relationship between tourism and conservation and
the need to address how best to overcome tourism’s negative impacts. Romeril (1985) wrote, in
a special edition on tourism in the International Journal of Environmental Studies, that concern
for the environmental impacts of tourism has come on the wings of a broader global concern
over the conservation of natural resources generated by the United Nations Human
Environment Conference of 1972, the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the Report of the
Brandt Commission (1980), and the Manila Declaration on World Tourism in 1980, which stated
that:

19
The use of tourism resources could not be left uncontrolled without running the risk of their
deterioration or even destruction. The satisfaction of tourism requirements must not be
prejudicial to the social and economic interests of the population in tourist areas, the
environment, and, above all, natural resources, which are the fundamental attractions of
tourism and historical and cultural sites. All tourism resources are part of humanity's heritage.
(cited in Romeril 1985:216)
In the same edition, Pearce (1985) reproduced a framework for the study of environmental
stress that was established by the OECD in 1981 and included stressor activities, the pressure
resulting from the activity, the primary environmental response, and the secondary human
response or reaction of the stress. Four main examples were identified in this framework
related to permanent environmental restructuring, generation of waste, tourist activities, and
effects on population dynamics, as shown in Table 4.1.
One of the most complete overviews of the history of ecological concern in the tourism
industry was written by Shackleford (1985). His review of tourism and the environment
suggests that the International Union of Official Travel Organisations, or IUOTO (the precursor
to the WTO), had been working with the environment in mind since the early 1950s through
the efforts of the Commission for Travel Development. From 1954 onwards, the protection of
heritage was an agenda item for this organization. Subsequent work by IUOTO led to the
recommendation by its Fifteenth General Assembly that world governments implement the
following 1960 resolution:
The General Assembly considers that nature, in its most noble and unchanging aspects,
constitutes and will continue increasingly in the future to constitute one of the essential
elements of the national or world tourist heritage. Believes that the time has come for it to deal
with the problems raised by the dangers threatening certain aspects of nature…. Consequently,
it is decided to recommend that all IUOTO Member Countries exercise increased vigilance
regarding the attacks made on their natural tourist resources.
(Shackleford 1985:260)
Other examples of environmental impact research in tourism in the 1980s include work by
Farrell and McLellan (1987) and Inskeep
107
(1987) in a special edition of the Annals of Tourism Research. Their
research suggests that planning and policy are critical components
of a more ecologically based tourism development strategy for the

20
future (more on policy in Chapter 5). For example, Inskeep (1987)
writes that determining the carrying capacity of tourist sites is an
important factor in the planning and design of appropriate tourist
facilities, a concept around which Mlinaric (1985) built his
discussion on tourism and the Mediterranean.
Up to and including the 1980s, few models had attempted to study tourism impacts from an
ecological standpoint. This notion is reinforced by Getz (1986), who identified only three
ecologically based frameworks in an analysis of over 40 tourism models. These included a
comprehensive model by Wall and Wright (1977), the OECD model mentioned above, and a
unique model by Murphy (1983), who made an analogy between the tourism industry (locals,
the industry and tourists) and predators and prey interacting within an ecosystem. Although
Getz’s work was completed some years ago, Dowling (1993) reports that little had changed with
respect to the implementation or creation of tourism development models from the
environmental disciplines. Fennell and Butler (in review) point to the fact that because social
scientists make inferences on ecological matters, there is much uncertainty with respect to the
ecological impacts of tourism. They also point to the fact that there is virtually no natural
science research emerging from the tourism journals to aid in the continuing struggle to come
to grips with the tourism impact dilemma, with the result being that impacts are often
anticipated but not controlled (see McKercher 1993b).
4.2. Recreational Carrying Capacity
The appropriate scale of tourism to an area depends on the size of the area, the resident
population, and the sensitivity of ecosystems. Scale is one of the most important factors in
managing ecotourism, for it is one of the key factors that separate ecotourism from mass
tourism. There is no doubt that ecotourism in some contexts does avoid many of the problems
of mass tourism- solely because it operates at a reduced scale. If many ecotourists travel to an
area or country, ecotourism begins to have the same problems as mass tourism.
Where nature tourism is significant throughout an entire country, it is necessary to look at the
costs and benefits and their distribution countrywide. In some cases, nature-based tourism may
be channeled to one section of a national park or one part of a communally owned area. This
may be an appropriate management strategy that concentrates the impacts, especially if
cultures or ecosystems are highly sensitive to outsiders. In other places, it may be better to
spread ecotourists thinly over a huge area and disperse negative impacts and benefits more
widely. Where ecotourism is limited in scale, such as a particular park, social, economic and
ecological assessment of ecotourism can be more limited in scope.
In many cases, it will be desirable to assist communities in developing the services for
ecotourism outside parks to reduce pressure on parks and to ensure that benefits go into

21
communities. What is appropriate and acceptable will depend on the type and level of services
appropriate within the park, park management objectives, the management options that exist,
and the skills and interests of communities living nearby. Clear answers on “what works best”
are impossible to provide since they change depending on the context.
Sites with the greatest potential for ecotourism are those with:
a) An interesting wildlife component that can be easily viewed;
b) Reasonably easy access, good communication and well-organized management;
c) An interesting cultural or historical attraction;
d) Economic competitiveness if the site doesn’t have some highly unique features, such as
mountain gorillas (Bacon, 1987; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991).
However, great potential alone does not always translate into great implementation or
successful conservation. Ecotourism has the potential to contribute to conservation if it is
appropriately managed and regulated; otherwise, what is true for Tangkoko Dau Saudara
Nature Reserve in Indonesia, where “ecotourists control Tangkoko, probably to the detriment
of wildlife,” will often be the case (Kinnaird and O’Brien, 1996:72). Substantial investments
need to be made to strengthen the management capacity of protected area authorities to
design and implement sustainable ecotourism and to ensure that tourism benefits the park and
does not degrade its biological values. For ecotourism benefits to provide financial benefits to
conservation, appropriate user fees and pricing policies, which reflect the real costs of services,
should be introduced with revenues reinvested into protected areas. If ecotourism is to provide
livelihood alternatives for local communities, a greater and more equitable generation of
benefits will have to be established (Wells and Brandon, 1992). Such activities should explicitly
link the generation of local economic benefits to protected area maintenance.
Negative impacts of visitors’ use that must be considered when setting visitor carrying capacity
include:
 Human overcrowding resulting in environmental stress; Animals showing changes in
behavior
 Erosion of trials or beaches;
 Overdevelopment with unsightly structure; Increased pollution, noise, litter, or resource
extraction;
 The harm of natural and culturally important features of the area.’
The concept of carrying capacity
Increasingly, researchers and practitioners have begun to recognize the dangers inherent in
accommodating an increasing number and diversity of experiences for a growing consumer-
based society. It is in an agency’s best interests to be aware of and sensitive to the broad range
of different user groups (non-recreational and recreational, including consumptive and non-

22
consumptive) in a setting and their various needs. Over time, managers have begun to learn
that sound planning and development of public and private lands must be viewed as the best
means by which to ensure the safety of the resource base first, even over the needs and
expectations of participants. These issues have been raised and debated extensively in the
literature on carrying capacity. The concept of carrying capacity is not new. Butler et al. (1992)
argue that for some time, people have worried about their excessive use of stocks of game and
other renewable resources, as suggested by this sixteenth-century poem:
But now the sport is marred, And wot ye why?
Fishes decrease, For fishers multiply.
In the strictest ecological sense, species maintain a balance between birth and death, as well as
predator-prey relationships within an ecosystem. It is the human factor and the manipulation
and exploitation of resources that offset this balance. Generally speaking, the concept of
carrying capacity can be loosely defined on the basis of the following four interrelated
elements: (1) the amount of use of a given kind, (2) a particular environment can endure, (3)
over time, (4) without degradation of its suitability for that use.
In the early 1960s, the concept was applied recreationally to determine ecological disturbance
from use (Lucas 1964; Wagar 1964). However, it was quickly discovered that an understanding
of ecological impact might be achieved only through the consideration of human values, as
evident in the following passage:
The study…was initiated with the view that the carrying capacity of recreation lands could be
determined primarily in terms of ecology and the deterioration of the areas. However, it soon
became obvious that the resource-oriented point of view must be augmented by consideration
of human values. (Wagar 1964:i)
This prompted researchers to try to balance the importance of both environmental impacts and
human perceptions in their various interpretations of the carrying capacity concept.
Typically, environmental impacts can be objectively measured through an analysis of ecological
conditions. In the outdoor recreation literature, a value judgment has been placed on the term
‘impact,’ denoting an undesirable change in environmental conditions (Hammitt and Cole
1987). The concern lies in understanding the type, amount, and rate of impact on the resource
base through recreational use. A campsite, for example, may be severely impacted over time by
accommodating high levels of use. Significant changes may occur to the ecology of the site as
evident through the compaction of soil (e.g., exposing roots and increasing erosion), vegetation
(e.g., using both dead and live tree limbs for the construction of fires and trampling saplings),
wildlife (e.g., habitat modification, and animal harassment), and water (e.g., the addition of
human waste and chemical toxins to the aquatic environment). The heaviest impact on a
campsite, however, occurs during the first couple of years of use, and the impact subsides over
time as the site becomes harder and harder (see Figure 4.1). These data provide strong
evidence to suggest that new campsites ought not to be developed, but rather that existing

23
ones (i.e., directing use to these areas) ensure the least amount of disruption to the resource
base.
From the sociological perspective, carrying capacity becomes much more dynamic and difficult
to measure. The complications arise when considering the level or limit to the amount of use
that is appropriate for a specific resource. Owing to the nature of the resource as a subjective,
perceptual entity, different types of users will have different needs and expectations of the
resource. Consequently, the tolerance of these user groups (e.g., jet-boaters and canoeists) to
one another will vary. To compound the matter further, the tolerance of individuals within
groups (intragroup tolerance) will also vary. To take canoeists as an example, each individual
within this recreational group will also have certain experiential expectations. Encounters with
other canoe parties (or other user types), the density of use (the number of users per unit
area), and the perception of crowding (the behavioral response to such encounters) will differ
for these individuals over space and time.
Researchers and managers have consistently argued that the goal of recreation management is
to maximize user satisfaction (Lucas and Stankey 1974). Despite this agreement, past research
has generally failed to document the empirical relationships between use levels and visitor
satisfaction deemed necessary for the development of evaluative standards for the
management of a resource. Shelby and Heberlein (1986) measured perceived crowding and
satisfaction through the importance of use levels and encounters in their analysis of river
rafters, canoeists, tubers (people who float down rivers on rubber tubes), fishers, deer hunters,
and goose hunters in the western United States. Use levels provided an objective measurement
that evaluated how many people were using the resource. Encounters were determined by
having a researcher follow groups and count the number of contacts they had with others or by
simply asking users to report contacts with others. The authors hypothesized that:
1 As use levels and encounters increased, perceived crowding would increase.
2 As use levels and encounters increased, satisfaction would decrease.
Their findings illustrate that higher use levels (the number of people using a resource) do not
always make people feel more crowded. There was a stronger relationship between contacts
and perceived crowding. Generally, people felt more crowded as contacts increased for all
activities except rafting when compared with use levels. This is expected because the number
of people one actually sees should have a greater impact than the overall number using the
area. Crowding means too many people, but use levels and contacts do not entirely explain
feelings of crowdedness.
The authors also used the use level and encounter variables to test whether or not satisfaction
decreased with increasing levels of use. Results suggest that recreationists were just as satisfied
at high-use levels as they were at low-use levels. In fact, in all cases, low-use level visitors were
not significantly more satisfied than high-use level visitors. A number of authors, including
Shelby and Heberlein (1986), Pitt and Zube (1987), Stankey and McCool (1984), and Graefe et
al. (1984a), indicate that the weak relationship between satisfaction and perceived crowding

24
occurs for a number of differing normative/perceptual reasons. They offer the following as
explanations for this poor relationship:
• Self-selection. People choose recreational activities they enjoy
and avoid those they do not. There is an expected high level of
satisfaction, regardless of the use level, because people will
select experiences they will enjoy.
• Product shift. Users may change their definitions of recreation
experiences to cope with excessive encounter levels. As a result, they may remain satisfied as
contacts increase. In addition, the contacts themselves may play a role in changing the
definition of the situation (hikers seeing more people in the
wilderness may change the definition of the experience).
• Displacement. Individuals who are truly sensitive to high-density relationships may have
already moved out of the environment being studied to a less intensively used area, being
replaced by those less sensitive to high-density.
• Multiple sources of satisfaction. Satisfaction is a broad psychological construct. The number of
other people is only one
of many things that might affect satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
• Rationalising. Recreationists may make the best of even a bad
situation, focusing on positive aspects and minimizing those
that are less pleasant. People who complain about the number
of others on a river are still likely to have a good time by
learning to ignore the negative aspects of seeing others.
• Activity-specific influences. The response of individuals to
contact with others may vary according to the types of activities and behavior encountered. An
individual may be quite
tolerant of contact with hikers and extremely intolerant of
contact with off-road vehicles. The extent to which one type
of use impacts another depends upon the social and personal
norms visitors use to evaluate the appropriateness of specific
behaviors.
• Conceptualisation and measurement of satisfaction may be

25
inadequate. The multidimensional character of experience, by
definition, makes the likelihood of high correlations between
a unidimensional overall satisfaction scale highly unlikely.
Research is beginning to show that people can be satisfied and
dissatisfied with their experience at the same time. Graefe et
al. (1984b) found that 71 percent of visitors to a Recreation
Wilderness Area considered their trip excellent or perfect.
However, 41 per cent also included the comment that they
experienced at least one dissatisfying incident during their visit.
The above seven variables illustrate that the measurement of an individual’s level of perceived
crowding/satisfaction is difficult to attain. Recreationists may either adjust to a dissatisfying
situation through a product shift, adapt to the situation, rationalize the experience, or displace
entirely from the site. The social and personal normative values that an individual might use to
evaluate a site are unique and specific. This, coupled with inadequate measures of user
satisfaction, may create a tremendous void between what managers feel they know about
human-resource relationships and what they do not.
Defining and operationalizing carrying capacity is further complicated by the necessity of
considering management objectives, the effects of use on environmental quality, and the
effects of use on user and host desires and expectations (Hovinen 1981; Wall 1982; Stankey and
McCool 1984; Haywood 1986; O’Reilly 1986). The findings of Butler et al. (1992), in an extensive
review of literature, concur that the concept of carrying capacity requires adept management.
No mythical figure exists to limit the amount of use in an area; rather, different cultural and
natural areas have different capacities. Instead, research has leaned more in the direction of
normative values in understanding the needs of different types of users. Normative approaches
provide information on specific user groups about appropriate use conditions and levels of
impact related to individual activities. In doing so, they provide information (either qualitative
or quantitative) that natural resource managers may use to establish management standards
(Shelby and Vaske 1991). For example, it is not necessarily acceptable to suggest that, for
example, 413 people are allowed to use a park throughout the weekend. Although many parks
and protected areas still maintain a numerical limit in controlling numbers, it becomes the task
of the park manager to know the levels of expectations, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and
crowding of different types of users (i.e., motorboaters are likely to be able to withstand more
use of the resource than canoeists, while canoeists would probably perceive the appearance of
motorized craft as a threat to their experience; whereas the reverse might not be true).
The job of managing services and activities at a site, therefore, becomes a significant task. Park
personnel must be receptive to queues not only from the physical resource base (e.g., plant
trampling and garbage) but also from visitors when establishing regulations of where and what
people can do. Pitt and Zube (1987) illustrate that once a resource manager has determined

26
that the implementation of some form of recreational use limitation is necessary, any of the
three overlapping courses of action needs to be considered.
Carrying capacity
The carrying capacity concept originated in the 1970s. Its central idea ‘is that environmental
factors set limits on the population that an area can sustain. When these limits are exceeded, the quality of the
environment suffers and ultimately, its ability to support that population’ (Stankey, 1991: 12). It was believed that
objective, biological studies could determine the capacity of an area’s natural resources, establishing how much use
the environment could cope with and regulating access to the resource. According to Stankey (1991: 11), this
‘scientific’ basis explains the wide appeal of carrying capacity as a recreation and tourism management concept.
There are three main elements of tourism carrying capacity:
Biophysical (ecological) – which relates to the natural environment.
Socio-cultural – which relates primarily to the impact on the host population and its culture.
Facility – which relates to the visitor experience.
Carrying capacity varies according to season and, over time, factors such as tourists’ behavioral patterns, facility
design and management, the dynamic character of the environment, and the changing attitudes of the host
community will all vary in differing ways, thus affecting its determination.
However, carrying capacity has not been as useful as anticipated. Perhaps it was expected to reveal precisely ‘how
many is too many?’ Instead, depending on assumptions and values, the result has been ‘widely varying capacity
estimates’ of types and levels of use (Stankey, 1991: 12). There are a wide range of differing values and perceptions
of what an ‘unacceptable impact’ is. There are no absolute measurements of the resource’s condition that can be
defined as constituting ‘crowding’ or ‘resource damage’ (Stankey, 1991: 13).
As social issues, management, as well as natural resources affect the calculation of carrying capacity, it is not
possible to come up with a number beyond which unacceptable impacts occur: ‘To prevent most impact, it would be
necessary to limit use to very low levels’ (Stankey, 1991: 13). People continue to use an area for recreational
activities even when it is obviously having an impact on the resource. This stems from the absence of an adequate
framework that links the relationship between visitor expectations, use and impact and management decisions
(Stankey and McCool, 1985).
Carrying capacity analysis then has been virtually ignored because of the complexity of the parameters. Although
tourism operators can be conscious that too many visitors will degrade the environment and diminish the experience
of their clients in both recreation and tourism, there are very few examples of it being used by agencies to
successfully limit tourism (cf. Stankey et al., 1990).
Solutions to the problems of overuse and crowding differ depending on the policies of agencies managing
wilderness (Watson, 1989: 394). A study conducted in 1987, for example, found that only 6 out of 38 wilderness
managers had estimated recreational carrying capacity, even though most were concerned about the overuse of parks
(Watson, 1989). Canada recognized the concept’s deficiencies, such as ignoring the social aspects, and went on to
develop more broad-based concepts. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is based on assumptions and tenets
borrowed from other lines of research (Driver et al., 1987: 210).
The concept of carrying capacity
Increasingly, researchers and practitioners have begun to recognize the dangers inherent in
accommodating an increasing number and diversity of experiences for a growing consumer-based
society. It is in an agency’s best interests to be aware of and sensitive to the broad range of
different user groups (non-recreational and recreational, including consumptive and non-
consumptive) in a setting and their various needs. Over time, managers have begun to learn that
sound planning and development of public and private lands must be viewed as the best means by
which to ensure the safety of the resource base first, even over the needs and expectations of

27
participants. These issues have been raised and debated extensively in the literature on carrying
capacity. The concept of carrying capacity is not new. Butler et al. (1992)
argue that for some time, people have worried about their excessive use of stocks of game and
other renewable resources, as suggested by this sixteenth-century poem:
But now the sport is marred, And wot ye why?
Fishes decrease, For fishers multiply.
In the strictest ecological sense, species maintain a balance between birth and death, as well as
predator-prey relationships within an ecosystem. It is the human factor and the manipulation
and exploitation of resources that offset this balance. Generally speaking, the concept of carrying
capacity can be loosely defined on the basis of the following four interrelated elements: (1) the
amount of use of a given kind, (2) a particular environment can endure, (3) over time, (4)
without degradation of its suitability for that use.
In the early 1960s, the concept was applied recreationally to determine ecological disturbance
from use (Lucas 1964; Wagar 1964). However, it was quickly discovered that an understanding
of ecological impact might be achieved only through the consideration of human values, as evident
in the following passage:
The study…was initiated with the view that the carrying capacity of recreation lands could be
determined primarily in terms of ecology and the deterioration of the areas. However, it soon
became obvious that the resource-oriented point of view.
It must be augmented by consideration of human values. His prompted researchers to try to
balance the importance of both environmental impacts and human perceptions in their various
interpretations of the carrying capacity concept.
Typically, environmental impacts can be objectively measured through an analysis of ecological
conditions. In the outdoor recreation literature, a value judgment has been placed on the term
‘impact,’ denoting an undesirable change in environmental conditions (Hammitt and Cole 1987).
The concern lies in understanding the type, amount, and rate of impact on the resource base
through recreational use. A campsite, for example, may be severely impacted over time by
accommodating high levels of use. Significant changes may occur to the ecology of the site as
evident through the compaction of soil (e.g., exposing roots and increasing erosion), vegetation
(e.g., using both dead and live tree limbs for the construction of fires and trampling saplings),
wildlife (e.g., habitat modification, and animal harassment), and water (e.g., the addition of
human waste and chemical toxins to the aquatic environment). The heaviest impact on a
campsite, however, occurs during the first couple of years of use, and the impact subsides over
time as the site becomes harder and harder (see Figure 4.1). These data provide strong evidence
to suggest that new campsites ought not to be developed, but rather that existing ones (i.e.,
directing use to these areas) ensure the least amount of disruption to the resource base.
From the sociological perspective, carrying capacity becomes much more dynamic and difficult to
measure. The complications arise when considering the level or limit to the amount of use that

28
is appropriate for a specific resource. Owing to the nature of the resource as a subjective,
perceptual entity, different types of users will have different needs and expectations of the
resource. Consequently, the tolerance of these user groups (e.g., jet-boaters and canoeists) to
one another will vary. To compound the matter further, the tolerance of individuals within
groups (intragroup tolerance) will also vary. To take canoeists as an example, each individual
within this recreational group will also have certain experiential expectations. Encounters with
other canoe parties (or other user types), the density of use (the number of users per unit
area), and the perception of crowding (the behavioral response to such encounters) will differ
for these individuals over space and time.
Researchers and managers have consistently argued that the goal of recreation management is to
maximize user satisfaction (Lucas and Stankey 1974). Despite this agreement, past research has
generally failed to document the empirical relationships between use levels and visitor satisfaction
deemed necessary for the development of evaluative standards for the management of a
resource. Shelby and Heberlein (1986) measured perceived crowding and satisfaction through the
importance of use levels and encounters in their analysis of river rafters, canoeists, tubers
(people who float down rivers on rubber tubes), fishers, deer hunters, and goose hunters in the
western United States. Use levels provided an objective measurement that evaluated how many
people were using the resource. Encounters were determined by having a researcher follow groups
and count the number of contacts they had with others or by simply asking users to report
contacts with others. The authors hypothesized that:
1 As use levels and encounters increased, perceived crowding would increase.
2 As use levels and encounters increased, satisfaction would decrease.
Their findings illustrate that higher use levels (the number of people using a resource) do not
always make people feel more crowded. There was a stronger relationship between contacts and
perceived crowding. Generally, people felt more crowded as contacts increased for all activities
except rafting when compared with use levels. This is expected because the number of people one
actually sees should have a greater impact than the overall number using the area. Crowding
means too many people, but use levels and contacts do not entirely explain feelings of
crowdedness.
The authors also used the use level and encounter variables to test whether or not satisfaction
decreased with increasing levels of use. Results suggest that recreationists were just as satisfied
at high-use levels as they were at low-use levels. In fact, in all cases, low-use level visitors were
not significantly more satisfied than high-use level visitors. A number of authors, including Shelby
and Heberlein (1986), Pitt and Zube (1987), Stankey and McCool (1984), and Graefe et al.
(1984a), indicate that the weak relationship between satisfaction and perceived crowding occurs
for a number of differing normative/perceptual reasons. They offer the following as explanations
for this poor relationship:
• Self-selection. People choose recreational activities they enjoy
and avoid those they do not. There is an expected high level of

29
satisfaction, regardless of the use level, because people will
select experiences they will enjoy.
• Product shift. Users may change their definitions of recreation
experiences to cope with excessive encounter levels. As a result, they may remain satisfied as
contacts increase. In addition, the contacts themselves may play a role in changing the
definition of the situation (hikers seeing more people in the
wilderness may change the definition of the experience).
• Displacement. Individuals who are truly sensitive to high-density relationships may have already
moved out of the environment being studied to a less intensively used area, being replaced by
those less sensitive to high-density.
• Multiple sources of satisfaction. Satisfaction is a broad psychological construct. The number of
other people is only one
116
of many things that might affect satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
• Rationalising. Recreationists may make the best of even a bad
situation, focusing on positive aspects and minimizing those
that are less pleasant. People who complain about the number
of others on a river are still likely to have a good time by
learning to ignore the negative aspects of seeing others.
• Activity-specific influences. The response of individuals to
contact with others may vary according to the types of activities and behavior encountered. An
individual may be quite
tolerant of contact with hikers and extremely intolerant of
contact with off-road vehicles. The extent to which one type
of use impacts another depends upon the social and personal
norms visitors use to evaluate the appropriateness of specific
behaviors.
• Conceptualisation and measurement of satisfaction may be
inadequate. The multidimensional character of experience, by
definition, makes the likelihood of high correlations between
a unidimensional overall satisfaction scale highly unlikely.
Research is beginning to show that people can be satisfied and
dissatisfied with their experience at the same time. Graefe et
al. (1984b) found that 71 percent of visitors to a Recreation
Wilderness Area considered their trip excellent or perfect.
However, 41 percent also included the comment that they
experienced at least one dissatisfying incident during their
visit.

30
The above seven variables illustrate that the measurement of an individual’s level of perceived
crowding/satisfaction is difficult to attain. Recreationists may either adjust to a dissatisfying
situation through a product shift, adapt to the situation, rationalize the experience, or displace
entirely from the site. The social and personal normative values that an individual might use to
evaluate a site are unique and specific. This, coupled with inadequate measures of user
satisfaction, may create a tremendous void between what managers feel they know about
human-resource relationships and what they do not.
117
Defining and operationalizing carrying capacity is further complicated by the necessity of
considering management objectives, the effects of use on environmental quality, and the effects
of use on user and host desires and expectations (Hovinen 1981; Wall 1982; Stankey and McCool
1984; Haywood 1986; O’Reilly 1986). The findings of Butler et al. (1992), in an extensive
review of literature, concur that the concept of carrying capacity requires adept management.
No mythical figure exists to limit the amount of use in an area; rather, different cultural and
natural areas have different capacities. Instead, research has leaned more in the direction of
normative values in understanding the needs of different types of users. Normative approaches
provide information on specific user groups about appropriate use conditions and levels of impact
related to individual activities. In doing so, they provide information (either qualitative or
quantitative) that natural resource managers may use to establish management standards
(Shelby and Vaske 1991). For example, it is not necessarily acceptable to suggest that, for
example, 413 people are allowed to use a park throughout the weekend. Although many parks
and protected areas still maintain a numerical limit in controlling numbers, it becomes the task
of the park manager to know the levels of expectations, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and
crowding of different types of users (i.e., motorboaters are likely to be able to withstand more
use of the resource than canoeists, while canoeists would probably perceive the appearance of
motorized craft as a threat to their experience; whereas the reverse might not be true).
The job of managing services and activities at a site, therefore, becomes a significant task. Park
personnel must be receptive to queues not only from the physical resource base (e.g., plant
trampling and garbage) but also from visitors when establishing regulations of where and what
people can do. Pitt and Zube (1987) illustrate that once a resource manager has determined
that the implementation of some form of recreational use limitation is necessary, any of the
three overlapping courses of action needs to be considered.
Site management techniques
Site management techniques focus on improving the environment’s ecological capacity to accommodate use. This
involves surface treatments (soil management) designed to harden the site where use occurs and includes approaches
that channel circulation and use into more resilient parts of the environment. Also, capital improvements may be
developed in underutilized portions of the environment to draw people out of overused areas.
Overt management approaches
Overt management approaches aim at direct regulation of user behavior. They take several forms:
1 Spatial and temporal zoning of use (decreasing conflict of
incompatible uses, such as cross-country skiing versus

31
snowmobiling).
2 Restrictions of use intensity (decreasing the number of users
in the environment through the closing of trails).
3 Restrictions on activities/enforcement of user regulations.
Information and education programs
An alternative to heavy-handed overt methods:
1 Informing users about the recreational resources and current
levels of use.
2 Making the users more sensitive to the potential impacts of their
behaviors might have on the environment.
3) Give the manager and the users a chance to exchange information concerning user needs and management
activities (e.g.
brochures to describe entry point users and the usual intensity of
use of different trails in order to distribute users more widely).
The regulation of visitor behavior is a common approach to addressing management problems at recreation sites
(Frost and
119
McCool 1988). Such regulations often go beyond prohibitions on litter, alcohol, noise, and so forth and directly
restrict what tourists can do at a site, where they may go, and how many may be in an area at a certain time (overt
management approach). Therefore, a tourist who wants to maintain a high degree of internal control might perceive
the level of regimentation as too high within a certain opportunity, thus eliminating that alternative from
consideration. (There is more in Chapter 5 on regulation as it applies specifically to tourism.)
In a study of Glacier National Park, rangers were given the task of managing visitors to this attraction, as well as
protecting the eagles as an endangered species (each autumn recreationist comes to view feeding bald eagles).
Restrictions on use included prohibitions against entry where the eagles congregate, restrictions on automobile
movement and parking, and close-up viewing available only at a bridge and a blind, but only with the
accompaniment of a naturalist (acting as an interpreter and distributing brochures to visitors). With this in mind, the
goals of the research were to understand how visitors responded to the current level of restrictions on behavior and
how such factors as knowledge of the rationale for restrictions influenced these responses.
The authors discovered that 88 percent of the visitors said they were aware of the park’s restrictions and that almost
90 percent of these visitors felt that such restrictions were necessary, with only about 3 percent feeling that they
were not. Of the visitors who were aware of restrictions, 56 percent felt that these had no significant influence on
their experience, almost 32 percent felt that restrictions facilitated their experience, and 12 percent felt that
restrictions detracted from the experience. When such restrictions were correlated with the concept of protecting the
eagles, results indicated that visitors overwhelmingly support closures that minimize the negative impact on eagles.
Only 4 percent of visitors perceived the opportunity to view eagles as a higher priority than eagle protection.
This study illustrates that visitors may have prior expectations for a certain degree of social control. The authors felt
that visitors were likely to view management actions as acceptable and view the regulations as enhancing the
attainment of certain outcomes, such as
120
learning about nature (Frost and McCool 1988). Visitors who viewed the restrictions as unacceptable may ultimately
be displaced. In addition, visitors were further impressed because they knew where and why closures and
restrictions applied. This fact verifies the importance of the interpretive program as a complement to management
actions that regulate visitor behavior. (More on interpretation in Chapter 6.)
Similar research has been conducted in New Jersey on the effects that ecotourists have on a variety of bird species in
this region. Burger et al. (1995) report that birds are not consistent in their responses to human intrusions and
identify ecotourists as having the potential to disturb birds at all times of the year. This, according to the authors, is a
result of the fact that ecotourists are interested in the breeding, wintering, and migration patterns of birds. For this
reason, they have the potential to interrupt incubation, scare parents and chicks from nests, disturb foraging, disrupt
the prey base, force birds away from traditional habitats such as beaches, forests, and open fields, trample
vegetation, and overuse trails. These authors felt that ecotourists and birds can coexist but only as the result of
careful management of the resource, where each setting and species demands careful study and monitoring. They
suggest the employment of the following measurements (Burger et al. 1995:64):

32
1 response distance: the distance between the bird and the intruder at which the bird makes some visible or
measurable
response;
2 flushing distance: the distance at which the bird actually leaves
the site where it is nesting or feeding;
3 approach distance: the distance to which one can approach a
bird, head-on, without disturbing it, and
4 tolerance distance: the distance to which one can approach a
bird without disturbing it, but in reference to passing by the
bird tangentially.
One of the most notable uses of carrying capacity in the tourism literature was developed by Butler (1980),
FIGURE 4.2 The tourist area life cycle Source: Reprinted from Butler 1980
product life cycle concept to apply to the life cycle of tourist destinations (Figure 4.2). Butler’s
basic premise was that increases in visitation to an area can be followed by a decrease in
visitation as the carrying capacity of the destination is reached. Destination areas are said to
undergo a fairly uniform transformation over time, from early exploration and involvement
through to consolidation and stagnation, as the structure of the industry changes to
accommodate more visitation and competing resorts. The implications of this research are such

33
that planners and managers need to be concerned with any sustained decline in the ecological
quality of the destination, as this will ultimately spell the demise of the development due to
waning attractiveness to tourists. This is a good example of a conceptualization that applies to
the social, ecological, and economic implications of tourism in a particular destination setting.
FIGURE 4.2 The tourist area life cycle
Source: Reprinted from Butler 1980
122
More recently, researchers have focused on deriving empirical measurements of this evolution of a
destination, especially island environments (Meyer-Arendt 1985; Cooper and Jackson 1989;
Debbage 1990; Weaver 1990). The utility of the life cycle concept has implications in delineating
carrying capacity limits and the social and environmental complications of ‘over usage’ in tourism
destinations. Clearly defining the nature and characteristics of use of these areas must be a
priority.
The Galápagos Islands of Ecuador is a case where carrying capacities have been considered as a
means by which to control impact through the limitation of numbers of tourists on a yearly
basis. The problem identified in the Galápagos is that despite the limitations on numbers visiting
the islands, visitation annually increases beyond the limits set by management personnel because
the economic impact of tourism is seen as the solution to the economic woes of this developing
country, despite the efforts of researchers who recognize that the integrity of this precious
global resource is in jeopardy owing to the inability of the government to limit numbers. De
Groot (1983) and Kenchington (1989) call attention to the fact that:
1 Patrol boats do not always control tourism numbers on the
islands effectively.
2 The official limit of 90 tourists on an island at a time is often
overlooked.
3 The number of tourists is still increasing. Total visitation has
not been, but should be, kept under control.
These researchers suggest that tourism numbers have been controlled ineffectively and
inappropriately through airport capacity limits rather than by limits set in accordance with
ecosystem sensitivity defined by park planning and management. Thus, even in a well-known and
highly significant area, problems of overuse and visitor management still arise. Wallace (1993)
feels that the growth of the private sector has been instrumental in dictating the course of
action in the Galápagos. Park officials have found it difficult to enforce levels of acceptable use,
zoning, and the
123
distribution of permits owing to understaffing and other broader political issues. The result is
that park managers do not feel as though they are in charge of the park's operations.

34
The general nature of Butler’s model has ensured its applicability in just about any tourism
situation. The rather unfortunate reality of his conceptualization is that in many ways, the life
cycle concept occurs today in much the same way as it did in the early 1980s when it was
conceived (i.e., carrying capacities are still exceeded, large hotels still extract as much out of the
destination as possible). Given the preceding discussion on sustainable tourism and AT, it is
worthwhile to attempt to reconceptualize Butler’s model while taking into consideration how
such a cycle would, or rather should, proceed under ideal hypothetical sustainable tourism
conditions. Figure 4.3 attempts to do this, emphasizing the relative importance of economic,
social, and ecological variables in establishing reasonable and long-term levels of carrying capacity
within ecotourism destinations. The model illustrates that destination areas will respond to the
competing economic, social and ecological demands in ways that respect the integrity of the
resource base and local inhabitants. The overall level of visitation is intentionally kept below the
identified level of acceptable use over the long term, with potentially minor increases in use
consistent with the ability of the environment to absorb such increases. Price mechanisms would,
therefore, be implemented to ensure that acceptable financial gains are realized from the
enterprise.
A logical manifestation of the carrying capacity concept has been the development of a number
of preformed planning and management frameworks designed with the purpose of matching visitor
preferences with specific settings in parks and protected areas. The ultimate aim of such
frameworks is the protection of the resource base and the assurance that people are able to
enjoy their recreational experiences in managed settings. Examples of these models include the
recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), the limits of acceptable change (LAC), the visitor
impact management (VIM) process, and the visitor activity management Process (see Payne and
Graham 1993 for a good description of these frameworks).
Despite the relative success of these models in the realm of outdoor recreation management,
tourism researchers have only gradually used and accepted these frameworks. This has generally
been the result of the fact that these frameworks have not been developed specifically for
tourism. In response to this fact, Butler and Waldbrook (1991) adapted the ROS into a Tourism
Opportunity Spectrum designed to incorporate accessibility, tourism infrastructure, social
interaction, and other factors into the planning and development of tourism. More recently, this
framework has evolved into ECOS, or the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (Boyd and Butler
1996). This model incorporates access, other resource-related activities, attractions offered,
existing infrastructure, social interaction, levels of skill and knowledge, and acceptance of visitor
impacts as a means by which to plan and manage ecotourism in situ. Conversely, Harroun (1994)
outlines the applicability of both the VIM (Loomis and Graefe 1992) and the LAC as a means
by which to analyze the ecological impacts of tourism in developing countries. The main focus of
these frameworks is to prompt decision-makers to ensure that an
125

35
acceptable management framework is instituted prior to the tourism development process.
The environmentally-based tourism (EBT) planning framework of Dowling (1993), however, is one
such model that was developed specifically for tourism (instead of, for example, outdoor
recreation). This model is grounded in the environmental disciplines and recognizes that
sustainable tourism planning can be accomplished only through a strong linkage between tourism
development and environmental conservation. The EBT determines environmentally compatible
tourism through the identification and linking of (1) significant features, including valued
environmental attributes and tourism features; (2) critical areas, those in which environmental
and tourism features are in competition and possible conflict; and (3) compatible activities,
which include outdoor recreation activities considered to be environmentally and socially
compatible. The EBT is based on five main stages and 10 processes (Figure 4.4).
In general, the objectives stage of the model is important in that it involves the setting of the
parameters of the study through discussions with the government, local people, and tourists. It
also involves consideration of existing policies affecting the study region, as well as the
relationship between use and supply as they relate to tourism. In the second stage of the
model, both environmental attributes (abiotic, biotic and cultural features) and tourism
resources (attractions, accessibility, and services) are assessed and integrated into a
categorization of sites. In the third stage, an evaluation of the significant features, critical areas,
and compatible activities and their relationship to each other is made, involving an overlay of
both tourism and environmental attribute data. In stage 4, the identified significant features,
critical areas, and compatible activities are matched with zones (i.e., sanctuary, nature
conservation, outdoor recreation, and tourism development) and nodes, hinterlands, and corridors
identified at earlier stages of the project. The end product of this stage is a map identifying the
region’s environmental units within the various zones. In the final stage, the process is presented
as part of an overall regional management plan. Discussions with resource managers are further.

36
FIGURE 4.3 A sustainable ecotourism cycle of evolution

38
FIGURE 4.4 The environmentally-based tourism planning framework
Source: Dowling 1993
required, and associated amendments to the plan in accordance with other land uses in order for
the tourism-environment plan to be implemented. The uniqueness of such a framework, as
outlined by Dowling, is its environmental foundation, the incorporation of tourist and local
opinions, the process of achieving tourism-environment compatibility, and the fact that it
presents itself as one of the only sustainable tourism planning models in existence.
Assessment of ecological impacts
As identified in the previous discussion, a number of positive changes have occurred in tourism-
environment research in the 1990s that relate to a better understanding of how the tourism
industry has the potential to compromise the integrity of the natural world. In particular,
research has endeavored to focus on the specific impacts of tourism in a number of different
case studies, which is evident in both tourism and non-tourism journals (see, for example,
Barnwell and Thomas 1995; Farr and Rogers 1994; León and González 1995; and Price and Firaq
1996); and secondly to an interest in designing better ways of quantifying, and therefore
assessing such impacts. Goodwin (1995) writes that because tourists have been found to be
bigger consumers of resources than local people at tourist destinations, careful environmental
assessments of all new tourist developments are essential in documenting such overuse.
Interesting, however, is that in an unrelated study on the perceptions of tourists,
entrepreneurs, and locals in relation to who was responsible for the environmental impacts of
tourism on Mykonos, Greece, Kavallinis and Pizam (1994) discovered that tourists felt that
entrepreneurs and locals were more responsible for such impacts than themselves and that local
people considered themselves to be more responsible for ecological impacts, relative to the other
two groups.
In an effort to better understand and control the effects of tourism development,
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) have been employed to help quantify and qualify
tourism impacts (Green and Hunter 1992). Although EIAs have been the topic of discussion for
some twenty years in land use and planning, it is only more recently
128
that they have been incorporated into the tourism development process. In general, the function
of an EIA is to identify non-monetary impacts and thus enable developers to use resources
efficiently to achieve a reasonably sustainable product over the long term. In addition, the
importance of community wellbeing is an important consideration in the process of conducting
EIAs in that there is a move to reconsider them as not only a function of the built and natural
environments but rather as a process that encompasses the needs of people in these settings.
Mitchell (1989) acknowledges that operationally, EIAs sometimes fail, owing to limitations in
researchers’ basic knowledge (i.e., cause and effect relationships) of the system—the social and
ecological conditions of the site—under study. He stresses the value of pure research in
addressing this lack of information. However, before such ‘hard’ data are collected, a substantial

39
amount of ‘soft’ or qualitative data must be amassed in order to direct the more quantitative
aspects of EIA (Green and Hunter 1992). These researchers emphasize the importance of
methodological approaches such as the Delphi technique in allowing a subjective assessment of
tourism developments by a series of stakeholders likely to be affected by the development. (The
Delphi technique incorporates the use of successive rounds of a survey in gaining consensus on a
particular issue. Surveys are repeatedly sent to experts in this process of reaching a consensus.)
Typically, people involved in the Delphi include experts in various fields such as planners, tourism
officials, academics, engineers, environmental health officers, and so on, but also residents and
other affected stakeholders. Only after such information is collected, according to Green and
Hunter, should more formal aspects of the EIA occur. It, therefore, gives many people the
opportunity to aid in the process of identifying potential impacts that might not be recognizable
to the planning team.
There can be little question that significant gains can be made by incorporating local people into
the planning and development of an ecotourism project. In the delivery of other recreation
products, the term ‘positive affect’ refers to the need that people have to exert some influence
or control, however minor, in shaping their recreation experiences (e.g., through suggestions).
Good recreation programmers, therefore, know that positive leisure experiences are, in many
cases, contingent upon the satisfaction that people get in being asked to comment on various
ways of offering a program in which they have been or will be participating. In tourism
development, positive affect provides some theoretical basis for allowing local people to control,
at least in part, the events that unfold within their community. As we know, much tourism
development in the past has occurred without the consent of the vast majority of community
members (see Chapter 7 for more discussion on community development in tourism).
4.3. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
ROS is a framework for prescribing carrying capacities and managing recreational impacts. The process is largely
judgemental but establishes explicit standards regarding appropriate conditions for each opportunity class.
Determining carrying capacities for recreational areas establishes conditions of use that are considered appropriate
for each opportunity type and provides a means of assessing the relative numbers of persons as a result of changing
opportunity types (cf. Stankey, 1991).
The ROS approach shifted attention from the type and amount of use an area receives to the
biophysical, social and managerial attributes of the park setting (Prosser, 1986: 7). ROS was further developed to
provide a logical series of interrelated steps for natural area planning. This new framework is known as the Limits of
Acceptable Change (LAC) system (Prosser, 1986: 6).
The ROS focuses on the setting in which recreation occurs. A recreation opportunity spectrum is the combination of
physical, biological, social and managerial conditions that give value to a place (Clark and Stankey, 1979). ROS has
been described as a framework for presenting carrying capacities and managing recreational impacts. The ROS
provides a systematic framework for looking at the actual distribution of opportunities and a procedure for assessing
possible management actions.
Clark and Stankey (1979) initially proposed a series of four levels of development, or management classes under the
ROS, i.e.:
 semi-modern
 modern
 semi-primitive
 primitive.

40
Factors used to describe management classes were:
 access
 other non-recreational resource uses
 on-site management
 social interaction
 acceptability of visitor impacts
 acceptable level of regimentation.
Limitations of the ROS are related to its basis in recreational carrying capacity, which is seen as the product of
technical assessments, as opposed to value judgments that weigh resource and social impacts, along with human
needs and values (McCool, 1990).
Visitor Impact Management
The Visitor Impact Management process involves a combination of legislation/policy review, scientific problem
identification (both social and natural) and analysis and professional judgment (Payne and Graham, 1993). The
principles of VIM are as follows.
 Identifying unacceptable changes occurring as a result of visitor use and developing management strategies
to keep visitor impacts within acceptable levels.
 Integrating visitor impact management into existing agency planning, design and management processes.
 Basing visitor impact management on the best scientific understanding and situational information
available.
 Determining management objectives that identify the resource condition to be achieved and the type of
recreation experience to be provided.
 Identifying visitor impact problems by comparing standards for acceptable conditions with key indicators
of impact at designated times and locations.
 Basing management decisions to reduce impacts or maintain acceptable conditions on knowledge of the
probable sources of and interrelationships between unacceptable impacts.
 Addressing visitor impacts using a wide range of alternative management techniques.
 Formulating visitor management objectives, which incorporate a range of acceptable impact levels, to
accommodate the diversity of environments and experience opportunities present within any natural setting
(Graefe et al., 1990).
Both LAC and VIM frameworks rely on indicators and standards as a means of defining impacts deemed
unacceptable and placing carrying capacities into a broader managerial context. However, VIM refers to planning
and policy and includes identifying the probable causes of impacts, whereas LAC places more emphasis on defining
opportunity classes (Graefe et al., 1990; Payne and Graham, 1993).
Visitor Activity Management Process
Whereas the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Limits of Acceptable Change relied on the management of the
resource, the emphasis on the Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP) shifted back to the user of the
resource. VAMP is built on the previously developed Visitor Impact Management (VIM). It has received relatively
little attention in recreation management journals, whereas VAMP has been written about extensively in the USA
and Canada.
The Visitor Activity Management Process relates to interpretation and visitor services. This
framework involves the development of activity profiles that connect activities with:
 the social and demographic characteristics of the participants;
 the activity setting requirements, and
 trends affecting the activity.
The VAMP framework is designed to operate in parallel with the natural resource management process.
VAMP is a proactive, flexible, decision-building framework that can contribute to a more integrated approach to the
management of protected areas. It has the potential to develop better information about customary users,
stakeholders, visitors and non-visitors (Graham, 1990: 280). Information on both natural and social sciences is used
to ‘build’ decisions about access and use of protected areas. It also incorporates a format for evaluating the
effectiveness of meeting public needs (Graham, 1990: 281).
VAMP is not a process to justify random development at a site; rather, it is an aid to understanding visitor behavior
and, where necessary, to modify it. The questions that guide the process include needs and expectations, what

41
interpretive services and educational opportunities should be offered at a site, the level of service for current and
projected use, and visitor satisfaction (Graham, 1990: 283).
VAMP provides a framework to ensure that visitor understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the resources is
just as carefully and systematically considered as protection of natural resources. VAMP does not stand alone but
operates within a strong planning and management context as it represents how social science data are integrated
within a park’s management planning process.
The application of the basic VAMP concept to the management of visitor programs follows the traditional approach
to planning used by most resource management agencies. However, a major emphasis throughout each stage is on
understanding park visitors (Taylor, 1990). The task is to determine the current situation when
comparing the park’s expectations to the visitors and then to assess the actual activity on offer in terms of services,
their use and visitor satisfaction (Taylor, 1990). VAMP’s proactive approach to profiling visitor activity groups,
suggesting target messages and evaluation before the development of interpretive programs, may lead to more
effective interpretation and environmental education programs (Graham, 1990: 291).
Tourism Optimization Management Model
Manidis Roberts Consultants developed the Tourism Optimization Management Model. It builds on the LAC system
to incorporate a stronger political dimension and seeks to monitor and manage tourism in a way that seeks optimum
sustainable performance rather than maximum levels or carrying capacities. TOMM involves the following.
 Identifying strategic imperatives (such as policies and emerging issues).
 Identifying community values, product characteristics, growth patterns, market trends and opportunities,
positioning and branding, and alternative scenarios for tourism in a region.
 Identifying optimum conditions, indicators, acceptable ranges, monitoring techniques, benchmarks, annual
performance and predicted performance.
 Identifying poor performance, exploring cause/effect relationships, identifying results requiring a tourism
response or other sector response, and developing management options to address poor performance
(McArthur, 1997a).
Managing visitor use
The frameworks we have discussed above are effective means to assess and project the sustainable and desired
limits of human impact on
natural ecosystems. Once identified, these limits must be strictly monitored in order to ensure that baseline
sustainability limits are maintained. Protected area authorities must then implement strategies to ensure that these
limits are maintained.
Use limitation
One fairly common and direct regulatory type of visitor management is that of use limitation. For instance, in Grand
Canyon National Park, private and commercial rafting parties have been limited to approximately 2000 per year
(Todd, 1989). Also, Skomer Island, Wales, is a bird sanctuary with access controlled by a daily ferry, limiting the
quota of visitors to 100 per day (Valentine, 1991a). While the small size of ecotour operators serves to limit tourist
numbers somewhat, there may also be a need for managers to implement built-in limits to control the size and
number of tour operations acting within natural areas (Bunting, 1991). Permits or other such regulations may restrict
private operators from guarding against excessive or destructive impacts (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1990). In addition to
controlling the negative impacts on the natural environment, this would also serve to increase the quality of the
visitors’ experience, as most ecotourists perceive crowding to be a problem. Research indicates that by reducing
crowding, particularly in camping areas, the quality of visitor experience tends to increase, although fewer people
are able to experience the benefits of this.
Therefore, intensity of use (how many people are engaged in particular activities?) is an important consideration for
managers of natural areas. Regulations can be used to control the number of visitors entering a particular area in any
given period, their access points and the types of activities they may undertake. In addition to implementing these
controls, managers may find it necessary to employ some form of deterrent to the breaching of regulations. These
deterrents are usually in the form of fines and other penalties, which may be difficult to enforce due to
surveillance limitations.
In order to limit the number of visitors to an area, management must first establish a visitor carrying capacity – an
estimate of the capacity of an area to absorb visitors so that such use is sustainable (McNeely and Thorsell, 1989).
Environmental, social and managerial resources must be evaluated, as all of these factors represent constraints on
the carrying capacity of a given area. One problem associated with the establishment of carrying capacities is that it
is a subjective issue, each interest tolerating various levels of environmental degradation. Thus, management must

42
determine the level of visitor use that an area can accommodate, ‘maintaining high levels of visitor satisfaction and
few negative impacts on the environment’ (McNeely and Thorsell, 1989: 33).
The use of redistribution as a visitor management technique may be either direct or indirect. Managers most
commonly use such techniques to reduce the concentration of use in general by shifting some visitors from heavily
to lightly used areas (Lucas, 1984). It is believed that tourists tend to confine themselves to small segments of
wilderness in accordance with the ease of access and viewing attractions (Todd, 1989). Although ecotourists may
not desire this, they are often restricted in their experiences by the operators or guides of such tours who, while
seeking to provide their clients with the best view of wildlife, produce highly commercial activities. An example of
this includes operators in the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, where tour bus drivers ‘concentrate on the “Big
5” – lion, leopard, elephant, buffalo and rhino’ (Todd, 1989: 78).
Use redistribution has been implemented in East Africa’s Amboseli Game Park, where, in the late 1970s, it was
estimated that 80% of visitors used only 10% of the total area of the park. This technique was used to disperse
visitor movement throughout the park, allowing carrying capacity to rise from 80 000 to 250 000 visitors annually
for the same level of impact (Todd, 1989: 78). However, this may not be conducive to
the ecotourism experience as impact levels spread, making it more difficult to experience a truly unspoiled
wilderness tract.
Managers may wish to shift use in site-specific ways to reduce use in particularly fragile or overused areas and shift
some of it to specific places that are better able to sustain it. This can be achieved through zoning measures and the
restriction of access points to control the movements of eco-tourists and other visitors within wilderness areas.
Zoning
Zoning may also be used to control different uses in different parts of the region. It is a multidimensional technique
that is driven by ecological data to balance the demands of protection and use in determining the most appropriate
levels of use for specific areas within the park. One of the most important outcomes is to ensure that ‘activities in
one zone do not impinge on the planned functions of another’ (Buckley and Pannell, 1990: 29). Where tourism is
concerned, zoning should include areas that are not open for visitation in order to minimize the impact of
infrastructure on wildlife. For example, ‘tourism and recreation in the upstream part of a catchment may adversely
affect water quality in the downstream region; so if the latter has been zoned purely for conservation, it may suffer
water quality deterioration even though there are no recreational activities in the conservation zone itself’ (Buckley
and Pannell, 1990: 29).
As ecotourism involves low-impact travel requiring few facilities and minimal disturbance to the environment and
other wilderness users, it is not so prevalent to zone ecotouristic activity from other users as it is to zone more
commercial activities from them. For example, managers must limit or prohibit areas in which mechanized
recreation, horse riding, and other such activities are not permissible in order to minimize the negative impact on the
wilderness area and protect other visitor experiences. Visitor facilities act as a powerful management tool. They
allow managing authorities to attract tourists to areas of significance/interest, control activities within these areas
and divert visitors from more sensitive areas. Thus, more traditional forms of tourism may be restricted from areas
important to ecotourism because of a lack of facilities that adequately satisfy their needs. This indirect management
technique of restraint in providing facilities in natural areas seems to be ‘consistent with what is known about
wilderness visitor preferences; visitors are not clamoring for facilities that managers refuse to provide’ (Lucas 1984:
135).
Trail system design
Trail system design is also an indirect management action that may not only effective in the redistribution of use but
also in improving the quality of visitor experiences by setting the level of challenge, the scenic quality and the
opportunities to observe and learn about natural communities and processes (Lucas, 1984). The design of trail
systems may be an important factor in improving the quality of the ecotourist’s experience as they rely on trails to
provide an experience in themselves rather than just a route to attractions. Much of the negative impact that occurs
in natural areas can be specifically related to visitor behavior and actions rather than to sheer numbers of users. It is
the minority ‘few unskilled, uninformed, careless groups rather than the many typical parties’ that cause most of the
damage (Lucas, 1984: 133). Perceptions of natural areas may be altered through various means of providing visitors
with information. This indirect management technique can act to increase the visitors’ enjoyment of the area and
also to stimulate ‘modes of behavior which enhance the environmental quality of the site’ (McNeely and Thorsell,
1989: 37). It is recognized by Buckley and Pannell (1990) that education as a management option may be the most
effective of all management techniques, particularly in natural areas where it may well be the only option. Lucas
(1984: 133) notes that wilderness visitors ‘tend to be highly educated, most with university educations and often
with graduate

43
study, as well as strongly committed to the wilderness.’ Ecotourists possess these same characteristics, and it is
thought that these allow education programs to be successful in informing tourists of how to minimize the negative
impacts of their visit on the surrounding environment. It is important, however, that the information provided to
visitors be interpretative, explaining possible interactions between visitors and the environment as well as methods
to reduce any impacts that might occur from these interactions. This information may be provided in such forms as
brochures, maps, and pamphlets, and it is preferred by visitors to be distributed prior to entering the resource area.
The majority of information aimed at changing visitor behavior deals with the reduction of environmental impacts
through minimal-impact camping and hiking information. These education programs commonly address issues such
as littering, campfire use and vegetation impacts (Lucas, 1984).
Education
No natural resource can be effectively managed without the support and backing of its users. It follows that no
system of natural area reserves can adequately fulfill its roles without the guidance of appropriate management
objectives. Failure to fulfill such roles and provide appropriate information is likely to alienate some recreational
users and decrease the level of public support for the reserve system as a whole. This would be a very serious
situation, for without public support, it is unlikely that we would have such a diverse and extensive range of
environments protected. The fate of reserve systems is determined largely by social and political pressures (Hall and
McArthur, 1996). Even the best-planned management procedures will fail without public support. A strong base of
public support for the aims and objectives of protected areas is one of the first prerequisites for their management.
From this comes the political will, financial support and staffing necessary to achieve the aims and objectives of
management.
For this reason, natural area management must provide information that seeks to change behavior, not just
awareness (Forestell, 1990). As we shall see in the following chapter, interpretation and education are key
components of ecotourism, and protected areas provide one of the essential ingredients for successful interpretation.
They provide the opportunity for natural processes to be observed, for the interrelationship of natural ecological
systems to be appreciated and for the consequences of human change and ultimate degradation to be understood
(Kenchington, 1990). Outdoor recreation has been the major function of all parks and reserve areas, even though
conservation may be the more vital and immediately necessary role of these areas (Cameron-Smith, 1977).
Recreation in this context is generally limited to those activities that are ‘consistent with preserving the natural state’
of these areas, although this definition in itself can cause problems. Activities such as bush walking, picnicking,
camping and nature photography, for example, are generally considered acceptable within national parks and reserve
areas; however, even such restricted recreational use can cause problems, including physical damage to ecological
and cultural resources. User/user or user/manager conflicts in the perception of what constitutes acceptable
recreational behavior at any given site can and do still arise (Beckmann, 1991).
Priorities in outdoor recreation management should, therefore, include a balancing of supply and demand, a
matching of resource adequacy with human recreational needs and desires’ (Kenchington, 1990). Management
strategies that reconcile recreation with other priorities, such as conservation, have become essential with increasing
visitor demand. Visitor, rather than resource management, is now regarded as the most important component of
recreation management (Wearing and Gardiner, 1994).
Ecotour operators in the wilderness and other protected areas must also assume responsibility for minimizing the
impacts of their operations in the destination region. Examples of education techniques that tour operators may
apply include ‘slide shows, lectures and discussions to further familiarize guests with the wildlife, history and
culture of the remote area in which they find themselves’ (Choegyal, 1991: 95). However, with tour operations, it is
also necessary to educate and inform tour leaders of the most appropriate behaviors for environmentally sensitive
regions. The Tiger Mountain group of companies operating in Nepal believes ‘in educating trek clients before
leaving Kathmandu with detailed briefings on ecological issues and how to behave. Our sherpa guide groups, which
seldom exceed a dozen people, leave campsites as they find them and carry out all nonbiodegradable rubbish’
(Cheogyal, 1991: 101).
A more direct benefit of interpretation is as a visitor management tool to manage visitors and reduce visitor impacts.
One of the chief criticisms of ecotourism is that it threatens to destroy the environment which it is trying to protect.
Interpretation is an effective way management can encourage appropriate behavior, thus alleviating any potentially
damaging behaviors of eco-tourists. For example, ecotourists trekking through the Himalayas in Nepal in search of
an understanding of subalpine environments can leave trails strewn with toilet paper, empty cans and bottles, and
ashes from fires used for cooking. However, they can be educated through interpretive means so that they are aware
of the devastation that their impact is causing.

44
While other strategies for reducing environmental impacts from visitor pressure have been developed and
implemented in protected areas and national parks, interpretation is a key approach due to its long-term effects
(CameronSmith, 1977). For example, interpretation can help visitors to understand and appreciate the differences in
permitted activities, management practices and conservation values among national parks, state forests, reserves and
privately owned bushland, as such interpretation is an important part of any strategic management plan.
Although interpretation is believed by many to be the most powerful tool for visitor management, it has rarely been
fully incorporated into major planning mechanisms (Roggenbuck, 1987). Nonetheless, the relationship between
interpretation and management is now recognized as a fundamental one, and the two are often linked directly in
management policies (Wearing and Gardiner, 1994). For example, interpretation significantly influences the
carrying capacity of an area. By limiting the number of unwanted encounters or experiences in a recreational
environment and restricting unsuitable behavior in the area, and reducing conflicts between users, the current
acceptable field carrying capacity limits can be increased.
User fees and charges
User fees have been gaining increased consideration as natural areas have become more popular for recreational use.
There are a range of each, and they are methods of capturing revenue from visitation that is essential to channel back
into conservation objectives:
 User fees: charges on ‘users’ of an area or facility such as park admission, trekking fees etc.
 Concession: groups or individuals that provide certain services to visitors are often levied a fee for the
permission to operate within a location – food, accommodation and retail stores, for example.
 Sales and royalties: fees levied on a percentage of earnings that have been derived from activities or
products at a site – photographs or postcards, for example.
 Taxation: an extra cost imposed upon goods and services that are used by ecotourists– airport taxes, for
example.
 Donations are often sought from tourists, which may be used to contribute to maintaining a facility (cf.
Hedstram, 1992; Marriott, 1993).
Fees can provide an important source of revenue for managers, particularly in developing countries where protected
areas are traditionally underfunded (Swanson, 1992). The rationale supporting user fees is that most foreign visitors
travel to remote protected areas to experience their very isolation and unspoiled natural features. The visitors should
be willing to contribute to the costs of maintaining such conditions (Bunting, 1991). Ecotourists travelling in tour
groups pay a fee, which is usually incorporated into the price of the tour.
This chapter has presented the issues relating to ecotourism and protected area management (national parks). It
has reflected upon the compromise between current views on the management of our natural resources and
allows for evolution towards future management based on ecocentric management using ecotourism as a
catalyst. Given the dominance of economic rationalism and increasing competition for scarce resources,
protected areas are going to come under more and more use pressure. Park supporters need to join the political
debate and look at ecotourism as a means of achieving the economic justification that will ensure the short-term
survival of protected areas while developing a political constituency enabling a longer-term perspective.
Conservation and preservation of natural resources and cultural heritage are global as well as local concerns.
For tourism to be sustainable, the type and extent of tourism activity must be balanced against the capacity of
the natural a
Suitability of Site for Tourism
The expansion of ecotourism will depend on the characteristics of the destinations and the
demographics of travelers themselves. For example, most African safaris provide a near
guarantee of seeing a variety of large mammals, taking good photographs, and having time for
relaxing. Safari tourists can be transported right to the wildlife and taken back to their lodges or
luxury tent camps midday for a jump in the pool when it is too hot for game viewing. It is
relatively easy for such tourists to know what kind of experience they will have in advance of
their trip. Elsewhere, such as in tropical rainforests, it is harder for the ecotourist to pre-judge
the quality of the experience. Without an excellent naturalist, tourists may feel they have seen

45
little. Under the tree canopy, it is often dark and damp, with lots of mosquitoes. Weather and
wildlife viewing are unpredictable and often disappointing to ecotourists (see O’Rourke, 1993).
Of tourists who did travel to lodges in one region in Peru, between 80% and 95% were
unsatisfied with wildlife viewing. “Even the finest regions of the Amazon offer few
opportunities for tourists to see a large concentration of wildlife.” Long walks through dense
jungles are often required to see any wildlife.
Facilities and Services
The facilities and services that need to be present in a park for ecotourists depend on the
zoning, combined with an analysis of the type of tourists the park wants to attract, the
proximity of alternate facilities, acceptable levels of impact, and the revenue the park wants to
generate.
A combination of factors may make it preferable to locate most services, especially
accommodation outside, rather than inside parks. Different types of ecotourists (e.g., hard to
soft) require different facilities.
By supplying certain amenities, parks can attract different types of tourists who seek out
specific facilities during their stay. Careful consideration is required in deciding who to attract
and what infrastructure to provide. The importance of strong ecological knowledge as the basis
of sitting infrastructure and facilities cannot be overstated. For instance, proposed ecotourism
development to two biosphere reserves in the Yucatan channel, which are protected barrier
beaches, required buildings, roads, dikes, pipes and a sewerage system. The construction of the
first stage of this development, a bridge, trapped storm surges during a hurricane, forcing the
water into a lagoon and flooding flamingo fledglings, which otherwise would have been saved
despite the hurricane (Savage, 1993).
The development of even limited infrastructure in fragile areas can have unanticipated effects
on road construction, or changes in watercourses can be devastating.
Visitation and Conservation Education
Much of the orientation of a conservation awareness and education program will be
determined by who the visitors are and what they are coming to see. Tourists are fickle and
want to see wildlife, especially the mega-fauna of Africa and southern Asia, which have very
high tourist appeal; but if their sightings become unreliable due to shyness of the animals, low
population numbers, or seasonal weather, visitors won’t be as eager to come. Good
environmental education and guidance include the ability to make another park resource
attractive and educate visitors on other unique attractions in the ecosystem, such as indigenous
species of plants or mutualistic interaction between species.
Educating visitors about the functions of a park, what it protects, why it exists, what the
restrictions are, its boundaries, and the ecological services are key elements of an
environmental education plan. There are three groups that should be considered when

46
developing such a plan: international visitors, national residents, and residents, including
children. A strong informational program describing park regulations and acceptable behavior,
coupled with enhanced guide and guard services, are key elements of ecotourism development
within parks. The impact of visitors can be restricted by limiting them to certain pathways,
roads, or boats. Restrictions can range from prohibiting tourists from picking any plants or
feeding the animals, camping or camping only in designated areas, walking only on paths and
trails, to pollution control. Clear procedures for groups or individuals who do not comply should
be established as part of the management planning process. Strong training of guards and
guides is a critical element of tourism development. Finally, there is a need to prepare for
emergencies - what to do if tourists are injured by wildlife or get lost. Careful monitoring of
visitor impact, even with excellent education plans, is necessary. At Royal Chitwan National
Park in Nepal, despite well-organized education programs “disturbance to the ecology has
become an obvious feature (Sowers et al. 1991a).
4.4. Limits of Acceptable Change
Limits of Acceptable Change
The Limits of Acceptable Change methodology is an extension of the ROS concept and
recognizes both the social and environmental dimensions of recreational impacts. It involves
both resource managers and stakeholders in:
 identifying acceptable and achievable social and resource standards;
 documenting gaps between desirable and existing circumstances;
 identifying management actions to close these gaps and
 monitoring and evaluating management effectiveness (Payne and Graham, 1993).
The LAC planning system consists of nine steps.
 Identifying concerns and issues.
 Defining and describing opportunity classes.
 Selecting indicators of resource and social conditions.
 Carrying out an inventory of resource and social conditions.
 Specifying standards for the resource and social indicators.
 Identifying alternative opportunity class allocations.
 Identifying management actions for each alternative.
 Evaluating and selecting an alternative.

47
 Implementing actions and monitoring conditions (Stankey et al., 1985).
Relative to the ROS, the LAC framework offers more opportunities for public participation,
which results in a consensus planning approach to natural area management. However, few
LAC systems have been implemented with great success, and this is thought to be due to a lack
of political and economic support from stakeholders (McArthur, 1997c). LAC systems also
require considerable resources to establish inventories of resources and social conditions.
The LAC system is a technical planning system. It provides a ‘systematic decision-making
framework which helps determine what resource and social conditions are acceptable and
prescribes appropriate management actions.’
(Stankey, 1991: 14). The LAC framework mitigates the conflict between recreation, tourism and
conservation. It defines the impacts associated with different levels of environmental
protection. It also helps set the basis for allowing environmental change consistent with, and
appropriate and acceptable to, different types of recreational opportunities (Stankey, 1991:
13). By establishing specific indicators and standards related to conservation values, coupled
with monitoring, it is possible to define what impact levels can be permitted before
management intervention becomes necessary (Stankey, 1991: 12).
Significantly, the LAC system does more than develop and extend the ROS framework. It also
represents an important reformulation of key elements of the carrying capacity concept
(Prosser, 1986: 8). By directing attention away from the question ‘how much recreation use is
too much?’ towards desired conditions, the LAC approach skirts around the use/impact
conundrum. Because the resource and social conditions of an area are most important, the LAC
emphasis is on the management of the impacts of use (Lucas and Stankey, 1988).
Tourism demand for particular species or parts of the park should be reviewed within the
management planning process. The probable impacts of tourism on these and other park
resources can be identified, and measures can be developed to determine appropriate levels of
tourism. The acceptable and sustainable level of tourism will depend on the biological features
of the zone, the fragility of the species and ecosystems in the park and the current and future
disturbances and threats, as well as the human and economic resources available to run the
park and provide services and facilities for tourists. In some zones, such as breeding areas or
fragile habitats where any human intrusion will affect the biological integrity, all tourism may
be regarded as unacceptable. Determining the environmental carrying capacity depends on a
variety of value judgments about acceptable levels of alteration or degradation in areas where
visitor use is permitted. Such decisions and value judgments should be an explicit part of the
management planning process.
Once acceptable levels of ecotourism are defined, methods to control visitation at those levels
need to be implemented. This includes the ability to count visitors, keep visitation statistics,
and be able to stop visitors from entering the park when human carrying capacity is reached. To

48
determine acceptable visitation levels, information on seasonality of tourism interest, the ratio
of foreign to national visitors and their income levels, activities of tourism in the park including
the type of tourist attracted, type of visitor experience desired by the tourist and the associated
infrastructure expected, and duration of stay is needed, in addition to strong baseline data on
ecosystem characteristics. Measure of acceptability impact and change, as well as human
carrying capacity, should be integrated into park zoning and management plans.
5. COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM
5.1. Community-Based Natural Resource Management
Ensuring Environmental and Cultural Integrity
A fundamental characteristic of community-based ecotourism is that the quality of the
natural resources and cultural heritage of an area should not be damaged and, if possible,
should be enhanced by tourism. Adverse impact on the natural environment should be
minimized, and the culture of Indigenous communities should not be compromised.
Ecotourism should encourage people to value their cultural heritage. However, culture is
not static, and communities may wish to see change. A practical approach is to identify the
limits of acceptable change that could be brought by tourism and then consider what level
of tourism activity would generate this change.
Communities must decide on the level of tourism they wish to see. Consultation during the
process of drawing up an ecotourism strategy should reveal the kinds of changes that might
be viewed positively or negatively by local people. They can then be helped to consider
what this might mean in terms of the number and type of visitors to look for when they
should come and their length of stay. For example, in one community in the Amazon, it
was felt that more than eight visitors per month would be disruptive. Two important
principles are:
1) Products developed should be based on the community’s traditional knowledge, values
and skills; and
2) The community should decide which aspects of their cultural traditions they wish to
share with visitors.
A similar approach can be adopted with respect to determining limits of acceptable change
and acceptable use as far as the natural environment is concerned. Here, scientific
knowledge may be required to enable a judgment to be made, taking into account the
conditions of different sites at various times of the year. Often, it is found that the number
of visitors at any one time of the year is a more critical factor than the overall level of
visitation. Useful tools in the management of visitors include the following:
1) Agreements with tour operators over the number and size of groups to bring.
2) Codes of conduct for visitors.
3) Application of systematic environmental, social and cultural impact assessment on all
proposed developments. This should also be concerned with details of what is offered to
visitors, such as the choice of products sold to them (for example, avoiding artifacts with a
sacred significance) or the use of inappropriate sources of fuel.

49
4) Zoning both within and outside protected areas. This should cover both the siting of
facilities and the degree of access allowed. In some locations, village communities have
identified specific zones for ecotourism, both with respect to facility provision and wildlife
conservation measures. A common approach is to locate tourist lodges some distance away
from community villages.
The planning process should ensure that monitoring measures are in place so that it is
possible to tell when limits of acceptable change have been reached. Furthermore,
strategies for making the necessary adjustments to overcome any problems identified will
need to be established.
One important link between biodiversity conservation and culture, which has a tangible
market value in some cases, is the specific ecological information, or intellectual
property, possessed by indigenous groups and knowledge about human interactions with
nature. For example, knowledge learned through the use of plants throughout history has
saved literally millions of lives (quinine for malaria, curare for surgery, taxol for cancer)
and provided knowledge of desirable properties for different crop strains. Diminished
knowledge is one aspect of cultural change. Groups such as the Kuna Indians in Panama
have worked with foreign anthropologists to relearn traditional methods of caring for the
land (Chapin, 1990). Ethano botanical studies, searching for and working with traditional
groups to identify these properties, has become a significant element in conservation and
one small branch of the ecotourism market.
Use of Cultural Property
Cultural sites are irreplaceable resources. Once destroyed, the historical, cultural, ascetic
and educational values are gone forever. In many parts of the world, tourism has served as
one justification and impetus for the preservation of cultural sites. Tourism has often been
an important force behind laws protecting sites and antiquities and has provided economic
justification for restoration of many sites. Many protected areas have dual functions of
biodiversity conservation and protection of cultural property. Protection of historical
monuments within protected areas is fairly straightforward, at least in terms of how and
when conservation and protection are needed.
However using ecotourism to generate revenue for such projects and managing the flow
of tourists is more difficult. Preservation of cultural property is even more problematic
when it involves special natural sites, such as sacred forests in Nepal or rock paintings or
sacred sites in Australia. In some cases, even speaking directly with local people about
these sites or trying to define them may be sacrilegious. Respect and care of sacred sites
are often sacrificed by individuals for profit, even though they may be “owned” by the
community. For example, wood from sacred forests in Nigeria is often stolen to meet the
increased demand for cooking or hot water showers for trekking tourists.
Characteristics that Influence the Impact of Tourism on a Culture
There are at least six factors that influence how a culture reacts to tourism. These include
1. Community cohesion and structure;
2. Ability to separate the sacred from the profane;

50
3. Rapidity of tourism development;
4. Previous experience with “outside” groups;
3.2.1 Community Cohesion and Structure
The effect tourism has on culture in part depends on the degree of community
cohesiveness and the strength and elasticity of traditional practices. The impact of new
technologies and customs can have markedly different impacts on different cultures and
even different communities within a culture. If a culture has had diverse experiences
coping with change, it is more likely to be flexible to the influences of tourism. Some
cultures have shown a remarkable ability to incorporate the external influences brought
by tourism and adapt them into practices that are beneficial for their society, such as the
Sherpas of Nepal. Nepalese Sherpas have been involved in tourism and the demand for
wage labor for over 40 years. They have found new ways to “reconstitute productive
relations in their new economy.” The Sherpa logic that informs and shapes economic
endeavour is a cultural logic revolving around tendencies toward both independence and
fit.
3.2.2 Separation between the Sacred and the Profane
Not all cultures can easily separate the sacred from the profane since there is often a
continuum between the two. Two factors help differentiate how cultures act: their attitude
about questioning their practices and their disposition to question the practices of others.
Some cultures encourage questioning about their practices, while others encourage
unquestioning adherence to local norms. When a culture is not able to discuss the
importance and role of certain practices, these practices often become events for tourists
and, over time, lose meaning for the people themselves (Maurer and Zeigler, 1988:75). A
culture’s ability to assimilate outside ideas and interpret them through their cultural
structures helps it adapt to changes brought through tourism.
3.2.3 Rapidity of Tourism Development
Ecotourism contrasts with mass tourism in that it is aimed at bringing in fewer people at
levels that do not cause cultural disruption. Yet even several hundred to one thousand
tourists a year – a few every day – will have a market effect over a relatively few years
on a rural population. Communities may have little opportunity to adapt their practices so
as to incorporate external elements, and it may be difficult to identify when “too much”
disruption has taken place. There are a few examples of mechanisms to monitor cultural
change and to regulate tourism accordingly.
For example, in Nigeria, it is tourists who are either biologically or botanically inclined
(especially for research purposes) that frequent the National Parks or Game Reserves or
those who love the natural environment.
Previous Experience with “Outside” Groups
While most cultures will have bad contact with external groups, their experience in
dealing with these groups, either positively or negatively, can have huge importance to
how they react to tourism. In general, communities that have been exposed to a higher
number of groups slowly over time can more easily incorporate new ideas and practices
into their lives with less disruption. Similarly, groups that have encountered cultures that

51
are very different from their own are likely to be less overwhelmed than groups that have
only been in contact with similar cultures.
5. Balance with environment,
Traditional management systems which regulate resource use are highly susceptible to
external influences (Redford, 1996; Brandon, 1996). Many traditional resource
management systems work because they are based on low population densities, either
intensively extracting from a small area, allowing that area to regenerate, or extensively
using the resources collected over a wide area. These systems are appropriate within their
own cultural and ecological context but can rapidly erode if local conditions change,
particularly if
1) There is a substantial increase in the local population;
2) Few commodities increase in value and become more heavily
exploited; or
3) The area available for exploitation is substantially reduced.
The creation of protected areas is one example of the third reason.
Ecotourism has the potential to partially offset economic losses born by
local people. Yet groups already coping with stress from environmental
dislocation may have difficulty adapting to the rapid changes brought by
tourism.
6. Distribution of tourism impacts and benefits.
Distribution of Tourism Impacts
The distribution of costs and benefits from tourism across communities is one of the most
important issues in devising sustainable ecotourism strategies. In the short run, even
providing a limited number of jobs in areas where there are few other opportunities may
provide substantial benefits with minimal costs. However problems arise when the
impacts differentially affect one segment of a community (Maurer and Zeigler, 1988).
Similarly, problems can arise when the benefits are captured by one group class within a
community. Excellent studies of cultural tourism in Ladakh, India (Michaud, 1991) and
San Cristobal, Mexico (Van de Berghe, 1992) demonstrate that different ethnic groups
differentially receive benefits from tourism. Without in-depth knowledge of a culture, it
is difficult to say whether the culture would better withstand a broad distribution of
impacts or some alternative approach that would affect a more restricted subgroup.
5.2. Community-Based Conservation and Ecotourism
5.3. Sustainable Ecotourism as a Development Tool For Local Communities
3.1 Valuing the Benefits
Few people dispute the desirability of protecting selected natural areas. In developing
countries, however, the costs associated with establishing and managing protected areas

52
often appear formidable. Faced with an acute shortage of funds, governments are
reluctant to make the investments needed to provide effective protection.
Many developing countries rely directly on their natural resource base for a substantial
portion of domestic employment and national income. The need to exploit resources such
as timber and minerals often makes it difficult for governments to forgo using these
resources in order to establish a protected area. Growing populations and the need for
more agricultural and urban land further increase the pressure to convert undeveloped
natural areas to agricultural or urban uses. Such pressures notwithstanding, many
developing countries have managed to establish significant amounts of land as protected
areas. As noted in the Introduction, more than 100 developing countries have designated
more than 185 million hectares as one category or another of protected areas. Yet, even in
these countries, many areas remain threatened due to inadequate funding for management
and protection.
The expected benefits from the conversion and development of natural areas can usually
be expressed in monetary terms. These benefits include the returns from agricultural,
urban, or industrial developments as well as the value of time, minerals and other natural
resources that can be extracted from protected areas. However, many of the benefits that
result from establishing and maintaining protected areas are not so easily valued in
financial terms. As a result, these benefits are often overlooked when decisions are made
on budget allocations and how best to use a nation’s natural resources. The following
section explains why the value of certain benefits derived from protected areas cannot be
easily quantified.
3.1.1 Obstacles to Valuing Benefits
For most goods and services, prices are established in the marketplace through the
process of buying and selling. The price of a kilogram of rice or a piece of lumber is easy
to determine. It is not so easy, however, to value other goods and services due to various
factors that prevent normal market operations. These factors are referred to as market
failure (or “market imperfections”). If they are not adjusted for, they result in distorted
market prices that do not reflect the true value of the good in question. Many of the
benefits of protected areas, such as their ecological, biological, or aesthetic value, are
subject to these market imperfections.
Some of these benefits are quite abstract – biological diversity, for example, is
recognized as important but exceptionally difficult to value in monetary terms. Other
benefits are much more concrete, but, owing to their location or other factors, they do not
have easily determined monetary values. Examples are forest products that are collected
and used by local inhabitants but not sold commercially and the downstream impact on
water regulation and water quality created by maintaining forest cover in a watershed.
3.2 Benefits
Diverse benefits are associated with each type of protected area. These benefits flow from
various conservation objectives:
1) Maintenance and conservation of environmental resources,

53
services, and ecological processes.
2) Production of natural resources such as timber and wildlife
3) Production of recreation and tourism services
4) Protection of cultural and historical sites and objects
5) Provision of educational and research opportunities
Some of these benefits are the result of direct resources and can be valued according to market
prices (for instance, logging and fishing). Other benefits such as recreational uses depend on
direct human use of the protected areas, and these too can be valued in various ways. Most of
the benefits from protected areas, however, are hard to measure in monetary terms. These
broad benefits to individuals or society at large are frequently referred to as social benefits and
are a primary justification for protected areas. This topic is discussed at length later in the
chapter.
There is another possible grouping of benefits that is especially useful for discussing various
ways of valuing benefits. These include:
1) Recreation/tourism
2) Watershed protection
• Erosion control
• Local flood reduction
• Regulation of stream flows
3) Ecological processes
• Fixing and cycling of nutrients
• Soil formation
• Circulation and cleansing of air and water
• Global life support
4) Biodiversity
• Gene resources
• Species protection
• Ecosystem diversity
• Evolutionary processes

54
5) Education and research
6) Consumptive benefits
60
ESM 221 ECOTOURISM
7) Non-consumptive benefits
• Aesthetic
• Spiritual
• Cultural/Historical
• Existence value
8) Future values
• Option value
• Quasi-option value
Recreation/Tourism: Recreation and tourism are normally the primary objectives in national
parks and are key objectives in many other types of protected areas. Unless the primary
objective is strict protection of natural conditions or research, some tourism and recreational
use are normally allowed. These services not only yield direct financial benefits from protected
areas but stimulate employment and rural development in surrounding areas, as well.
Watershed Protection: Maintaining the natural vegetative cover helps to control erosion,
reduces sedimentation and flooding downstream, and regulates stream flows. The extent of the
benefit depends on the type of soils, topography, and natural cover in the protected area, the
alternative uses available, and the types of investment and land use downstream.
Ecological Processes: In their natural state, protected areas provide a number of environmental
services in addition to watershed protection. These services often benefit people downhill and
downstream by maintaining the productive capacity of nearby areas. Vegetative cover acts as a
natural filter to reduce air and water pollution and promotes nutrient cycling. Clearly, forests
and wetlands are essential to the overall global life support of the planet. Many aquatic species
depend on the existence of wetland areas during some portion of their life cycle. Mangroves
and their associated fish and shrimp populations constitute just one example.
Biodiversity: The maintenance of biodiversity – short for biological diversity, which includes all
species, genetic variation within species, and all varieties of habitats and ecosystems- is
currently considered to be one of the most important benefits of protecting natural areas.
Biological resources form the basis of numerous industries and are major sources of food,
medicines, chemicals, and other products used in both traditional and industrialized societies.

55
By protecting habitats, one protects the variety of species they contain. For detailed discussions
of the value of biodiversity, see McNeely (1988) and Wilson (1988).
Education and Research: Research in protected areas may focus on a wide variety of topics,
from animal behavior to measurement of environmental status and trends. By examining
ecological processes in their natural conditions, one can better understand the workings of the
environment and thereby improve the management and restoration of both undeveloped areas
and areas converted to other land uses. Research may involve changing the underlying
conditions of the study area in some manner, or it may simply monitor natural conditions with
as little interference as possible. Research is often integrated with education as well, and
protected areas provide fertile grounds for field study by students at all levels. Moreover,
protected areas instill people with an understanding and appreciation of the environment,
making them more aware of the harmful consequences of certain types of behaviour.
Consumptive Benefits: Protected areas can yield a number of products, including timber,
forage, food, wildlife, fish, herbs, and medicine. If an area is to be protected, of course, such
products will be harvested only on a sustainable basis. Depending on the objectives of the
protected area, consumptive use of the resources may be totally forbidden (as in strict nature
reserves and many national parks), or it may be a primary function (as in multiple-use areas).
Non-consumptive Benefits: These benefits include the value people derive from protected
areas that are not related to direct use. Aesthetic benefits may accrue when one passes near
the area, views it from a distance, or sees it in films or on television. The cultural value of a
mountain or lake may be important in some societies, while urban societies may derive spiritual
value from having a nearby asylum from modern life. Certain protected areas may also be key
historic sites. Some people, moreover, may derive a benefit simply from knowing that a certain
unspoiled area or a certain species exists, even though they will never see or use it. This
existence value is independent of any direct present or future use.
Future Values: Apart from the values people derive from both consumptive and non-
consumptive use, the protection of certain areas ensures a variety of benefits from their
potential use in the future, either for visiting or from products that may be developed from the
area’s genetic or other resources. The question of future value is discussed in the next chapter.
3.3 Costs
Three main types of costs are associated with establishing and maintaining protected areas:
direct costs, indirect costs, and opportunity costs. Direct costs are cost directly related to the
establishment and management of protected areas. Indirect costs refer to adverse impacts
caused by establishing protected areas; these include damage to property or inquiry to people
by wildlife. Opportunity costs represent the loss of potential benefits associated with protecting
an area rather than harvesting its resources.
3.3.1 Direct Costs

56
Direct costs represent direct budget outlays, usually paid for by local or national governments.
The first category of direct costs is made up of those associated with establishing an area as
protected. If the government does not already own the land, there may be costs to acquire title
to it. If people are already living in the area, they may require relocation depending on the
management objectives. There may also be costs associated with developing roads and
facilities and preparing a management plan for the area.
Apart from the costs of establishing a protected area, there are a number of ongoing costs of
maintaining and managing it. Administrative and staff costs must be considered, as well as
maintenance costs for roads and facilities. Protected areas should also have a monitoring and
research program to keep track of changes in status and trends. If tourists will be using the
area, an educational program is usually required. There is also a critical need, especially in
developing countries, for adequate enforcement to protect the area. Poaching wildlife and
timber and clearing protected areas for agriculture are often acute problemmes. Thus an
effective protection program – including enforcement of regulations combined with other
strategies such as education, incentive systems, and a rural development program for nearby
residents – must be developed and maintained. The expenses of this protection program are
part of the direct costs.
3.3.2 Indirect Costs
Another category of costs involves damages indirectly caused by the existence of the protected
area. For example, wildlife in the protected area may cause damage outside the area itself, such
as crops being trampled or eaten by wildlife, as well as harm to people, livestock, or materials.
These are all indirect costs. In Indonesia, elephants living in protected areas frequently wander
outside the boundaries and damage nearby plantations or field crops. Though governments are
not compelled to compensate for such damages, community attitudes toward protected areas
and the wildlife they contain will be much more positive if residents are reimbursed for any
damages they suffer.
3.3.3 Opportunity Cost
The opportunity costs of a protected area are the benefits that society or individuals lose when
an area is protected. These costs include forgone output from the protected area (animals,
species, timber) – not only the resources currently on the site but also those that could have
been developed through more intensive exploitation. Opportunity costs also include the
benefits that might have been gained from conversion to an alternative use. (These opportunity
costs may have already been accounted for in the costs of establishment. If the area was
purchased on the open market, the purchase price will reflect the value of alternative
commercial possibilities.)
In many developing countries, there may be significant opportunity costs from the need to
restrict use by nearby residents. If the local community has to forgo outputs they are

57
accustomed to receiving, compensation or the development of alternative sources of these
products will be called for. Otherwise, the local community will suffer a loss and may be very
reluctant to give up its traditional patterns of use.
These three types of costs have an important bearing on the pressures for and against
protection. Direct costs appear as government budgetary outlays, and when resources are
scarce, they are always under pressure. Indirect costs may be sizeable but are usually dispersed
over many individuals who may find it difficult to organize or make known their collective
concerns. Opportunity costs, whether large or small, may play an important role in the political
decision-making process.
If one person or one industry stands to gain from the conversion of a natural area to another
use, considerable pressure may be placed on the government to stop the creation of a
protected area. Frequently, entities have been able to develop potential protected areas for
their benefits at society’s expense. It is important, therefore, to account for the full range of
benefits and costs, both financial and social, when analyzing the creation of a protected area.
3.4 Comparing Benefits and Costs
There are several ways of weighing benefits and costs when evaluating alternatives. If
estimates of both benefits and their associated costs are known, some form of a benefit/cost
analysis can be carried out. The technique involves the evaluation of a stream of benefits and
costs over some chosen period. The benefits/cost analysis can result in the calculation of a net
present value (NPV) figure, a benefit/cost ratio (B/C ratio), or an internal rate of return (IRR) for
the proposed protected area. (For details on the mechanics involved in benefit/cost analysis,
especially for environmental decisions, see Hufschmidt and others 1983; Dixon and Hufschmidt
1986, and Dixon and others 1988). In most cases involving protected areas, the quantifiable
benefits (those that can be measured in monetary terms) are less than the total benefits. When
the directly quantifiable benefits alone are greater than the costs of protection, the decision to
provide protection is easy.
The ultimate decision on whether or not to designate an area as protected will depend on a
variety of factors – the quantified and non-quantified benefits expected from protection, the
costs of providing protection (constructing and maintaining facilities, for example), the
potential net benefits from alternative uses of the site, and so on. Even if the expected
monetary benefits of protection exceed the direct costs of protection, the potential benefits
from alternative uses may be considerable. Usually, the decision-maker has some notion of the
net benefits expected from the development alternative for a site - from timber extraction,
agricultural development, housing, or industrial development, for instance. This information, in
turn, must be compared to the expected net monetary benefits (if any) of the protected area
plus the other important (but unquantified) benefits provided by a protected area.
There are no firm rules for selecting and designating protected areas. Given the uncertainty of
the true magnitude of future value to be gained from such benefits as genetic resources,

58
species protection, option value, and existence value, caution is called for. If the area is not
established as a protected area, some of these benefits will be lost forever. Another issue to be
considered is that protected areas often increase in value relative to other uses of these areas
since they are a finite resource that will become increasingly scarce as time passes.
One approach to these decisions is known as the safe minimum standard (SMS) approach,
which was originally developed by Ciriacy-Wantrup (1952) and advocated by Bishop (1978). In
essence, the SMS approach uses a modified version of the “minimax” criterion – choosing the
alternative that minimizes the maximum possible loss that could result from making the wrong
decision. In the modified approach, this alternative is chosen unless the costs of doing so are
“unacceptably high” (Bishop, 1978). How large is unacceptably large is left to the decision-
maker. If the costs of establishing a protected area (such as acquisition, management, and
other uses (forgone) are greater than the quantifiable benefits, the maximum loss associated
with establishment will be some amount less than the difference between the quantified costs
and benefits (because of unquantified benefits from protection). The cost of not establishing
the protected area, however, is unknown but potentially very large – if, for example, some
species are lost because the area is not protected, the potential uses for these species will
never be known. This means that there is a certain unknown probability of a serious social or
economic loss in the future. Following the SMS approach calls for avoiding this potential loss
unless it would involve an unacceptably high known cost. Essentially, the decision becomes a
question of accepting some known cost today to prevent a potentially larger cost in the future.
Another approach to these decisions is to use cost-effectiveness analysis instead of cost/benefit
analysis. This approach does not attempt to value benefits; rather, it focuses on finding the
least cost method of reaching a desired goal (say, protection of a certain number of hectares of
specific habitat).
The opportunity-cost approach can be used when the other techniques do not appear helpful.
In this case, the analyst compares the net economic benefits from a proposed development of a
natural area to the qualitative benefits of protection. Although this is an “apples and oranges”
comparison, if the net economic benefits of the alternative use are negative or positive but
small, it may be easy to justify protection. The economic costs are not large, and the benefits of
protection, although unquantified, may be substantial. When the economic costs are large, the
decision is more difficult.
The opportunity-cost approach can also be used to evaluate different sites for a proposed
development project. Presumably, an alternative site would not be as advantageous for the
project as the natural area (or it would have been considered as a primary choice), but the
reduction in project benefits associated with the alternative site may be more than outweighed
by the benefit of protecting the original site. In this case, the opportunity-cost approach
evaluates the difference in project benefits associated with the two sites and compares it to the
benefits of protecting the original site.

59
When all of the benefits and costs associated with the protection or development of a natural
area are considered, the economic analysis yields results that allow any protected area to be
placed in one of three
66
ESM 221 ECOTOURISM
categories: privately beneficial, socially beneficial, or undetermined benefits. In privately
beneficial areas, the economic benefits are directly obtainable by individuals, groups, or firms
and are larger than the associated costs of the benefits of alternative uses. In these cases, the
individual will provide the “service” (protection of a natural area) without government
intervention. Such cases are not uncommon, but the areas tend to be small, and the service
provided rather specific. Privately run recreational areas such as campgrounds, ski resorts, and
game reserves may result in limited portions of an area being kept in its natural state.
Outstanding areas such as the Galapagos Islands or Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda,
though currently administered by national governments, are also examples of potentially
privately beneficial areas. In most such cases, tourism is a primary use of the area.
Some natural areas unprotected by the government may be considered so important that
individuals or groups feel strongly enough to purchase them from their current owners. Private
conservation groups, such as The Nature Conservancy in the United States, have begun
acquiring critical natural areas threatened by development. These groups pool donations from
their members to acquire development rights or to buy areas that might not otherwise be
protected. Supporters of such private conservation efforts must, therefore, perceive benefits in
excess of the costs of these actions.
More common is the case where the establishment of a protected area is socially beneficial
(the net benefits to society at large are positive). However, an individual could not easily
capture all the benefits and therefore would not be willing to provide protection or
preservation on a commercial basis. Protection of upper watershed areas, for example, may be
justified by preserving the water supply and water quality for a downstream area. National
parks are often socially beneficial. Government support of wildlife parks in East Africa, for
example, is usually profitable in terms of attracting tourists who spend money both inside and
outside the protected areas.
The third category is undetermined benefits. In many cases, it may be difficult to determine
whether the net benefits of protecting a natural area are positive or negative. The costs of
protection may be known, but the benefits may be diffuse or hard to measure. Wilderness
areas or remote locations are examples of such sites. Governments may well decide to protect
some of these areas, but at what cost and to what extent? These issues must be addressed.
6. Ecotourism as A Development Tool

60
3.1.5 Fostering Greater Peace and Understating
Tourism provides countries with potentially free public relations, which may help to
increase and expand business. On a global level, tourism advocates point out that it helps
to foster “an appreciation of the rich human, cultural and ecological diversity that our
world mosaic offers; to evolve a mutual trust and respect for one another and the dignity
of all life on earth” (D’Amore, 4. 1990).
In some regions, such as Central America, the creation of four binational peace parks has
been promoted as one way of increasing regional peace while enhancing biodiversity
objectives (Arias and Nations, 1992). Ecotourism has been viewed as a key financial
vehicle to support these initiatives.
3.1.6 Domestic versus Foreign Tourism
One important distinction for countries to make is the type of tourism that they wish to
encourage. Most countries are interested in international tourism for the foreign exchange
it brings. However, domestic tourism has several advantages over international tourism.
Some of these are that:
a) Builds a national consistency for parks and conservation;
b) Generates stable revenues for the conservation and protection of
cultural property;
c) Fosters national integration.
Ecotourism can be a way of introducing the middle class and the elite, who are normally
the people with some disposable income and leisure time, to the importance of
maintaining wild habitats. The use and appreciation of wildlands should help to create a
constituency for conservation within countries and convince people of the importance of
maintaining biodiversity within and outside parks, as this would help the course of
tourism, both local and international.
6.1. Linking Conservation and Development
Conservation issues are now at the forefront of public opinion. The decline of natural
rainforests, loss of endangered species, global warming and increasing land degradation have
galvanized public support for conservation. It is no accident that the interest and growth of
ecotourism and nature-oriented tourism has coincided with this worldwide concern.
Ecotourism and nature-oriented tourism often take place in protected and remote regions,
areas of exceptional beauty, ecological interest and cultural importance. Today, these areas are
established to conserve biodiversity and to halt the large-scale loss of natural ecosystems.
Globally, there are approximately 8500 protected areas, which cover about 5.17% of the earth’s
land surface1, and the growth in the designation of protected areas has increased remarkably
over the past twenty years2. However, protected areas are increasingly coming under pressure
from a range of fronts:
 the demands for ‘multiple use’ parks allowing extractive industries;
 the demands of lobby groups seeking access to a range of recreational activities – four
wheel driving, horse riding, hunting, fishing;

61
 and the aspirations of indigenous groups for the title and management of parks.
These demands raise distinct challenges for protected areas. Indeed, in the face of these
increasing challenges, can (indeed, should) these areas remain protected refuges?
The traditional conception of protected areas is the uninhabited, minimal interference park,
and as we have seen in Chapter 2, this is an overtly ‘preservationist’ position. However, in much
of the world, population pressures dictate that excluding human presence from protected areas
is no longer feasible.
The preservationist position is also under attack from the opposite end of the spectrum by
those who believe nature has one primary value or function – for human use. ‘Use’ adherents
range from industry representatives seeking access to park resources, such as the logging,
grazing and mining industries, to the many diverse special interest groups who are generally
hostile to nature-centered management, such as hunters and off-road enthusiasts.
Historically, the protected area policy has moved significantly in the direction of human use. In
the Caracas Action Plan, the major strategy document to come out of the IVth World Congress
on National Parks and Protected Areas in Venezuela in 1992, the shift away from an overt
preservationist position towards a human-needs orientation is unambiguous: ‘Protected areas
must be managed so that local communities, the nations involved, and the world community all
benefit (IUCN, 1992).
We can see here, in both the use and preservationist positions, the centrality of the
anthropocentric premise. Nature conservation’s most acceptable and prevalent form3 is a
utilitarian one in that such areas are deemed necessary to preserve or protect for their
potential human benefits, be it for ‘aesthetic,’ ‘gymnasium,’ ‘cathedral’ or ‘laboratory’ potential
(see Chapter 2). Thus, the use and preservationist positions are constrained by two
orientations: at one extreme lies the emphasis on human needs being met in parks, while the
other leads to overt opposition to the preservation and protection of natural areas as valueless
‘locking up’ of land. This conflict intensifies with the pressures of an exponentially increasing
global population and the concomitant consumption of resources this entails.
As we have seen in Chapter 2, ecocentrically oriented philosophies have raised significant
challenges to the anthropocentric focus on nature’s value lying in relation to human needs.
However, an extreme ecocentrist approach would actually challenge the fundamental rationale
of protected areas themselves as a ‘Noah’s Ark solution,’ for protected areas are, in effect,
isolated islands of biodiversity. An ecocentric perspective would argue that we would not need
protected areas if we did not have such an exploitative relationship with nature (see Chapter 2),
and this is the heart of the protected area debate, particularly in relation to ecotourism, for in
essence, ‘humanity depends upon that which it threatens.’
Tourism and protected areas

62
Nowhere are the conflicting views over intrinsic and utilitarian value more evident than the
current debate over the function and purpose of protected areas. It is a conflict over two
primary orientations, ‘preservation’ versus ‘use,’ and tourism in protected areas embody this
dilemma precisely. Tourism is, in essence, a recreational activity in which the value for nature
aligns with both the ‘cathedral’ and ‘gymnasium’ dimensions we have discussed in Chapter 2.
Protected areas seem incompatible with such activities because their primary function lies in
the preservation of natural ecosystems. Such opposition is illustrated and reinforced through
accepted institutional arrangements in which independent organizations pursue tourism and
conservation goals. The current focus of the debate on tourism in parks is the extension of a
long controversy, a controversy that has existed since the conception of protected areas and
equivalent reserves.
The originating conception of national parks placed recreation rather than conservation at the
center of park functions. Yellowstone National Park in the United States of America, for
example, was originally conceptualized as ‘pleasuring grounds for the benefit and enjoyment of
the people . . . for gaining great profit from tourists and pleasure seekers’ and as ‘a national
domain for rest and recreation’ (Strom, 1980: 3). Similarly, the Royal National Park, established
in Australia in 1879, was originally established as a recreational park. Historically then, parks
were established for utilitarian reasons, but since the early conception of parks, there has been
a significant reorientation away from a predominant recreational/tourism focus towards
conservation objectives. In the past, recreation and tourism were only a minor threat to parks
because of distance difficulty in access, and the low levels of visitation. However, this has
changed significantly in the past 15–20 years as protected areas are becoming of increasing
significance through increases in mobility, leisure and environmental awareness (Sheppard,
1987; 25), both.
Ecotourism and Park Management
There are inherent dangers in promoting tourism in protected areas. Decision-makers may be
more interested in the economic gain from the park and not its conservation benefits. If the
tourism industry turns sour in the area, there may be a tendency to look for more profitable
land use (MacKinnon et al., 1986). On the other hand, if the area is in high demand, decision-
makers may want to promote inappropriate development of large hotels and highways that
would be detrimental to the resources but increase short-term revenue. Park managers must
always keep the main purpose of the park in mind, as well as the differences between
ecotourism and regular tourism, especially when the park has been established to protect
vulnerable and valuable natural resources. The park manager has to weigh the conservation
impacts against the potential economic benefits of ecotourism.
When ecotourism is regarded as the primary mechanism to supply a park or surrounding area
with economic benefits, the park must be strictly managed, and protective measures must be
put in place to prevent degradation by tourists, even those tourists visiting with the “greenest”
intent. “Ecotourism cannot be viewed as a benign, non-consumptive use of natural resources in

63
the tropics. Many of the existing protected areas with the highest biodiversity are fragile and
cannot endure heavy human disturbance. The most remote sites may be among the most
important for biodiversity conservation because they are the least degraded. However, this also
makes them attractive to Eco tourists, who would want to travel to places that are biologically
important and more “exotic” because of their remoteness. Many of these areas lack
infrastructure, and park managers have few plans or resources to cope with an increasing influx
of tourists.
This section, therefore, explores some of the issues and options in managing ecotourism in a
manner consistent with biodiversity conservation.
Even low levels of visitation and the infrastructure to support such visitation, such as roads and
trails, can create Habitat Island within parks and impede the movements of animals. This can
threaten the viability of some species (Whitmore and Sayer, 1992:83). In zoning for tourism,
there should be an emphasis on maintaining core areas that are “off limits” for visitation and on
minimizing the impact of infrastructure on wildlife. For example, roads should not be cited as
Tourism as a key.
Society expects optimal use of natural resources as an integral part of the process of continual
economic development. In this circumstance, the economic justification of ecotourism in
protected areas offers a means of providing outcomes that can demonstrate to society the
benefits of protected areas. Increasingly, tourism is often used to provide an economic
rationale to preserve natural areas rather than developing them for alternative uses such as
agriculture or forestry. In current analyses of natural or protected areas, this element has
become central, pushing debate onto the question of maintaining an area in its natural state as
opposed to exploiting the resources it contains.
This economic valuation is increasingly being used to justify the existence of protected areas
through the demonstrable ‘value’ of both the wildlife and ecosystem features. Tourism is
becoming increasingly central to these strategies, given that tourists are willing to pay to
experience these natural areas.
Many studies are now being used to show that protected areas make an economic contribution
of some significance.5 These studies have variously used econometric modeling, input-output
analysis and multiplier analysis to estimate the impact of natural resource-based recreation and
tourism on local and regional economies. o that animals will need to cross them to get to
waterholes.
Tourism in protected areas can lead to increased economic benefits through both the direct
expenditures of tourists and the associated employment opportunities it generates, both within
and adjacent to the park. This can be capitalized upon in promotional strategies – a poster in
Tanzania reads: ‘Our protected areas bring good money into Tanzania – Protect them’ (Nash,
1989: 344). This economic rationale in support of parks (cf. Machlis and Tichnell, 1985;

64
MacKinnon et al., 1986) is especially important where competing resource uses, such as
agriculture or forestry, are involved.
The economic benefits of tourism have the potential to provide additional support for park
protection and for giving parks a role in supporting rural development. However, there are
questions about the distribution of the economic benefits of tourism. Large-scale developments
involving millions of dollars may appear to contribute to local or regional economies, but, in
fact, such benefits may only be illusory. Rates of leakage of tourist expenditures can be very
high; in the Caribbean, for example, first-round leakage rates range from 30 to 45% and second
round leakages from 15–20%.
The question of who gets the benefits and who pays the costs is complex. Although visitors
expect some tourism money to directly benefit the local population surrounding the area, in
some cases, little of that money is actually distributed to the local communities. Moreover,
much of the literature on economic impact only focuses on benefits. Limited attention has been
given to the economic costs imposed by the infrastructure developed to attract, accommodate
and facilitate tourism or to the costs of maintaining and restoring park resources adversely
affected by tourists. This raises the concern of whether the perceived economic returns of
tourism in or associated with protected areas will lead to inappropriate developments and use
levels that threaten the conservation objectives upon which the park is founded.
Arguments for tourism’s ability to generate employment are also problematic, as employment
often goes to persons residing outside of the area who directly experience the impacts of
tourism. Wages also are typically low, and tourism is highly seasonal in many areas. Economic
benefits are also subject to external changes, such as shifts in exchange rates that can rapidly
change the ‘attractiveness’ of a location, as the cost of holidaying is one of the most important
factors in determining the desirability of a region.
This illustrates several key limitations in the economic justification of protected areas. Current
economic analyses are capable of extending only to those more tangible economic
measurements, such as willingness to pay, travel costs and expenditure rates. These methods
have been effective to an extent in evaluating some human behavior associated with national
parks and protected areas. Still, they have not been widely accepted as adequate methods for
estimating accurately the value of national parks and protected areas.
Economics is, by definition, a zero-sum equation and must, therefore, take account of all costs
that are associated with a particular project in order for the economic equation to balance fully.
In terms of natural areas, a large proportion of the costs in changing the use of an area are
social costs, which, in many cases, are intangible and difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Economic concepts do not readily adapt to the measurement of the intangible values of
protected areas. The valuation of natural areas has its basis in the framework for land use
planning in developed countries, which centers around the idea of ‘highest and best use’. For

65
an economical cost, the highest and best use of land invariably refers to the most economically
viable purpose. Inherent in this judgement are the limitations of economic indicators in valuing
all relevant factors with a consistent degree of accuracy. Clearly, it is easier to quantify the
value of raw materials, land (as private real estate) or development opportunities inaccurate
monetary terms than it is to identify the more intangible social impacts of utilizing a resource.
When an economic valuation of a natural area is proposed, it is usually done so in order to
compare alternative uses of the resource. This comparison is almost always for decision-
making, and this decision-making process is inherently political. While the concept of economic
cost seeks to provide a figure that provides a platform upon which a political argument is built,
almost inevitably, this argument moves to an analysis of non-economic matters or the concept
of ‘social cost,’ or, in economic terms, externalities.
In basic economic terms, quality environment is a ‘good’ that produces ‘satisfaction’ and,
therefore, must be accounted for in some way. Environmental impact assessment has been
developed as a mechanism to begin accounting for these less tangible values. However, the
consideration of social costs presents significant problems for economic analyses. Economic
analysis has, in the
past decade, expanded its theoretical parameters to include non-financial benefits. However,
there is an inherent bias for measurable economic returns.
The solution to the problem should not be based on the development of better economic and
social indexes: ‘Indexes can’t alter the fact that what one citizen sees as goods another sees as
costs or waste. What one wants to consume, another wants to leave on the ground. Indexes of
net welfare have to be constructed by controversial judgments of good and bad. They are still
worth having (though every person may want their own). Better accounting can serve all sorts
of good purposes and reconcile some mistaken conflicts of opinion, but it can’t reconcile real
conflicts of interest outside’ (Stretton, 1976: 314).
Ecocentrically informed management recognizes that modern science and technology cannot
prevent environmental degradation if the current economic growth and resource use trends
continue and that a change in philosophy, politics and economics are needed to ensure that a
sustainable human population can exist in balance with its environment. This is a
preservationist position that re-emphasizes the need for prior macroenvironmental constraints,
such as government legislation.
Therefore, conservation involves the management or control of human use of resources (biotic
and abiotic) and activities on the planet in an attempt to restore, enhance, protect and sustain
the quality and quantity of a desired mix of species, ecosystem conditions and processes for
present and future generations (Dunster and Dunster, 1996: 69).

66
Resource conservation is thus a form of ‘restrained development’ in that, at a minimum,
development must be sustainable in not endangering the natural systems that support life on
earth – the atmosphere, the waters, the soils, and all living beings.
An ecocentric systems approach to protected areas management allows a shift from the
utilitarian/instrumental justification toward the intrinsic values of the protected areas.
However, without this change in values, the long-term future of protected areas could be in
jeopardy.
Sustainable management techniques
While more conventional forms of tourism modify the surrounding environment to suit the
specific needs of their clients, ecotourists do not expect or even desire substantial
modifications of the natural environment. Rather than measuring the quality of the tour by
conventional standards such as predictability and uniformity of experience, ‘ecotourism’s
success is based on the unexpected’ (Williams, 1990: 84). Ecotourism provides the tourist with
opportunities to discover and actively participate and interact with the surrounding
environment, encouraging the tourist to assume a proactive role in creating their own tourism
experience.
Despite increasing interest from larger tour operators, ecotourism remains largely an activity of
small operators (O’Neill, 1991). Thus, it occurs at a different scale to traditional mass tourism as
small operators are restricted in the number of clients that they are able to handle at any one
time (cf. Choegyal, 1991: 94; Williams, 1990: 85). Due to the small scale of operations, political
support, market stability, business costs and employment are not as reliable as conventional
tourism. However, limited group size provides a higher quality experience for the tourist.
There is concern, however, that ecotourism will act much in the same manner as mass tourism,
only destroying the resource at a slower rate (Butler, 1992). In the short term, ecotourism is
viewed as ‘less conducive to causing change in destination areas than mass tourism, in part
because of its dimensions and in part because of the need for fewer and smaller facilities’
(Butler, 1990). However, it is thought that, over time, the cumulative effects of this activity may
penetrate deeper into the environment and the surrounding communities, paving the way for
mass
tourism development. For every traveler prepared to meet the wilderness on its terms, there
exist hundreds of others who demand that it be modified for their use – surfaced roads,
cafeterias, toilets, parking, picnic facilities and a range of other amenities.
This is a fundamental issue for ecotourism and protected areas. Ecotourists prefer to
experience natural areas in an unspoiled state, and therefore, there is a significant crossover of
interest for conservation objectives. However, although ecotourism in natural areas may have
positive outcomes, management needs to be aware of possible adverse effects so that they
might be addressed through careful planning and effective management strategies (McNeely

67
and Thorsell, 1989). Protected area agencies may be significantly attracted to the economic
benefits of tourism, which may compromise conservation objectives. Managers must be clear
about the park’s objectives along with the significant differences between forms of tourism and
their impacts. Common issues associated with tourism in natural areas that need to be
considered by managers include visitor crowding, conflict between different user types,
littering, user fees and information distribution (Lucas, 1984).
Thus, an important consideration for management involved in ecotourism activities in natural
areas is the way in which a balance may be provided in order to maximize visitor enjoyment
while at the same time minimizing the negative impacts of tourism development (cf. Ceballos-
Lascurain, 1990; McNeely and Thorsell, 1989).
It is essential here to note that even when ecotourism is deployed in order to supply protected
areas with economic benefits, the park itself must be strictly managed, monitored and
controlled through protective measures to prevent degradation of the site by tourists. Most
protected areas with the highest biodiversity are fragile, and even the smallest human impacts
have significant environmental effects. Protected areas are themselves areas that are in much
demand for nature-based tourism because of the very features that they are designed to
protect – their biodiversity, remoteness, and pristine ecosystems. However, many of these
areas lack infrastructure, and park managers, therefore, have few resources to cope with
increasing tourist levels.
The defense of protected areas for their intrinsic value alone has proven to be difficult. In
capitalist societies such as ours, expensive and often expansive claims on scarce land resources
must be based on broad grounds and integrated within a robust management framework;
ecotourism has presented an opportunity to achieve this.
As we have seen in previous chapters, one critical element of ecotourism is sustainability.
Ecotourism’s goal then is sustainability, which attempts to provide a resource base for the
future and seeks to ensure the productivity of the resource base, maintain biodiversity and
avoid irreversible environmental changes while ensuring equity both within and between
generations.
Ecotourism seeks to capitalize on the increase in tourism to protected areas renowned for their
outstanding beauty and extraordinary ecological interest and return the benefits of this to the
host community. Ecotourism is premised on the idea that it can only be sustainable if the
natural and cultural assets it is reliant upon survive and prosper. This involves reducing social
and biophysical impacts caused by visitors, reducing the leakage of potential benefits away
from developing countries, increasing environmental awareness and action among tourists and
opportunities for the people who would otherwise depend on the extraction of local resources.
Nature-oriented tourists frequently expect management guidelines for natural attractions.
Management control serves to protect and conserve the area, ensuring that the expectations of
visitors are met and that patronage continues along with the natural resource bases. Factors

68
that should be under management control and which may affect natural attractions, as well as
tourist expectations, include tourist infrastructure and development, visitor levels, guides,
vandalism, souvenir collection, access to
areas, driving off-road at night, feeding animals and others.
Ecotourism groups should ideally be small in scale in order to provide a higher quality
experience to the customer, as this aids in keeping environmental stress and impact levels to a
minimum and allowing the tourist’s intrinsic goals to be realized. Ecotourism is able to foster an
appreciation of natural areas and traditional cultures by enabling the tourist to experience an
area firsthand. It is this first-hand experience with the natural environment, combined with the
quest for education and other intrinsic enjoyment, that constitutes a true ecotourism
experience (Butler, 1992).
Carrying Capacity, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Limits of Acceptable Change, Visitor
Impact Management and Visitor Activity Management Process are sustainability decision-
making frameworks used in protected area management. When implemented, they help
protect a country’s natural and cultural heritage, enhance public appreciation of the resource,
and manage the conflict between resource and user (Graham et al., 1987: 292). To gain an
appreciation of these strategies and their relationship to managing ecotourism operations,
protected areas will be used to elaborate on the specific issues relating to sustainability
practices, their historical development within the context of an increasing environmental
awareness and the ability to consider broad social factors will be examined.
6.2. Linking Conservation and Development through Ecotourism
One of the often-overlooked ways in which ecotourism supports conservation is that
ecotourists, upon returning home, act as advocates for the areas they have visited. The impact
may be most significant with domestic ecotourists. This advocacy can help conservation in
many ways. Firstly, ecotourists are likely to give more generously either to conservation
organizations working to preserve the site they visited or to conservation more broadly.
Secondly, they are often willing to donate their time and energy to lobby for or against policies
or activities that threaten the areas they visit. Many join or start organizations which directly
support the area they have visited by giving supplies or materials, arranging visits by scientists,
starting lobbying or publicity efforts, and looking for financial support. Finally, they act as
“conservation ambassadors” and convince friends and family to take similar trips and increase
their support for conservation. In both international and domestic populations, the importance
of a constituency for conservation activities cannot be underestimated.
A significant contribution to ecotourism’s global following has been its potential to deliver
benefits to communities remote from centers of commerce, benefits that do not involve
widespread social or environmental destruction. Too often in the past, the only opportunities
for many communities remote from urban centers, particularly in the developing world, were

69
provided by extractive industries – mining, logging, or fishing – which had massive impacts on
local communities and often left an unacceptable legacy of long-term environmental damage.
Tourism is often advocated as a way of solving some of the problems that have arisen in
developing nations through inappropriate economic growth. Tourism is a diverse and
decentralized industry which affects other sectors of local economies; it is a 24-hours a-day, 7-
days-a-week industry, labor-intensive, creating employment opportunities across all sectors
and skill levels. However, conventional tourism brings with it many of the problems we have
found in the exploitation of developing nations in the past.1 It is often driven, owned and
controlled by developed nations with a high return to these nations – conventional package
tours, in many cases, for example, utilize local people through the use of their resources and
labor at a minimum (or often zero) cost to the operator. Employment is often seasonal and
lowly paid in contrast to the profits accruing to investors and operators. Such practices are
defended on the pretext that if these operators did not initiate tourism, then no money would
be injected into the community at all. However, tourism can no longer be justified on its
supposedly low impact–high return.
It is this dominant economic focus that serves to obscure significant dimensions of tourism
impact. Tourism produces a diverse range of both social and environmental impacts that are
often complex and mutually related. Some Indigenous communities often put it in simple
terms: a frequently used phrase is ‘Tourism is like fire. It can cook your food or burn down your
house.’ The tourism industry makes extensive use of natural assets – forests, reefs, beaches and
parks – but what does it contribute to the management of these assets? The provision of
tourism infrastructure and the costs of managing the impact of tourism on host communities
are often borne by the environment, the community itself and the government. A significant
body of research has challenged the claims of industry and government agencies that the
aggregate benefits of tourism far outweigh the costs: benefits are rarely uniform, accruing to
those actively involved in the tourist industry, while costs are often borne by those who derive
no compensatory benefits from tourism (cf. Butler, 1991).
Local communities are significantly vulnerable to the deleterious impacts of tourism
development – particularly indigenous cultures – as they directly experience the sociocultural
impacts of tourism. The subsequent impact of tourism’s dynamic growth on communities has,
in some cases, precipitated strong protests by community groups, which, being sensitive to the
impacts of tourism, have actively opposed large-scale tourism developments for their locality.
Other community groups have been more accepting of gradual growth in tourism to their
region over many years, only to become aware of the negative impacts at a later date when
these impacts cannot easily be ignored.
Disruption to established activity patterns, anti-social behavior, crime and over-crowding
caused by tourism development can also have a negative impact on local lifestyles and the
quality of life of both Indigenous and nonindigenous communities.

70
In many cases, indigenous cultures are used extensively to promote destinations to overseas
markets, yet opportunities for visitors to interact with and experience their cultures and
lifestyles are limited. In contrast, the opportunities that are provided for tourists often trivialize
or exploit those involved and the communities they represent. Many indigenous people rightly
feel that the tourism industry has a poor track record in disregarding their legitimate interests
and rights and profiting from their cultural knowledge and heritage.
The environmental impact of other industries also compromises the tourism potential of local
areas. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the entire tourism industry is under attack
from other business interests, which
are virtually stealing its assets (Jenner and Smith, 1991). In the late 1980s, the development
boom initiated the emergence of many so-called ‘tourism developments’, which were nothing
more than land speculation or a means of making otherwise conventional residential
developments acceptable to planning authorities. It led to bankruptcies, inflated profits,
overloaded infrastructure, residential sprawl and unwanted social and environmental impacts,
which led many local communities to be suspicious of the benefits of the tourism industry. The
ecological cultural impacts, and social impacts of tourism often lead to diminished community
and political support for the industry, particularly at local levels.
The interdependence of tourism and the social and physical environment is fundamental to the
future of each, and seeking a way to accommodate the needs of all parties without control
being external to those who experience its effects most directly is essential. Features of the
natural and cultural environment and supportive host communities are the foundations of a
successful industry. Neglect of conservation and quality of life issues threatens the very basis of
local populations and a viable and sustainable tourism industry.
As we have discussed in Chapter 1, ecotourism involves travel to relatively undisturbed or
protected natural areas, fostering understanding, appreciation and conservation of the flora,
fauna, geology and ecosystems of an area as well as local community culture and its
relationship to the land. The flora, fauna, geology and ecosystems of an area highlight the
nature-base aspect. There is, thus, a significant overlap between conservation and sustainability
between the natural and social environment. As we have seen in Chapter 2, sustainability is at
the forefront of policy-oriented literature about conservation and development. Unfortunately,
however, little or no discussion has yet taken place about the sustainability or otherwise of
communities adjacent to or surrounding ecotourism ventures.
Ecotourism has the potential to create support for conservation objectives in both the host
community and the visitor alike through establishing and sustaining links between the tourism
industry, local communities, and protected areas. As social and environmental benefits are
essentially interdependent, social benefits accruing to host communities as a result of
ecotourism may result in increasing overall standards of living due to the localized economic
stimulus provided for increased visitation to the site. Similarly, environmental benefits accrue

71
as host communities are persuaded to protect natural environments in order to sustain
economically viable tourism (CeballosLascurain, 1990).
Many tourists, especially ecotourists, are sensitive to decreases in water quality and air quality,
loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife, soil erosion, and a change in the character and visual appeal
of an area due to development. Degradation of the natural environment will severely reduce
visitor demand in the long term because the natural attributes on which ecotourists depend will
be perceived as less attractive, less legitimate and less able to provide satisfying ecologically
based experiences.
Ecotourism and local communities: conflict, compromise or cooperation?
Local communities comprise groups with different and potentially conflicting interests (see
Figure 6.1). That is, not all groups want the same things.
The tourist industry seeks a healthy business environment with:
financial security;
a trained and responsible workforce;
attractions of sufficient quality to ensure a steady flow of visitors – who stay longer and visit
more often;
a significant return on investment.
Those interested in the natural environment and cultural heritage issues seek:
protection of the environment through prevention, improvement, correction of damage, and
restoration;
to motivate people to be more aware – and therefore ‘care for’ rather than ‘use up’ resources.
Community members seek a healthy place in which to live with:
food, adequate and clean water, health care,
rewarding work for equitable pay, education
and recreation;
respect for cultural traditions;
opportunities to make decisions about the
future.
Some concerns that each may hold in common include:
issues of access, such as when, where and how

72
tourists visit and move from place to place;
Figure 6.1 Stakeholders and their needs
LINKING CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITIES: COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND SOCIAL COSTS 75
host and guest issues, such as cultural impact
or common use of infrastructure;
land use issues, such as hunting/wildlife
habitat, agriculture/recreation, preservation/
development, etc.
Ecotourism and local communities
There are a number of reasons why local communities may consider ecotourism:
a desire to be part of strong growth in tourism
generally and see the potential of catering for
special-interest tourism (niche markets);
an awareness of the high value of natural
attractions in the locale;
empathy for conservation ideals and the need
for sustainable tourism;
a desire to responsibly rejuvenate the local
tourist industry.
As we have seen in Chapter 1, one of the main principles or elements of ecotourism is its ability
to maximize the benefits of tourism, not only as regards income to a region but also the
preservation of social infrastructure and biosphere conservation. Specifically, these benefits
include:
increased demand for accommodation houses and food and beverage outlets, and therefore
improved viability for new and established hotels, motels, guest houses, farm stays, etc.;
additional revenue to local retail businesses and other services (e.g., medical, banking, car hire,
cottage industries, souvenir shops, tourist attractions);
increased market for local products (e.g., locally grown produce, artifacts, value-added goods),
thereby sustaining traditional customs and practices;

73
employment of local labor and expertise (e.g., ecotour guides, retail sales assistants, restaurant
table waiting staff);
source of funding for the protection and enhancement/maintenance of natural attractions and
symbols of cultural heritage;
funding and volunteers for field work associated with wildlife research and archaeological
studies;
heightened community awareness of the value of local/indigenous culture and the natural
environment.
As these benefits suggest, ecotourism is about attracting visitors for the ‘right’ reasons and not
simply the promotion of tourism for the sake of the ‘tourist dollar’ at the expense of a
community’s natural and cultural attributes. However, local communities are not immune to
the impact of ecotourism.
The issues and problems
The conflictual issues expressed by representatives of host communities to tourism
development generally fall into a number of interrelated categories:
the lack of opportunities for involvement in
decision-making relating to ecotourism;
inadequate responses from governments
when administrative or legislative mechanisms have been established to involve them
in such decision-making;
the lack of financial, social and vocational
benefits flowing to these communities from
projects that commercially exploit what they
regard as their resources;
the need to establish better tools for evaluating socio-cultural impacts and ensuring this is
completed over the more emphasized environmental impacts on the natural environments,
which are usually of more interest to
the outside investors and conservation
groups;
impacts on community cohesion and

74
structure;
76 ECOTOURISM: IMPACTS, POTENTIALS AND POSSIBILITIES
the rapidity of tourism development that, in many cases, significantly accelerates social change.
These concerns embrace a wide range of issues relating to the management of natural
resources adjacent to these communities. The central issue is the inadequate levels of
participation perceived by these communities in the management of what they regard as their
traditional domains. Control is exerted over local communities both economically and
culturally. Tourism involves an interactive process between the host (both human and
environment) and guest, and therefore, ‘the culture of the host society is as much at risk from
various forms of tourism as physical environments’ (Sofield, 1991: 56). In many cases tourists
view Indigenous cultures and local communities as ‘products’ of the tourism experience that
exist to be ‘consumed’ along with all the other elements of their trip. As tourists are often
paying to watch and photograph indigenous people, they feel that it is their ‘right’ to treat
them accordingly – as providing a service and as a product being purchased as a component of
their travel cost. Significantly, however, many local cultures may actively ‘construct’ what
appears (to the tourist’s camera) to be an ‘authentic’ cultural display but which, in reality is a
staged event specifically for tourists’ consumption. This phenomenon, known as ‘staged
authenticity’ (cf. MacCannell, 1976), in many cases serves a strategic purpose in satisfying the
tourist’s curiosity while allowing the maintenance of actual cultural rituals to escape the hungry
tourist’s lens. This is the positive side (from the indigenous culture’s perspective) of the
commodification of tourism, as in many cases, it is the interest in local cultures that, in many
ways, helps to sustain and even revive traditional cultural practices.
However, the commodification of culture often has significant impacts on local communities.
‘Staged authenticity’ is often actively encouraged by operators whose chief concern is often
with providing a ‘cultural experience for tourists that can be experienced in comfort and safety
and which is aesthetically pleasing. These cultural performances often become detached from
their actual cultural meaning and begin to be performed purely for the viewing public. Too
often, cultural attractions become overtly commercialized in nature, satisfying the visitors’
needs but losing all meaning and significance for the indigenous population. Similarly,
Indigenous communities often have little or no say over whether they want tourism, and they
derive few real benefits from their ‘performance.’ Sustaining the well-being and the cultural
traditions of the local community where ecotourism takes place becomes fundamental to
definitions of ecotourism. As we have seen in Chapter 3, ecotourism is in large part a
sustainable development strategy: ‘whereby natural resource amenities, the local community
and the visitor benefit from tourism activity’ (Pearce et al., 1996).
The following definition of ecotourism incorporates the above points:
travel, often to developing countries, to relatively undisturbed protected natural areas for

75
study, enjoyment or volunteer assistance that
concerns itself with the flora, fauna, geology
and ecosystems of an area – as well as the
people (caretakers) who live nearby, their
needs, their culture and their relationship with
the land. (Wallace, 1992: 7)
Similarly, many organizations are now beginning to recognize the integral part that local
Indigenous people play in tourism by including cultural understanding and appreciation in their
definitions of ecotourism. In this way, ecologically sustainable tourism is increasingly becoming
aligned with conservation, environmental and cultural understanding and appreciation (EAA,
1996). Thus, ecotourism aims to promote and foster respect and an increase in awareness of
other cultures, in fostering mutually beneficial relationships between hosts and tourists.
While it is important for the traditional values of local and indigenous communities to be
maintained, indigenous people must not be asked to maintain their traditional practices simply
for the sake of tourist entertainment. However, it must also be recognized that cultures
undergo a constant process of change, and it is this process of genuine cultural change and
exchange that is a fundamental component of ecotourism. ‘Genuine’ in this sense may be read
as synonymous with sovereignty. Local communities must be in an empowered rather than a
subordinate position from which they have autonomy over their culture, its artifacts and rituals,
and its very direction while engaging in and with cultures that interact with them but do not
exploit them.
In this way, both the visitors and the hosts benefit from the tourism experience while at the
same time avoiding negative cultural impacts on the indigenous population. Participation of
local communities in the activity of tourism, therefore, is an essential element in sustaining the
well-being of local people.
Through the interactive process between the visitor and the host population, both can benefit
experientially from ecotourism. By developing an appreciation of local communities and their
customs and traditions, ‘a process of mutual respect and understanding between societies can
be greatly enhanced’ (Burchett, 1992: 10), and the achievement of successful interaction
between hosts and guests will only benefit and sustain the well-being of local communities.
Local communities can benefit from ecotourism economically if they play a greater
participatory role in the tourism process. The greater the control over tourism in their region,
the more culturally sustainable they will become.
Employment

76
One of the most obvious and immediate benefits of tourism associated with local communities
is the increase in employment opportunities and income generation for the host region:
direct employment (associated service industries such as hotels, restaurants, concessions);
indirect employment (generated as a result of
increasing industry inputs such as employment at a retail souvenir outlet);
induced employment (generated as a result
of increased spending capacity of residents due to increased receipts from tourism;
consumption of goods, for example) (Healy,
1989: 21).
Unfortunately, however, employment opportunities for local communities are extremely
restricted. Tourism is often extolled as a major employer in local communities due to the
assumption that high levels of capital investment equate with a corresponding increase in
employment. Conversely, tourism is often advocated as a major employment generator due to
its labor-intensive nature. However, these assumptions are often misleading as tourism often
does not essentially generate significant amounts of employment and is less labor-intensive
than sometimes espoused by operators seeking community support.
The primary employment opportunities through ecotourism are in the areas of hotels, craft
makers, shop owners, tour operators, government agency staff, park wardens/rangers and the
like. Kusler (n.d: 2) sounds a particular warning to those who may hail ecotourism as invariably
solving endemic unemployment as he notes that in some circumstances, little (if any)
employment benefits have accrued to local communities because infrastructure, such as
accommodation establishments, have already been developed (and staffed) in the area.
Currently, the general lack of skills and resources has meant that many ecotourism ventures are
owned and operated by expatriates (Weiler and
Hall, 1992). Often, it is unfeasible to expect the local population automatically to assume
employment positions within ecotourism: ‘The hard truth is that a local farmer, fisherman or
plantation worker cannot always be changed overnight into a tourist guide or hotel manager’
(Clark and Banford, 1991: 9). It is often common that the planning, staff and management of
parks is done by developed country personnel or expatriates in developing countries and this
can have negative effects on the affected local communities, often leading to ‘homogenization’
of cultures, and in many cases the trivialization of local and traditional methods of managing
the natural resources, as well as hostility and bitterness.

77
Training and education should not solely be concerned with utilitarian skills that may enhance
employment opportunities. Partnerships between the tourism industry, government agencies
and the local population are needed in which local populations are able to articulate their initial
concerns, wants and needs in relation to any development, and which allow them to evaluate
in their terms whether they wish to benefit from tourism (even before they gain employment).
However, participation by local communities in tourism must not be limited simply to
employment opportunities. Local communities must be involved in the complete tourism
development process, from the planning stage to the implementation and management of
tourism projects, through avenues of consultation and partnership. In conjunction, tourism
ventures need to be driven by the local communities themselves in all aspects, particularly
through locally owned operations or vested interests in local operations, which would see
greater economic benefits accruing to local communities. Joy and Motzney (1992: 457) suggest
locals should buy and manage small accommodation establishments. However, despite the lack
of capital intensity in ecotourism, it may not be a viable economic opportunity for many local
populations to enter the market.
Extensive training and education are needed before local communities can gain meaningful benefits from
ecotourism, particularly language, environmental and natural history skills (Weiler and Hall, 1992: 117). While the
skills for running private business enterprises may not be available within the local community, local expertise and
knowledge can be a powerful tool for tourist guides and park wardens in protected areas: proper management of
protected areas requires the employment of park rangers and guards, as well as workers to maintain park
buildings, roads and trails. Ecotourism in protected areas creates demand for guide services . . . employing for . . .
local people familiar with the flora and fauna of the area. (Bunting, 1991: 3)
According to Ceballos-Lascurain (1992: 5), local people not only possess the ‘practical and ancestral knowledge of
the natural features’ of the area, but they also have the incentive to become dedicated to ecotourism in positions such
as park rangers since ‘their subsistence would depend in a major degree on the sustained preservation of the natural
qualities of their environment.’ Similarly, instead of promoting a colonialist model of development that would seek
to bring locals ‘up to speed’ through training in ‘necessary’ skills, a recognition of the particular range of skills
already possessed by local communities matched with their expectations and outcomes for tourism projects
proposed for their locale would be more beneficial in any real sense. Local communities must be involved in the
complete tourism development process, from planning to the implementation of tourism projects through avenues of
consultation. Consultation is a process which aims to reconcile economic development with the broader interests of
local people and the potential impact of development on their natural, social and cultural environment’ (World Wide
Fund for Nature, 1992: 25).
Even small-scale development may have significant negative impacts. As a result of tourism to
various areas, local people have lost access to land and resources they had previously enjoyed.
According to Johnson (1993: 2), ecotourism often leads to a change in resource ownership and
management, which is beneficial to the tourism industry but detrimental to the local people.
Similarly, ‘flourishing employment, living standards and consumption levels for some, added to
the unequal distribution of benefits to a portion of the population, can contribute to social
tensions and hostility’ (WWF, 1992: 19). This has significant import for protected area agencies
for local resentment towards designated conservation areas often arises when the park is
viewed as principally of benefit to tourists with no reciprocal benefit for the local population.
This is often due to the fact that local people no longer have the right to use land they consider

78
theirs, but at the same time, see it frequently visited by foreign people; the reaction to this is
often negative.
Extreme cases can lead to the destruction of natural areas as ‘malicious destruction may occur
if landowners believe that their lands are being singled out for protection . . . and they are not
receiving the benefits’ (Kusler, n.d.: 2).
Local planning and development
The ideal for planning ecotourism development is cited by Clark and Banford (1991):
There is no reason why countries or communities should not decide what type of tourism
they are willing to accept and set limits to the
amount of change they are prepared to put up
with. This applies to ecotourism. (1991: 7)
Such a process would involve goal setting at the national, regional and local levels. Clark and
Banford (1991: 7) suggest the development of a tourism masterplan to document the
desirability and limits of acceptable tourism for the area. Ideally, communities could develop
their master plan, but presently it is dependent on the priorities of those in positions of power
to determine (such as the policies mentioned above for ecotourism in Belize).
Several examples exist where local people have taken moves to ensure they, both personally
and as a community, benefit directly from ecotourism. In many small communities such as that
living on Easter Island, accommodation becomes a key factor. On Easter Island, over 300 beds
within local houses are open to tourists, providing the major source of accommodation on the
island. The additional income gained has been spent beautifying homes and providing for local
infrastructure. In Papua New Guinea’s highlands, villagers have a source of income from the
accommodation huts they have built on their land (Bates, 1991: 4), which, with the cooperation
of the local tour operators, provide accommodation to groups of tourists.
Similarly, the Pax World Friendship Tours and Co-op America’s Travel Link programs are all
designed specifically so that the local community can benefit from ecotourism in that area. The
programs involve local people opening their homes to tourists, who in turn use this time in the
local community to work on ‘community development projects’ (Johnson, 1993: 3)
However, it is often the power struggle at national, state or local levels that is the determining
factor of where tourism occurs, what is seen and done, and who, among the local community,
receives the economic benefits. In practice, the planning system itself is often set up in a way
that gives indigenous people little or no opportunities for input. According to Johnson (1993: 4),
‘development projects are often designed and implemented in a political context in which
Indigenous people have a minimal voice in policy and management.’ In contrast, Nepal has

79
developed a system (through a resource management plan) specifically benefiting local people
by giving them increased power and a greater role in decision-making.
Increasing access to information for Indigenous people provides them with greater scope for
involvement in planning and decision-making. Education plays a powerful role in increasing
local involvement.
Programs such as these will eventually lead to greater local control over protected areas and
the tourism industry. Therefore, when local people are involved in studying, discussing and
devising strategies to control or capture control over the development decision-making
process, they are taking a critical step toward increasing their role in ecotourism and
development decision-making (Johnson, 1993: 4).
Case study Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s joint UNESCO–MAB and Costa Rica National Park project intentionally prefers
residents to foreign involvement. The restoration of denigrated forests (known as the
Guanacaste project) emphasizes Costa Rican residents, employing and training locals in park
maintenance, management, and habitat restoration. This program has the long-term benefit of
the gradual transfer of control over the research, management, and public education sectors
from the currently dominant North Americans to the Costa Rican industry (Johnson, 1993: 3).
Consideration for local cultures can be incorporated into the planning and marketing of
ecotourism destinations and products in many ways. Blangy and Epler Wood (1992: 4)
recommend that government agencies, tourism boards, the tourism industry and local
inhabitants could all play a role in the education of tourists about cultural issues through the
implementation of social guidelines. They suggest that the government should be responsible
for developing guidelines but recommend significant input from the local community. The local
community can be incorporated into the development of these guidelines by using government
funding (if available) to get assistance with the preparation and editing of brochures for
distribution. Alternatively, the local community could collaborate with international and local
non-governmental organizations and become involved with environmental education projects.
Social guidelines could incorporate desirable and acceptable behavior in the following areas:
1 Local customs and traditions 2 Permission for photographs 3 Dress
4 Language
5 Invasion of privacy
6 Response to begging
7 Use and abuse of technological gadgetry

80
8 Bartering and bargaining
9 Indigenous rights
10 Local officials
11 Off-limits areas (Blangy and Epler Wood,
1992: 4).
Another source of potential assistance is tourist boards. Blangy and Epler Wood (1992: 4)
suggest boards should allocate funds for all stages of the education process through the
generation, printing and distribution of local guidelines. The distribution of brochures and
printed material at tourist centres and on-site is an effective means of reaching tourists. Tour
guides could play an important role by briefing tourists on what is acceptable and unacceptable
in the region being visited.
However, despite the often good intentions of tourists and some tour operators, it is apparent
that ‘ecotourism can damage the natural assets on which it rests. The outcome depends on
how it is managed’ (Lindberg, 1991: ix). Thus, the implications for management are enormous.
Managers must find a way to ‘capitalize on its potential without jeopardizing the special
features of natural areas’ (Boo, 1990: xiv).
In order for ecotourism organizations to become aware of their place and role in ecotourism,
each needs to be made aware of the differing needs of local communities while also aligning
both these groups with national conservation/development strategies: ‘designed to
demonstrate to sectoral interests how they inter-relate with other sectors, thereby revealing
new opportunities for conservation and development to work together’ (McNeely and Thorsell,
1989). These different sectors include governments, private enterprises, local communities and
organizations, non-governmental conservation organizations, and international institutions. If
each sector has an understanding of where it fits within the broader framework of the tourism
and conservation sectors then there is a better
chance of carefully designed tourism programmes. These would take protected areas as a focus
for fostering host communities’ values while providing education for visitors in relation to both
conservation issues and the local community itself (Kutay, 1990: 38).
Crocker (cited in Encel and Encel, 1991: 150) maintains that participatory ecodevelopment is a
means of confronting the deleterious effects of tourism. Participatory ecodevelopment
encompasses cooperative, self-management (autogestion), co-management (cogestion) and
solidarity (solidarism) elements. While it is recognized by most in developing nations that the
old economic models do not work and benefit only the developed nations who end up
controlling the economy, there are alternate models currently in operation in varying forms.
Sometimes, the imperative to respect nature,

81
satisfy basic needs, and participate in self-government, which points in the same direction.
Establishing a more just system of land tenure,
pricing, credit, and technical assistance for
small and poor farmers could reduce deforestation and environmentally unsound farming
practices, as well as be a source of basic needs
satisfaction and communal self-determination.
Santa Rosa National Park rightly prides itself
on integrating the restoration of its dry tropical forest with education and employment
of residents as ‘eco-tour’ guides, foresters, educators, and researchers. A proposed
Peace Park on the Costa Rican–Nicaraguan
border can protect the fragile regional peace as
well as an endangered tropical ecosystem.
(cited in Encel and Encel, 1991: 159)
Originally, in both ecotourism and biodiversity debates, conservation issues were foremost, and
the local community element was neglected. However, it has become increasingly obvious that
biodiversity cannot be conserved without the involvement of resident communities. While it is
necessary to recognize national parks and protected areas as integral to biodiversity and
ecotourism, ecotourism must also stress the importance of local human populations and tourist
experiences.
Tourism and tourism based on natural areas do not take place in isolation from local people.
Tourism requires infrastructure and access, all of which impact local communities. In many
cases, the natural environment is used by local people for sustaining their livelihood. With the
introduction of ecotourism, it is found there is a
better basis for the conservation of natural resources as there are direct benefits to be gained
from an intact environment. These benefits can be seen by local communities, thereby
encouraging an awareness of the need to conserve within an economic framework. However, if
forces outside these communities dictate development it is common to see overdevelopment
and excessive economic leakage followed by high social impact. Resentment can also build,
causing blatant harvesting or destruction of so-called protected natural resources.
Travel essentials
Local communities need to be involved in all

82
levels of ecotourism development from planning through to management. The planning
process must take into account the community
involvement with an understanding of how
local communities can be best approached,
understood and integrated. Only then can
ecotourism provides a sustainable economic
base for rural development, but where local
people have traditional means of sustainable
self-sufficiency, tourism should only act as a
supplementary source of income.
The appropriateness of foreign ownership and
operation of facilities should be carefully
investigated in order to reduce conflict and
resentment between local people and foreign
operators. If there are likely to be limited long-term benefits to the local people, then this
must be brought to the attention of these people and the operators.
Ecotourism views natural resources as a home in a broad sense to all humans, but more so to
the local inhabitants. Ecotourism itself is concerned with low-impact tourism experiences that
are purposely designed to have the least impact possible on both the physical environment and
the local inhabitants.
Ecotourists and ecotourism operators should be involved with the management of natural
resources, as well as be positive devotees to the relationship between their management and
the local inhabitants. This would incorporate supplying locals with some of the positive financial
and other advantages of the tourism activity and providing an avenue for local people to
participate in the planning and tourism development decision-making.
Ecotourism raises the consciousness of hosts about wilderness protection and sustainable
development. It provides both the locals and visitors with genuine, non-forced interaction,
which does not intrude thoughtlessly on the local lifestyle.
Ecotourism provides the local community the opportunity to expand its economic resource
base as a replacement or complement to traditional economic bases such as agriculture and
forestry.

83
Ecotourism does not restrict the benefits of education and access of the natural resource to the
local community in providing avenues for employment, education and enjoyment within the
natural environment.
6.3. Limitations of Ecotourism as a Development Tool
6.4. Constraints of Ecotourism as a Development Tool
Tourism has been used as a way of spurring regional economic growth in countries. One of the
most famous examples of this is in Mexico, where the government explicitly decided to use
tourism as a way of stimulating economic development in diverse regions of the country.
Nature-based tourism can become an important force in regional economic development. In
contrast, ecotourism will not because of its low levels of scale and impact. Once high levels of
tourism occur, the form of tourism becomes mass tourism. Although tourism and ecotourism
can have important local benefits, even small-scale development may have negative impacts.
One of the most common is that as interest increases in resources (whether land, animals) or
access, local people may be pushed out or sold out.
Local prices for commodities often increase as well. The local impacts of tourism are likely to be
similar in developing and developed countries. For example, residents in the Austrian Alps felt
that the overall influence of tourism on their communities was positive but that tourism had
also brought about higher prices for necessities, higher taxes for community infrastructure and
tourism-oriented recreational facilities, competition among villages as well as communities over
the distribution of benefits; and decreased participation in community projects (Kariel, 1989).
7. ECOTOURISM IN ETHIOPIA
7.1. History of Tourism in Ethiopia
7.2. Historical Development of Ecotourism in Ethiopia
7.3. Ecotourism Potentials in Ethiopia
7.4. Opportunities and Limitations of Ecotourism Development in Ethiopia
REFERENCES
Role of Ecotourism in Sustainable Development Advances in Landscape Architecture, Murat
Özyavuz, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/55749. Andy Drumm and Alan Moore ------------- --. USAID,
Ecotourism Development, A Manual for Conservation Planners and Managers. Volume I- An
Introduction to Ecotourism Planning, Second Edition. Internet Doc.
The International Ecotourism Society. 1998. Ecotourism statistical fact sheet. N. Bennington,
Vermont: The International Ecotourism Society. Internet Doc.

84
The Nature Conservancy’s Ecotourism Program — www.nature.org/ecotourism. Intenet Doc.
Ecotourism as an Alternative for the Development of Tourism in Ethiopia. Internet Doc.
Lindberg, K. 1991. Policies for maximizing nature tourism’s ecological and economic benefits.
Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Ecotourism development and principles and management

More Related Content

Similar to Ecotourism development and principles and management (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ecotourism development and principles and management