1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . .ncome gecotourfrom eqm to reted with. . . .mmunitpowermnder par

. . . . . . . . . . 13

. . . . . . . . . . 13

Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / tmpReferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.5. Conict management between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.6. Gender parity in ecotourism: a myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.4. Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.4.1. Biodiversity conservation through ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.4.2. Ecotourism as a business policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.4.3. Conict between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9778572766.E-mail addresses:madhumita.das@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in,

1 Tel.: +91 3222 283607 (ofce).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.01.0022211-9736/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9tion and socio-cultural betterment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3.4. Conict between conserva3.3.5. Uncertainty in community3.2. Economic impact . . . .3.2.1. Employment and i3.2.2. Multiplier effect of3.2.3. Ecotourism: away3.2.4. Failure of ecotouris3.2.5. Ecotourism associa

3.3. Socio-cultural impact . .3.3.1. Ecotourism and co3.3.2. Ecotourism and em3.3.3. Ecotourism and ge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6eneration through ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6ism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7uity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7duce forest dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7compulsory displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

y participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8ent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1. Evolution of ecotourism . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Review methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reviews in tourism

Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament?

Madhumita Das , Bani Chatterjee 1

Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302, India

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 December 2013Accepted 15 January 2015

Keywords:EcotourismEconomic impactSocial impactEnvironmental impact

The paper aims to provide a description of the vision and present practices of ecotourism. Promotion of local live-lihoods through ecotourism has been widely considered as an important policy instrument for biodiversity con-servation. But ecotourism has become a hotly debated topic since its implementation across countries because ofthe mismatch in vision and practice. The paper uses content analysis method for reviewing published literature.Published peer-reviewed journal articles on ecotourism during 20002013 were collected and reviewed. Theoverall evidence on the outcomes of ecotourism in the world shows mixed results. Though there are many suc-cess stories, the list of failures is very high. Owing to the structural, operational and cultural problems, ecotourismin many places has become a predicament. Thus, ecotourism should be introduced with proper monitoring,evaluation and management of ecotourism sites for reinforcing long term conservation.

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contentsmadhu08mita@gmail.com (M. Das), bani@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in (B. Chatterjee).

1. Introduction

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) 1991 denes ecotour-ism as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environ-

concept of ecotourism. Environmental degradation, wildlife habitat de-

4 M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316ment and improves the welfare of the local people. The principles ofecotourism are to: a) minimize negative environmental impact,b) build environmental as well as cultural awareness and respect,c) provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts, d) providedirect nancial benets for conservation, e) provide nancial benetsand empowerment for local people, and f) raise sensitivity to host coun-tries' political, environmental, and social climate.2 Quebec declarationon ecotourism (2002) recognizes the principles of sustainable tourism,concerning the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism.The declaration says that ecotourism:

contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heri-tage,

includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, develop-ment and operation, and contributing to their well-being,

interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visi-tors, and

lends itself better to independent travelers as well as to organizedtours for small size groups.3

Ecotourism is a strategy for supporting conservation and providingincome for communities in and around protected areas. It can contributeto economic development and conservation of protected areas by:a) generating revenues that can be used to sustainably manageprotected areas, b) providing local employment, and c) inculcating asense of community ownership (Jalani, 2012).Wildlife areas andnation-al parks constitute a signicant market for ecotourism based on naturalresources and local culture (Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). Conservation-ists have promoted ecotourism as an integral tool of conservation of nat-ural resources and development of indigenous communities (Stronza,2007). It supports livelihood diversication, which is particularly impor-tant in remote areas, is labor intensive, can grow with unspecializedlabor, and has low entry barriers (Holland, Burian, & Dixey, 2003). Pro-motion of local livelihoods through ecotourism has been widely consid-ered as an important policy instrument for biodiversity conservation(Cattarinich, 2001; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Scheyvens, 2007).

In many parts of the world, ecotourism has contributed to the dualgoal of poverty eradication and conservation of natural resources(Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). Promotion of ecotourism creates a largeamount of employment opportunities for local people who remainengaged in a variety of activities related to tourism. The resolution,entitled, Promotion of ecotourism for poverty eradication and environ-ment protection, calls on UN member states to adopt policies thatpromote ecotourism highlighting its positive impact on income gener-ation, job creation and education, and thus on the ght against povertyand hunger. It further recognizes that ecotourism creates signicantopportunities for the conservation, protection and sustainable use ofbiodiversity and of natural areas by encouraging local and indigenouscommunities in host countries and tourists alike to preserve and respectthe natural and cultural heritage.4

However, against the backdrop of increasing popularity of ecotour-ism, Banerjee (2010) discovers that the present policies of ecotourismbenet neither conservation nor local communities. The concept re-mains poorly understood and much abused. Lack of funding, misman-agement, population and development pressures as well as poachingand bureaucratic nature of forest department have distorted the very

2 Retrieved from http://www.ecotourism.org on 8th August, 2012.3 Retrieved from http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=WEB/0078/PA

on 6th September, 2012.4 Retrieved from unwto.org/en/press-release/2013-01-03/un-general-assembly-eco-tourism-key-eradicating-poverty-and-protecting-envir. on 7th October, 2014.struction, economic inequity, instability, and negative socio-economicand cultural changes within local communities are some of the fewproblems associated with the introduction of ecotourism (Gulinck,Vyverman, Bouchout, & Gobin, 2001). Tourism in a sensitive and fragileecosystem may not come without incurring costs (Banerjee, 2010;Kumar, 2002; Sekhar, 2003). As such the idea of ecotourism is highlycontentious and a hotly debated topic ever since it has been implement-ed across different countries.

Numbers of researchers have expressed their serious concern that inpracticemuchof ecotourism simply neglects communities and local peo-ple. It is simply used as a buzzword to fascinate customers. This leads toserious policy failures. It has been often reected that the costs incurredfor the creation of ecotourism spots tend to be felt most severely at locallevels, especially in the short term. Therefore, the net benets from suchconservation are low and occasionally negative for the members of localcommunities. In the name of conservation the already marginalizedcommunities are further marginalized. By uprooting these communitiesfrom their traditional homeland and their native socio-cultural environ-ment, and by destroying their economy, they are exposed to outside ex-ploitation. It has also been observed that the average rate of speciesextinction has actually increased dramatically over the past few decades.One of the important reasons for this is that the protected areas are im-posed on a community with no or less input, and no regard for the localpeople. This is the root cause behind the formation of all conict.5

A large number of scholars also advocate that, in practice, ecotour-ism has often failed to deliver the expected benets to indigenous com-munities due to a combination of factors like lack of mechanisms for afair distribution of the economic benets of ecotourism, land insecurity,little control of the villagers over tourism and more inux of tourists(Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Counsell, 2005). Social advocates argue thatprotected areas take away local rights of access to critical resourcesand, thus, negatively and unreasonably impact the social and economicwelfare of neighboring communities. This negative human impactharms protected area's conservation objectives because protectedareas cannot succeed without the support of local communities. In theprocess poverty, which is aggravated by protected areas, becomes aroot cause of ecosystem degradation. The 2004 World Parks Congressissued a declaration that many costs of protected areas are bornelocallyparticularly by poor communities (Springer, 2009, pp. 26).

The overall evidence on the outcomes of ecotourism in the worldshow mixed results. The proponents see in ecotourism the potential ofbetterment of the indigenous communities through income generatingopportunities, local empowerment, and increased number of species asa result of conservational policies. Critics, however, say that ecotourismperpetuates economic inequality and disempowers local people(Horton, 2009). Lack of access to land and natural resources, and alien-ating locals from planning process further aggravate the situation. It isseen in many cases that there has been an increase in people-policy-wildlife conict for which the very purpose of ecotourism fails.

The purpose of the present study is to advance knowledge of thecomplex approach of ecotourism. A series of literature have beenconsulted to discover the praxis and theory. The efcacy of ecotourismin conservation through the promotion of livelihood system of localpeople in and around the protected areas in different parts of theworld is reviewed. On the basis of the review, the study nally con-cludes whether it is a panacea or a predicament to natural species aswell as indigenous communities.

2. Reviewmethodology

Content analysis method is adopted for literature review. Contentanalysis is an observational research method that is used to systemati-cally evaluate the content of all forms of recorded communication

5 Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20 on 25th May, 2013.

OURISM

-cu

Positive attitude for conserv

en

on

ork

5M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316(Kolbe & Brunette, 1991). This method also helps to identify the litera-ture in terms of various categories (Li & Cavusgil, 1995), thereby creat-ing a realm of research opportunities (Kolbe & Brunette, 1991). Thereview is limited to the published literature including books, conferenceproceedings and journal papers. Search engines were used to exploreGoogle Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Emerald Insight, in search of litera-ture. Published peer-reviewed journal articles during 20002013 werecollected from various sources, and are reviewed based on authors' per-spective (ecotourism, government policy issues and its impact on localpeople). A total of one hundred and twenty one articles including infor-mation from some websites related to ecotourism are referred for thereview. Articles focusing on economic, social, and environmental impactof ecotourism in different parts of the world were selected for thepurpose.

The conceptual framework followed in the study is developed con-sidering the objectives of ecotourism. Ecotourism aims at conservationof nature through tangible improvement in the local economy, and in-creased respect for local culture and traditions (Fig. 1).

The rst section of the literature review starts with the evolution ofecotourism. Ecotourism broadly aims at conservation of natural re-sources through providing economic benet, social empowerment andcultural pride. It aims at improving livelihood activities and incomewhich in turn will help in the conservation of natural resources(Abbot, Thomas, Gardner, Neba, & Khen, 2001; Kiss, 2004; Salafsky &Wollenberg, 2000; Shah, 2007). Natural resources not only includewild animals; but also birds, rivers, reefs and forests. Employment andincome, generated through tourism business, generate incentiveswhich in turn develops positive attitude toward conservation (Chen,Yang, & Xie, 2005; Gyan & Nyaupane, 2011). The result of these benetscan be seen in the reduction of unsustainable practices like shing,hunting, and degrading activities such as forest clearing. Thus there ex-ists a strong inter-linkage between livelihood activities and conserva-tion. Therefore the second, third and fourth sections of the literaturereview describe the economic impact, socio-cultural impact and envi-ronmental impact of ecotourism respectively. Each sub-section elabo-rates successful case studies of ecotourism and the problems faced incertain areas to meet its objective. The nal section of the literature re-

Fig. 1. FramewECOT

Economic Socio

Employment& income

generationEmpowerm

& prideviewdeals with those literature that provide an insight tomake the pol-icy successful. The last section of the article summarizes the ndingsand conclusions.

3. Literature review

After viewing the literature, the main arguments are systemizedalong ve distinct categories, showing the evolution of ecotourism, eco-nomic impact of ecotourism, its socio-cultural impact, its environmentalimpact and conict management between ecotourism and biodiversityconservation. However, it is to be kept in mind that these three impacts(economic, socio-cultural & environment) are interrelated as ecotour-ism promotes conservation through socio-economic improvement ofthe condition of the local people.3.1. Evolution of ecotourism

The potential of tourism as an important driver of growth is provedfrom its contribution to national income of many countries. Neverthe-less critics consider that tourism development is self-destructive andin the long run it contributes to environmental destruction. Increasingnumbers of tourists threaten the quality of life and environment. Con-comitant with the rapid development of the tourism industry, thereare increasing environmental problems like increasing noise, decliningair quality, increasing water pollution, and increasing biodiversity loss,draining ofwetlands, destruction of coral reefs, etc., leading to depletionof nature. Therefore, the International Union for Conservation of Naturein 1992 lists tourism as the second major threat to protected areas.Owing to the increasing negativities of tourism, several authors reiterat-ed tourism industry to grow carefully and in a sustainable manner(Balmford et al., 2002; Holden, 2003; Mihalic, 2000; Sharpley, 2000;Tepelus & Cordobci, 2005).

Sharpley (2000) has asserted that sustainable development is anamalgamation of two schools of thought: (1) development theory and(2) environmental sustainability theory. The major focus of his writingis that tourism to grow sustainably must focus on preservation of theecosystem and equitable development. Ecotourism originated as atype of sustainable tourism and the rst formal denition of ecotourismis credited to Hector Ceballos-Lascurin in the early 1980s (Sharpley,2006). The United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-ment (UNCED) in 1994promoted SustainableNature-based Tourism.6

The term Eco-efciency was coined by World Business Council forSustainable Development in 1995 which aims at reducing the use of re-sources that has negative impacts (Gossling et al., 2005). However, theRio+5 sessions in 1997 formally incorporated sustainable tourism asan environment and development issue. The Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) meeting of 1999 incorporated Sustainable Use Includ-ing Tourism as a theme (Das, 2011). The United Nations Internationalyear of Ecotourism of 2002marked amajor rise of ecotourism as an im-portant form of sustainable tourism (Butcher, 2006). More recentlyUnited Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) made a mile-stone resolution recognizing ecotourism at the United Nations General

ltural Environmental

Conservation of

natural resources

ation

t of locals

culture

of the study.Assembly on 21 December 2012. The resolution highly stressedecotourism's role in the ght against poverty and the protection of theenvironment.7

Today ecotourism is a fast growing market considered as one of theworld's biggest industries (Blangy & Mehta, 2006; Das, 2011). Starmer-Smith (2004) stated that the number of eco-tourists is growing threetimes faster than the conventional tourists. The study also forecaststhat by 2024, ecotourism is expected to represent 5% of the global holi-day market. The growth of this niche market is because of the fact thattourists are becoming greener and so demanding environmentallyappropriate tourism experiences (Sharpley, 2006:8).

6 Retrieved from www.unep.org on 9th October, 2014.7 Retrieved from www.uncto.org on 9th October, 2014.

Ecotourism captured 7% of the international market as estimated bythe United Nations World Travel Organization (UNWTO) in 2007.8

Number of examples from different ecotourism destinations can be

tour guides and scuba diving instructors to multinational cruise-shipcompanies (Hoyt, 2005).

The paper of Mustika et al. (2012) is noted for its rst attempt to ex-

6 M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316given to be evidence for the growth of this market. Tourists to HolChan Marine Reserve in Belize increased by two-thirds over a ve yearperiod, from 33,669 tourists in 1991 to 50,411 in 1996. An example ofCosta Rica can be shown where more than two-thirds of tourists visitprotected areas and reserves and it is estimated that up to 53% of in-come comes from ecotourism and related activities. In Honduras, ex-perts estimate that the number of eco-tourists grew nearly 15% with atotal of 200,000 tourists in 1995.9 In India, in Bhitarkanika NationalPark, the number of tourists increased from 37,080 to 46,917 from200809 to 201213 (Information Brochure, Mangrove Forest Division(WL), Rajnagar, Kendrapara, Odisha).

International tourism arrivals are expanding at 6.5% annually andwithin this ecotourism is growing at annual rate of 5% representingthe fastest growing market (Das, 2011). A debate exists among the re-searchers on whether the growth of ecotourism is driven by supply orby demand. While Sharpley (2006) considers growth of ecotourism issupply led, Perkins and Grace (2014) afrm that ecotourism can alsobe partially demand driven rather than only supply driven. Growingawareness about the detrimental effects of mass tourism, evolution ofpost-material values, increasing environmental awareness, and expan-sion of middle class families are some of the most important reasonsfor increasing demand for ecotourism by the tourists (Holden, 2003;Mihalic, 2000; Sharpley, 2006).

3.2. Economic impact

Ecotourismhighly supports the inter-linkage between livelihood ac-tivities and conservation. It is identied as a tool to enhance the liveli-hoods of the people around protected areas. Tourism development inprotected areas or ecotourism provides an alternative to the exploit-ative use of environmental resources (Nyuapane & Poudel, 2011).

Wunder (2000) is right to state that economic incentives are indis-pensable for nature conservation. Without creating an economic basisfor the sustainable livelihood of the locals, the purpose of ecotourismcannot be achieved.

Thus, ecotourism is developed as a strategy to conserve biodiversitythrough providing nancial benets to the locals in and around theprotected areas. In the following section, a detailed discussion of thestrategy is done.

3.2.1. Employment and income generation through ecotourismEcotourism is being embraced as a potential economic rescuer by

many rural communities who are motivated by the promise of jobs,new business opportunities, and skill development (Scheyvens, 2000,IUCN, 2012). For many indigenous communities in tropical and devel-oping countries, ecotourism is considered as a means leading to newsources of income and betterment in household condition (Stronza,2007). Better access to tourists through properly organized ecotourismenables local people to augment their livelihood security through em-ployment and small enterprise development (Ashley, 2002; Goodwin,2002).

Development of ecotourismwill create jobs in tourism services suchas restaurants, souvenir shops, and food. Eco-lodges, campsites, homestay accommodations, restaurants, transport, and guiding services alsoprovide economic benets directly to local people (Mustika, Birtles,Welters, & Marsh, 2012; Reimer &Walter, 2013). Even in the case of is-land or marine communities, marine tourism industry often forms themost important economic activity. Job opportunities range from one-person operations such as charter shing boat operators, sea-kayak

8 Retrieved from www.uncto.org on 9th October, 2014.9 Retrieved from pdf.usaid.gov/pdf.docs/PNADB952.pdf on 7th October, 2014.plore the economic impact of theCetaceanwatching tourism industry inLovina in north Bali, Indonesia. The article by using tourist expenditureapproach highlights that tourism business is more protable than mostother earning opportunities. The paper has captured primary direct ex-penditure and auxiliary direct expenditure, but failed to analyze themultiplier effect to capture the indirect expenditure. Though the con-trary line of argument is also posed in the article in terms of higher in-duced immigration and detrimental impact on dolphins for morenumber of boats, but the authors have emphasizedmore on thendingsabout the response of 179 boat-men who do not have the intention toleave the industry as they enjoy an above average income obtainedfrom ecotourism industry. So the river based ecotourism industry isbringing much relief to the residents of this place. In order to solve theproblems, they have the opinion that shared license system, tradabledaily permits and increasing entrance fees will help a lot. In anotherstudy in Puerto Princesa SubterraneanRiverNational Park (PPSRNP), re-puted to be the longest navigable underground river in the world byJalani (2012) shows that this river ecotourism industry has been thesource of income for most of the households.

Fuller, Buultjens, and Cummings (2005) has done the SWOT analysisand found that ecotourism provides potential for economic develop-ment throughmicro-enterprises to theNgukurr, an indigenous commu-nity in northern Australia. The article has well emphasized theimportance of Community Development Employment Projects insupporting indigenous-owned and operated small enterprises throughproviding them the nancial resources. However, the article lacks aclear and full comprehension for the complex sustainable development.Reimer and Walter (2013) have brought a solution to the complexitiesassociated with tourism and conservation through highlighting Com-munity Based Eco-tourism (CBET) that enforces a mutually reinforcingrelationship between environmental conservation, local economic live-lihood and cultural preservation. Though no systematicmeasurement ofthe impacts of ecotourism project is undertaken, the research nely ar-ticulates each one carefully through participatory observation and focusgroup discussion. By using Honey's (2008, Chap. 2) analytical frame-work of ecotourism they nd that the Chiphat project appears to havefully met ve of the seven components for authentic ecotourism: it in-volves travel to natural destinations, minimizes environmental and cul-tural impact, builds environmental awareness, provides nancialbenets and empowerment for local people, respects local culture andimplicitly supports local human rights and democratization. In a similarstudy, Wunder (2000) has brilliantly conceptualized the link amongtourism, local benets and conservation by using the data from theCuyabeno Wildlife Reserve in the Ecuadorian Amazon region, near theborder of Colombia and Peru. Income ows from tourismhave given vil-lagers a new rationality of resource use by increasing environmentalawareness. The reserve was created in 1979 responding to continuouspressure on natural resources from overhunting, deforestation, cattleranching, etc. by indigenous communities. After the creation of the re-serve, local residents receive signicant income from tourism that out-weighs other sources. The result of this net benet is reected in thereduction of illegal practices and increased environmental awareness.The complex process of tourism induced change through economic in-centives is encapsulated thoroughly through the case study methodevenwithout going for quantitative testing for lack of economic and en-vironmental data. Even in the case of Periyar Tiger Reserve, India, eco-nomic incentives play an important role in curbing the dependence ofthe people on forests and increasing their participation in conservationof forests.10

10 Retrieved from http://www.ecoclub.com/library/epapers/13.pdf on 8th October,

2014.

7M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3163.2.2. Multiplier effect of ecotourismIn some cases, development of ecotourism has led to the creation of

production systems related to goods and services linked to tourism likelocal handicrafts, agriculture and services, stemming from the high levelof consumption of these products by tourists. Respondents, who are af-liated with ecotourism related livelihood, perceived that the positiveimpact of ecotourism is primarily seen in the development of their live-lihood. People changed their occupation from shing and non-timberwood usage to ecotourism activities, as tourismprovided higher income(Jalani, 2012).

Guha and Ghosh (2007) empirically measure the extent to whichtourism improves livelihood in a study in Indian Sunderbans. Thestudy compares the socio-economic indicators of households underthe classication of tourism participants, forest dependents, andengaged in other economic activities, and claims that tourism partici-pants spend 19%more on food and 38%more on non-food items relativeto other villagers. Earnings from tourism appear to nance at least par-tially annual consumption. While many scholars have criticized eco-tourism practices for its seasonality approach, the supporting authorshave differentiated themselves by considering tourism related incomeas additional revenue on top of subsistence farming.

People, whowork in an ecotourism destination, will spend their ad-ditional income, which they receive from ecotourism related jobs, onconsumer goods. Increased demand for such goods will create newjobs. The economic and employment-generating benets coming fromecotourism have resulted in relative prosperity for areas, and have hadan important impact on local development (Seetanah, 2011; Taylor,Hardner, & Stewart, 2006). An important aspect of the research articleof Taylor et al. (2006), is that it has used Social Accounting Matrix(SAM) to capture both direct and indirect effects of tourism on the is-land economy of Galapagos. Direct income is calculated from the in-come of selling goods and services to tourists (hotels, restaurants,cruise ships) and indirect income fromother agentswhoare not directlyassociated with tourists. From the results, the authors claim that tour-ism continues to be the major driver of economic growth of the island.Two critical points are derived from this research (i) the internationaltourist multiplier is the lowest of all multipliers because foreign touristsspend mostly off island and (ii) the comparison of income multipliershows that a $1000 increase in foreign tourist expenditure anddomestictourist expenditure is associatedwith $218 and $429 increase in total is-land income respectively.

The fact unveiled will denitely help policymakers to focusmore ondomestic rather on those foreign tourists. Seetanah's (2011) paper isalso consistent with earlier work of exploring linkage of tourism withnatural areas and economic growth. With the help of dynamic paneldata framework for a sample of 19 island economies over a period of19902007, the paper suggests that sustainable tourism is to be givena key position in policies for sustainable tourism and economicdevelopment.

Wunder (2000) provides an interesting fact that particularly for de-veloping countries a rapidly growing tourism industry has proved to bean increasingly important source of foreign exchange inows. As morenative communities start to reap direct economic benets as ownersand partners of tourism services, locals will have more incentive andchallenge to protect the resources that the tourists come to see(Stronza, 2007; Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). In this process it promotesbiodiversity conservation through providing economic benets to thecommunities in and around protected areas.

However, the benecial approach of ecotourism in uplifting theeconomic condition of the locals as well as of the economy is not freefrom criticisms. The conict between biodiversity conservation andpoverty reduction is a complex dilemma. Many authors argue thatecotourism has compromised the cause of biodiversity conservationby exacerbating impoverishment on very large numbers of people(Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau, 2006; Coria & Calfucura, 2012). In practice,

ecotourism has mostly failed to fulll the promises made to indigenouscommunities, due to a number of factors like lack of mechanisms for afair distribution of the economic benets of ecotourism, compulsory dis-placement and land insecurity. The subsequent section will provide aclear picture of the mismatch between objectives and present practice.

3.2.3. Ecotourism: away from equityGoodwin (2002) provides a clear picture of the economic costs to

local people because of ecotourism. Sighting the example of KeoladeoNational Park (KNP), Rajasthan, India, the paper highlights that employ-ment is concentrated in the hands of few. In KNP males from a few Jattfamilies dominate the tourism created employment market. The prob-lem is worsened as labor is drawn from urban sector instead of focusingon training of unskilled or less-skilled locals. The tourists are also not ac-cessible at all areas of the KNP, thus further limiting the avenues of thelocals to earn a decent livelihood by selling native products. The authoralso cites the example of Komodo National Park, Indonesia to bring tolight the signicant leakages from the local economy, as local peopleare denied access to tourists although they have high interest to earnby selling tourist demanded products and services. The same practicealso prevails in GonarezhouNational Park, Zimbabwe aswell as St Paul'sSubterranean National Park in Palawan, Philippines, where the potenti-ality of tourism as an economic rescuer is not explored by all the localcommunities.

The authors, who have highlighted the economic benets to the lo-cals through development of ecotourism, fail to address inequitable dis-tribution of income,which is one of themajor issues in ecotourism sites.He et al. (2008) are of the opinion that disproportional distribution ofbenet among stakeholders can lead to the failure of ecotourism andconservation. They have identied two types of uneven distribution ofeconomic benets among major groups of stakeholders: (a) a signi-cant inequality exists between the local rural residents and the othertypes of stakeholders and (b) the distribution of economic benets isunequal among the rural residents inside the reserve. The reason citedbehind this problem is that most rural residents get only low-skilledand temporary jobs in small businesses. More than 80% of jobs, asreected from Woolong Natural Reserve, China, go to outsiders. Out-siders also dominated in the low paid job arena leaving only 21% tothe local farmers. Hsu and Lin's (2013) case study of Taijiang NationalPark in Taiwan in 2013 also reects parallel problems. By developingtheir own analytical frameworkwith 22 indicators, the paper reinforcesthat there has been no positive reection in both direct and indirectpublic benets. Therefore a clear conict of interest exists among differ-ent groups. Coria and Calfucura (2012) have delved deep to nd out thereasons behind such favoritism and have found that the locals sufferfrom resource and skill constraints. Therefore the author has pointedout that ecotourism practices should not be conceived as the onlysource of development of indigenous communities. The better approachshould be to complement such practiceswith other non-detrimental ac-tions. Inequality also exists in extraction of non-timber forest products(NTFP), as the better segment of the community possesses specializedequipment for extraction of NTFP. Moreover the community views theextraction of NTFP as a constant source of cash income, which in turnleads to constant degradation of biological resources (Delang, 2006).

3.2.4. Failure of ecotourism to reduce forest dependencyHussain and Badola (2010), in a study of 36 villages in Bhitarkanika

Conservation Area, depict quite perplexing things. The villagers living inmangrove areas are poor and depend on the mangrove resources fortheir livelihood, though legally no extraction is permitted. An overall14.2% of the fuel need of each of the household was met by the forestswith amean consumption of 312 kgwoodper annum.Mangrove timberis extracted on a small scale in many areas for jetty construction, forestpathways, small bridges, boats, sh traps, and mooring poles. Villagersnot only depend on forests for extracting timber as well as non-timberforest products, but they also catch sh, prawn, crab and related species

for commercial purpose. The dependency on the forest is more for the

Saxena, 2001). They have well attempted to estimate the mean annualeconomic loss per household in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, a

8 M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316world heritage site in Indian Himalaya, and presented the estimatedloss as Rs 1285, Rs 1195 and Rs 156 due to damage caused by wildlifeto food crops, fruit trees and beehives respectively, Rs 1587 due to banon collection of wild medicinal plants for marketing and Rs 7904 dueto ban on tourism in the core zone. Although Reserve authority grantedcompensation of livestock killed by wildlife, this was hardly 5% of themarket value of killed livestock as assessed by the people. People didnot appreciate the present benets from the reserve management inthe form of wages for carrying out forestation work, partial compensa-villages near by the protected area. The argument goes that since peopleliving nearest to the mangrove forests have fewer years of education,employment and income, their dependence on forest is also the highest.Goodwin (2002) has identied that at the Indian and Indonesian studysites, those people who reside nearest to the protected areas and whobear the brunt mostly, appear to participate less in tourism industry.These authors' argument is totally different from the common belief ofmany authors who claim that those who reside nearest to the park getmore employment facilities.

3.2.5. Ecotourism associated with compulsory displacementThe situation of the locals worsens when they are compulsorily

displaced for the creation of National Parks (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau,2006). Even in many cases lack of access to the protected areas and in-secure land tenure (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau, 2006) result in homeless-ness and joblessness for which a large chunk of locals do not viewwildlife conservation as a sustainable way of earning income. The au-thors also claim that conservational organizations like InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Wildlife Fund (WWF)andWorld Conservation Society also do not concentrate on formal safe-guards of the displaced. The writers have critically dened displace-ment, which has expanded the periphery of displacement. Accordingto them displacement not only includes when land takings compelphysical relocation but also when local communities are denied accessbecause of restrictive policy formulations. Physical displacement aswell as restricted access for the creation of national parks inevitably ex-acerbate poverty. They consider that such actions have a tremendousnegative economic effect on the locals. It substantially disrupts locallivelihoods and causes large scale loss of land, homelessness, food inse-curity, loss of lives, and increase inmorbidity. The authors have cited thecases of Dja Bio. Reserve (Cameroon), Korup National Park (Cameroon),Dzanga-Ndoki National Park (Central African Republic), Nsoc NationalPark (Equatorial Guinea), and Cross-River Okwangwo Div. (Nigeria),where the indigenous communities are partially resettled. There havebeen number of parks like Lake Lobeke National Park, Boumba BeckNational Park (Cameroon), Loango National Park, Moukalaba-DoudouNational Park, Ipassa-Mingouli (Gabon), and Nouabale' Ndoki NationalPark (Republic of Congo), where there is a complete absence of resettle-ment policy. Compensation policy has also not been successful in allthese protected areas. This results in greater level of dissatisfactionand apathetic attitude of the locals toward conservation.

Arjunan, Holmes, Puyravaud, and Davidar (2006) highlight the fail-ure of prohibitions in meeting the requirement of effective conserva-tion. The paper provides a very important dimension that positiveattitudes might not always reect sustainable practices. In the case ofKalakkadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India, 61% of the re-spondents reported positive attitudes toward conservation of tiger, and59% toward forests. But the dry forests cover more than 50% of the re-quirement of the local community in terms of fuel, fodder, manure,etc. Deterioration of rural economy due to damage to crop and livestockby wildlife, and cessation of opportunities of income from forest re-sources and tourism in the core zone are also the key negative impactsof conservation policy felt by the locals (Maikhuri, Nautiyal, Rao, &tion of livestock damage and availability of solar power devices, wool,and spinning devices. All such actions nally inculcate a harmful atti-tude in the mind of the locals toward conservation.

The literature about the economic impact of ecotourism can be di-vided into two categories. Those articles, which are in favor of ecotour-ism, consider it as a mechanism leading to new sources of income andbetterment in household condition. Properly organized ecotourism en-ables local people to augment their livelihood security through employ-ment in ecotourism related activities and small enterprise development.It also leads to local economic development throughmultiplier effect ofecotourism. In the process, dependency of the locals on natural re-sources is reduced, and biodiversity is conserved. On the other hand, an-other group of articles emphasize on the problems associated withecotourism like (1) revenue leakages, as labor is drawn from urban sec-tor, instead of focusing on training of unskilled or less-skilled locals,(2) inequitable distribution of income among the locals, (3) compulsorydisplacement for the creation of national parks leading to large scale lossof land, homelessness, food insecurity, loss of lives, and increase inmor-bidity, (4) restrictions in accessing sanctuary resulting in joblessnessand (5) damage to crop and livestock by wildlife. All such problems ag-gravate poverty of the locals. Thus, ecotourism fails to reduce forest de-pendency, and the practice of conservation is away from reality.

3.3. Socio-cultural impact

Ecotourism, through increase in standard of living of the local resi-dents, empowers them socio-politically and fosters respect for differentcultures and for human rights. Indirect incentives like improved infra-structures, health facilities, awareness and education from tourism de-velopment develop positive attitudes toward conservation (Nyuapane& Poudel, 2011). Community-based conservation programs such asthe Van Panchayats (VP), a state level program that was introduced inUttaranchal, and more recently the nationally designed Joint ForestManagement (JFM) programs are initiatedwith an objective of address-ing the conicts between the local communities and the forest depart-ment over access and use of forest resources. These institutions seekto incorporate local communities in regulating use of forest products(Arjunan et al., 2006). Local community is involved in the entire processstarting from the planning to execution and monitoring, and this is thekey to success of ecotourism (Rowat & Engelhardt, 2007; Stone, Bhat,Bhatta, & Mathews, 2008).

3.3.1. Ecotourism and community participationThe paper of Stone et al. (2008) views community participation as a

remedy to the problem of unsustainable practices. The authors haveused Contingent ValuationMethod to placemonetary value on the ben-ets that subsistence user groups (sherman, sher woman, ricefarmers) receive from mangrove forests. The results indicate that allthe three groups intend to restore mangroves because of the facilitiesthey derive frommangroves. The rice farmers have a higher willingnessto pay as mangroves help in controlling erosion and crop pests. Fisher-men and sherwomen get a good catch as mangroves contribute tosh nursery. Once the locals receive some tangible benets, and theyare involved in the conservational policies, they consider themselvesas stakeholders in the process and support the conservational policies.

The Apo Island andHandumon protected areas in the Philippines areexamples of how implementation of community based marine sanctu-aries can be effective as a resource management tool. Communitieshere are successfully managing their own sanctuaries and are rewardednot only with healthy reefs, larger sh catches, and bigger sh in andaround the reserve; but also with a sense of accomplishment andpride in having control over a central part of their lives (Parras, 2001).

3.3.2. Ecotourism and empowermentEcotourism helps in empowering local communities by pro-

viding economic, social, political, and psychological benets. Regular

economic gains from formal or informal sector employment and

9M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316business opportunities empower the community economically.Scheyvens (2000:241) describes social empowerment as a situationin which a community's sense of cohesion and integrity has been con-rmed or strengthened by an activity such as ecotourism. Shared in-come among community members helps improve local livelihoods byproviding infrastructure, education, and health. It enables people tolive in harmony and thus leads to social empowerment. While partici-pation in decisionmaking process leads to political empowerment, psy-chological power concerns the self-esteem of communitymembers thatcan be enhanced by external recognition and appreciation of the uniquecultural and natural resources and traditional knowledge (Nyuapane &Poudel, 2011). Wunder (2000) concludes through the empirical studyof Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve, a biodiversity rich area in Ecuador'snorthern region that tourism income helps to unite actors and strength-en the reason for co-existence. Guha and Ghosh (2007) interpret that apart of increased income from ecotourism practices can also be used tonance the education of the children whichwill lead to development ofhuman capital. This will denitely lead to empowerment of local com-munities in the long run.

According to World Bank (2002) empowerment has four elements:(1) access to information, (2) inclusion or participation, (3) accountabil-ity and (4) local organizational capacity, and ecotourism focuses on allthe four to empower the locals (Sutawa, 2012). However, the author ar-ticulates that empowerment has both positive and negative effects.While empowerment enhances self-esteem of the locals, many commu-nities consider it as freedom without any restrictions. They attempt toget more advantages ignoring the other stakeholders. This very practiceleads to create more problems in the path of sustainable development.

3.3.3. Ecotourism and gender parityHorton (2009) opines that ecotourism, by challenging the traditional

gender roles, has extended womens' household roles of cleaning,cooking, and serving others. The author has found that with the arrivalof ecotourism in Costa Rica, womenbegan to take an active role in open-ing cabins, restaurants, and other small businesses. Such practices helpwomen to earn reasonably by emancipating themselves from thetraditional patriarchal gender norms. Scheyvens (2000) has justiedwomen's involvement in ecotourism projects to ensure benets forthe broad range of community members. The development increasesawareness for health and hygiene for women. Thus they gain powerby boosting their self-condence, knowledge and awareness (Thien,2009). Thien's research explores that ecotourism can be used as aKEY or tool to open the LOCK of the DOOR. In the process it createsequal opportunities for employment and income generation forwomen, promotes adult education and reduce illiteracy, increaseawareness on health (maternal health) and hygiene offer option for vi-ability of indigenous community which allow them to maintain theirtraditional life etc. (pp. 100).

Evidences of women empowerment can be found likeMasai womenin Belize, who are economically empowered by establishing a lodgethrough Sandy BeachWomen's Cooperative as a self-initiated ecotour-ism venture. Women in Himachal Pradesh, India have also become ac-tively involved in joint forest management program and consequentlyhave gained the support of the tourism industry. Similarly the work ofthe Siyabonga Craft Cooperative in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, awomen community, has increased the self-reliance of its members byproviding them with a good source of income. The increase incomehas motivated them to go back to school as well as send their childrento schools.While learning English has helped them to speak to the tour-ists who came to their shop; learningmath has helped them to give thecorrect change to the customers and understand the bookkeeping sys-tem. Empowerment can also be seen in the case of Langtang womenwho perform cultural dances for tourists and use the funds raised to re-store their local monastery (Scheyvens, 2000). The author has also citedfew cases when ecotourism directly or indirectly empowers women so-

cially through greater local access to services, such as water supplies orhealth clinics. Tourism in the Annapurna area of Nepal had brought anumber of benets to theDhampus village community. For example, in-stallation of water taps by the lodge owners beneted many villagewomen who otherwise had to walk some way to collect water. In addi-tion, the demands of tourists for better facilities witnessed the adoptionof labor-saving technologies including kerosene stoves and solarwater heaters which reduced the hard work of women considerably.Similarly, in the Sua Bali sustainable village tourism initiative,established by and is managed by a woman, each guest pays US$1 perday to the village. This money is used for temple festivities and providesa hardship fund for locals who face difculties. Some communities havealso set an example for others by overcoming cultural limitations towomen's participation in decision-making forums. In Palawan villagein the Philippines, women have emerged as the organizers and man-agers of a sustainable tourism project.

There have been a number of successful eco-development initiativesin India reported byMishra, Badola, and Bharadwaj (2009), which haveacknowledged that the poorest of the poor and socially vulnerablegroups such as women, scheduled castes and tribes, and those belowthe poverty line deserve special attention in eco-development pro-grams. The practice of eco-development in India is based on the pre-mise that ecological sustainability is closely linked with nancial,institutional and social sustainability (pp. 158). Focusing more on theownership of the locals, the eco-development programs have becomesuccessful. Moreover they attempt to understand the policy failure ofprotected areas and provide more attention to the needy and thepoorest. The poor people in this way feel as connected and thus supportconservation.

Contrary to all the positive socio-cultural impact of ecotourism,many researchers do not consider ecotourism as a means for improvingthe social status of the entire. Authors also argue that promotion of eco-tourism always does not foster respect for local culture. Many ecotour-ism ventures in developing countries are found to be progressingwithout any cheering socio-cultural impact. The subsequent sectionprovides an array of problems that occur as quite conicting to themis-sion of ecotourism.

3.3.4. Conict between conservation and socio-cultural bettermentAlthough increase in tourists in ecotourism spots leads to socio-

cultural betterment, but if tourist activity results in crowding, crime,begging, displacement from traditional lands, or prostitution, then italso leads to social disempowerment. Most of the protected areas inIndia do not have any kind of visitor orientation programs. The authorhas articulated a number of problems with reference to India whichquestions efciency of protected areas in conservation. Citing thecases of popular tiger reserves such as the Kanha, Ranthambhore andCorbett National Parks in India, the author nds that forest authoritieshave been unable to protest increase in tourists, for higher revenue gen-eration. This has resulted in chasing tigers surrounded by jeeps and ele-phants for photo session, with signicant impacts on wildlife behaviorand habitat (Banerjee, 2010). Wunder (2000) has also cited the caseof Puerto Bolivar, Ecuador, where the high numbers of tourists havecaused cultural erosion, increase alcohol consumption and diseaserisk. This in turn poses threat to biodiversity as well as local culture.

3.3.5. Uncertainty in community participationIn many instances it is also noted that the bureaucratic nature of the

forests does not allow locals to participate in the planning process(Banerjee, 2010). Tosun (2000) has gone one step ahead to explainthe limitations to the participatory tourism development approach inthe context of developing countries in Asia, Latin America and in theso-called former second world countries. The author has brilliantlyclassied the reasons under operational, structural and cultural limitsto community participation in such countries. He has found that incountries such as India, Mexico, Thailand, and Turkey, a strong central-

ized public administrative system, unwillingness of the politicians to

10 M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316distribute power appears as operational hindrances to community par-ticipation. On the other hand, lack of clear-cut denition in roles ofagencies, overlap in responsibilities of government departments andlittle accountability between them, lack of information etc. also hinderthe co-ordination for participatory tourism development approach.The structural problem occurs because of lack of qualied human-resources, lack of nancial resources, lack of appropriate legal system,attitude of the bureaucrats, and domination of elites. From his personalexperience, the author has found that it becomes very difcult to per-suade the bureaucrats to encourage community participation, who nei-ther have tourismbackground nor good contact with the locals. In somedeveloping countries such as Turkey and Mexico local indigenous com-munities' right to use public places such as beaches and sea is violatedby tourism operators. Citing the case of Ramada Hotel Varca in southernGoa, India, which violated both themaximumheight andminimumdis-tance from the sea criteria, the author also nds that the state acts in linewith a mercantilist model (pp. 623)where there exists wide scale dis-crimination. There also exist some cultural hindrances such as limitedcapacity of poor people to handle development effectively, and apathyas well as low level of awareness in the local community, to effectivecommunity participation in the realm of tourism.

3.3.6. Gender parity in ecotourism: a mythAuthors, who have claimed that ecotourism related activities have

improved the status of women, did not highlight the difculties associ-ated with in. The practical side is far from reach in majority of cases. Al-though in few areas, employment opportunities are created,importance of women in the industry is often minimized consideringthem as the weaker sex. In many cases, they are not involved in mostof the activities for their lack of education and skill (Badola andHussain, 2003). Even in the areas where they are involved, they fail toshare the benets equitably (Scheyvens, 2000). The author has foundthat in terms of formal employment, local women are often overlookedwhen ecotourism sites are developed. Giving the example of Mahenye,Zimbabwe, a joint venture agreement between the local Shangaan peo-ple and Zimbabwe Sun Ltd, which owns a chain of hotels in the country,he upholds that employment at the lodges has been heavily biased infavor of men. Among the two tourist lodges on Shangaan land, atMahenye Lodge only three out of 15 positions have been lled bywomen, while at Chilo Lodge, four out of 38 positions have gone towomen. This clearly shows the discrimination against women commu-nity. He has also cited the examples of Himalayan region and Indonesia,where women involved in guiding activities are regarded as prostitutesinterested in foreign tourists. The most bafing part of the practice isthat even if they receive income, they are rarely empowered. It is be-cause they have no/little real power and are not considered as equalto men in their communities as well as families.

Apart from the employment sector, women also have to face thediscrimination at the community participation for decisionmaking pro-cess. Scheyvens's (2000) article is right to say that women involvementin decision-making process is very poor beyond the village level be-cause meetings often necessitate travel. In many cases, travel is a prob-lem forwomen because during that period they need to compromise ontheir traditional roles and obligations, and because of the suspicion thata woman traveling alone will commit adultery. Therefore, the authorhas conveyed astutely that the greatest challenge in the future is toensure that women are not just consulted, but listened to, when decid-ing whether to pursue ecotourism and how to pursue ecotourism(pp. 245).

To sum up, it may be said that many articles have considered eco-tourism as a means to empower local people socio-politically throughimproving their standard of living, fostering respect for different cul-tures, and enhancing human rights. It helps women to earn reasonablyby emancipating themselves from the traditional patriarchal gendernorms. Indirect incentives like improved infrastructures, health facili-

ties, awareness and education from tourism development also help todevelop positive attitudes toward conservation. On the other hand,many authors have put emphasis also on the real practices of ecotour-ism. They have focussed on crowding, crime, begging, and prostitutionassociated with the increase in the number of tourists in ecotourismspots. In many cases, as found, traditional mind set-up of the localsdoes not allow women community to rise above the notion of weakersex. Such problems are more in developing countries owing to its mis-management as well as bureaucratic nature of management. Morenumbers of tourists, as found inmany articles, have caused cultural ero-sion, increase in alcohol consumption and disease risk, as mostly thetourists are found to be pleasant seekers more in the developing coun-tries than in thedevelopedones. This in turn poses threat to biodiversityas well as to local culture.

3.4. Environmental impact

Ecotourism represents one of the more eco-friendly alternatives forthe economic use of natural resources (Li, 2004; Wood, 2002). Tourismdevelopment in protected areas or ecotourism provides an alternativeto the exploitative use of environmental resources (Nyuapane &Poudel, 2011). Wunder (2000) considers that ecotourism plays an im-portant role in enhancing the environment quality. The policy of eco-tourism concentrates on applying green growth strategy in the ambitof tourism with an intention of sustainable use of exhaustible naturalresources. Biodiversity becomes an income-generating asset thatworks rationally for natural resourcemanagement. Holden's (2003) ap-proach is quite different in the sense that it has emphasized on theethics for tourism. He opines that lack of environmental ethics spells ca-tastrophe. Thus owing to the growing evidence of environmental degra-dation as a result of human actions, it is highly desirable thatenvironment should be placed on the agenda of evolution of tourism.According to him, ecotourism emphasizes the need for resource conser-vation keeping an eye on the growing catastrophe of depletion of natu-ral assets. In the long term there has been a shift from instrumentalethics as a basis of conduct for the use of nature to a more conservationbased ethics considering the economic interest of all stakeholders toconserve natural resources. Moreover, the environmental dimensionis much more important than the economic dimension in the issues ofurban ecotourism for the differences between the economic back-ground of urban residents and non-urban areas (Wu, Wang & Ho,2010).

Mihalic (2000) claims that environmental quality of a destination isthe most important factor in making travel related decision because ofincreasing environmental awareness among the tourists, and growingmonopolistic structure of the tourism market. Ecotourism according tothe author integrates the capacity of systematic environmental brand-ing of the sites.

3.4.1. Biodiversity conservation through ecotourismLibosada (2009) believes that ecotourism provides the tangible as-

pect of conservation as it has been helping save animals and fragile eco-systems. Salvador, Clavero, and Pitman (2011) also carry the same kindof notion. According to them, ecotourism is a successful conservationpolicy for its capacity to conserve large mammals' diversity in UpperAmazonia through sustainable source of income to the inhabitants.Reimer and Walter (2013) articulate that the nancial benets fromecotourism come from park entrance fees, voluntary donations and en-vironmental conservation levies, which are targeted directly at conser-vation. Nyuapane and Poudel (2011) have nely interwoven thecomplexity of tourism and biodiversity conservation through theirfocus on Chitwan National Park, Nepal. They perceive that as people re-ceive more economic benets, they take more pride about their naturalresources and tend to preserve these resources. The paper of Abbot et al.(2001) provides evidence drawn from Kilum-Ijim forest in North WestProvince, Cameroon. Adoption of Integrated Conservation and Develop-

ment Projects (ICDP) has improved the income level and livelihood

11M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316conditions of the people. This in turn has a positive impact on conserva-tion by changing the attitudes of the people in and around the forestarea.

Ecotourism recognizes the principles of sustainable tourism. It(a) minimizes environmental impact and thus has a small ecologicalfootprint and (b) contributes to conservation either through direct ef-fort like reforestation, habitat restoration, or through nancial benets(Zambrano, Broadbent, & Durham, 2010). The empirical study ofBadola and Hussain (2005) has revealed that the mangrove forests inBhitarkanika Conservation Area has helped villagers from natural disas-ters like super cyclone, ood etc. Local communities valued these func-tions of mangrove forests and so despite human-wildlife conict, theattitudes of the local communities are not altogether negative. Theyare alsowilling to participate in mangrove restoration and support con-servation (Badola, Shibani, Hussain & Ainul, 2012). Development of for-ests through promotion of ecotourism in the reserve also helps inmitigating carbon which can reduce green-house gas emissions whichis note worthy (Badola, 2010). Zambrano et al. (2010) in an attemptto test of the efciency of Lapa Rios Ecolodge of the Osa Peninsula ofCosta Rica afrm that the lodge has made substantial contribution toconservation and local people.

The Costa Rica Certication of Sustainable Tourism (CST) developedby the Costa Rica Institute of Tourism has also been successful inimproving performance of the ecotourism destinations (Tepelus &Cordobci, 2005). Apparently, such practices have ensured that certainmammals and birds, which became extremely scarce, can now beobserved by residents and tourists with greater frequency (Wunder,2000).

Dietz and Adger (2003) and Julianne and Thomas (2009) endeavorto test the relationship between economic growth, biodiversity lossand efforts to conserve biodiversity through Environment Kuznets'sCurve (EKC) hypothesis with a combination of panel and cross sectiondata. The EKC asserts that environmental damage increases initiallyand then after a certain point of time it falls with rising income resultingan inverted U shaped curve. However Dietz and Adger (2003) articu-late that although economic drivers fuel environmental improvement,the species cannot replenish in the same rate yielding a hyperbolicEKC. However, Julianne and Thomas (2009) have been able to developEKC using estimates of per capita income and deforestation rates (indexof biodiversity threat) for 35 tropical countries. They nd that there oc-curs a U shaped relationship between increasing per capita income andspecies conserved following the inverted U shaped relationshipbetween increase in per capita income and pollution. However, the sup-port got eliminated while performing country specic panel data analy-sis. The authors therefore suggest that EKC is not a very genuinerepresentation of data and proper mechanism needs to be developedfor its use.

Nevertheless, a large number of articles posit ecotourism not to bevery effective in promoting conservation of biodiversity. Many authorsconsider ecotourism as an instrument for revenue generation. Theword ecotourism is to attract customers, and thereby generate moreincome. Many protected areas in developing countries is found to bepoorly planned, with the infrastructure and management inadequateeven unsuitable for ecotourism. The following section depicts manyproblems of ecotourism that pose threat to successful conservation.

3.4.2. Ecotourism as a business policyIsaacs (2000) criticizes ecotourism as a wildlife conservation strate-

gy for its inability to insure the long term protection of environmentalassets. He claims that ecotourism is only a proxy market designed to at-tract customers. Ecotourism policies are designed to attract consumers'preferences for recreation. In that process, revenue generation hasbecome the prime consideration and protection of environmental assetshas been kept aside. This is leading directly to environmental degrada-tion. Honey (2008, Chap. 2) has therefore claimed in his book Ecotour-

ism and sustainable development Who owns paradise? that Muchof what is marketed as ecotourism is simply conventional mass tourismwrapped in a thin veneer of green (pp. 51). The author identies thatecotourism is still in its infancy stage and therefore a broad set of prin-ciples and practices is to be derived that will give a new direction to theso-called ecotourism industry. Many ecotourism sites lack proper infra-structure to consider them as ecotourism sites. Scheyvens (2000) citesthe case of Himalayan areas, where tourism has resulted in widespreaddeforestation in some areas as lodges use wood for heating water androoms for tourists and cooking meals.

Kirkpatrick (2001) has given the example of Lower Gordon River,one of the largest streams in Australia that attracted tourists for its high-ly scenic beauty of the reections of rainforest-covered banks and hillson the still dark waters.With the increase in the tourists, some boat op-erators saw an opportunity to increase their prot by building fasterboats that enabled two trips a day. Soon fast boats run by different op-erators started racing with each other to grabmore prot. This resultedin the damage of the banks, fall of the trees into the water. The banksalso began to retreat at a rapid rate. The prot motive of the ecotourismindustry led to gradual decline of this World Heritage Area.

3.4.3. Conict between biodiversity conservation and ecotourismThe proponents of ecotourismhave failed to see the threat caused by

such activities. Rise in the number of tourists, which exceeds the carry-ing capacity of the place, leads to very erosion of natural resources forwhich tourists come (Drumm, 2008). The more elementary environ-mental critique against ecotourism is that it is usually based on exten-sive use of resources often including overseas transportation withlarge CO2 emissions (Buckley, 2004). Lusseau and Higham (2004)have conrmed that there is a proliferation of tour operators in responseto increased tourists' demand in the case of Doubtful Sound (NewZealand). This has brought tremendous pressures on the population ofbottlenose dolphins the resident in the Sound.With the number of tour-ists increasing, there is an increase in the number of boats. While manyhave permits, a large number of vessels do not have permission. It is soas there are signicant commercial disadvantages associatedwith hold-ing a permit because it ties operators to national responsibilities. As a re-sult, these vessels venture into the critical zone hampering the habitatand population of dolphins. Drum's viewpoint is awfully perplexingwhen he considers that conservationists at the Nature Conservancyhave identied tourism as a threat in 78 international conservationarea plans because of its effect over the past seven years (pp. 782).The failure of management in parks is eroding the very natural capitalthat visitors travel to see. The author also has identied that if the cur-rent levels of investment continue, the tourism boom will simply de-stroy the biodiversity. Prime habitats will become degraded, wildlifewill become scarce, the quality of the visitor experience will decline,and eventually ecotourism will fail completely as a policy.

Even in the case ofWhale watching, Orams (2000) nds that the in-dustry has expanded to 65 countries by 1995 from12 countries in 1983.The total economic benet from such activities totalled more thanUS$550 million. But the impact of this industry on the life of these en-dangered wild animals is very much alarming. The close proximity ofthe vessels to the whales, the noise and pollution of the vessels disturbtheir natural behavioral pattern. Martin's (2007) review paper alsoholds the same notion that the increase of whale shark-based ecotour-ism has serious impacts on their behavior, habitat, and ecology.Cardenas-Torres, Enrquez-Andrade, and Rodrguez-Dowdell (2007))point out that tourism activity is affecting the individual behavior ofthe sharks Bahia de Los Angeles, considered as one of the most biologi-cally productive areas in the Gulf of California and thus affecting the in-dustry negatively. Thus the whale-watch operators must design thetour uniquely that can help in conservation of these animals (Orams,2000). The author has found a very important nding on customer sat-isfaction. The presence ofwhales and their behavior are important inu-ences onwhale-watcher satisfaction rather than getting close towhales.

So the tour operators must come out of the traditional notion of

12 M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316customer satisfaction that the visitors want to get close to the animals.In this process, they can actually help in conserving such magnicentcreature.

Such paradoxical issues are becoming more important in certaincases as the focus point is more on tourism to generate revenues inthe name of responsible tourism. In the process, environment is gettingcompromised as pointed out by Eijgelaar, Thaper, and Peeters (2010).With the example of Antarctic cruise tourism the authors have unfoldedthat the cruise passengers tripled from2000 to 2007. The selling point ofsuch tourism is claimed to create environmental awareness for the des-tinations before it disappears and is therefore termed as responsibletourism. However, no evidence of greater environmental awarenessamong the tourists after their visit to suchplaces is foundby the authors.Moreover such trips produce higher green house gasses and result insignicant climate change. They have estimated that the total emissionsper passenger are 7.8 t CO2 per trip and 409 kg CO2 per day. Dawson,Stewart, Lemelin, and Scott (2010) emphasize that climate change iscausing a substantial reduction in sea ice that is vital for survival ofArctic wildlife species such as polar bears. The polar bear populationsin Western Hudson Bay in Canada declined by 22% between 1988 and2004 mainly for such climate change. The polar bear viewing industryis estimated to contribute 20,892 t/CO2 per season which is higherthan average activity emissions. Tourists are more interested to seewildlife, including polar bears, beluga whales, walrus, seals, and pen-guins before they disappear completely and in the process also facilitatein the extinction of such endangered species.

The impact of increase in the number of tourists for the growing pop-ularity of ecotourism industry is not only limited to magnicent crea-tures like tigers, lions, whales, bear etc., but also it has number ofnegative effects on birds (Steven, Pickering, & Castley, 2011). Kreiner,Malikinson, Labinger, and Shtainvarz (2013) have found a cyclical inter-action between the tourists and the birds. Increase in birds leads to in-crease in the number of tourists. But as the tourists increase, number ofbirds decreases. Steven, Pickering, & Castley (2011) in their reviewpaper have found that such recreational activities like ecotourism alterphysiological responses of birds that include changes in temperature,heart rate or stress hormone secretion. These activities also have nega-tive impact on their immediate behavioral responses like changes in for-aging, vigilance and evasion. In many instances, responses also includechanges in reproductive success and/or the number or density of birds.The net effect of the protected areas is that the objective behind their cre-ation is lost in the process. The investigation of Mllner, Linsenmair, &Wikelski (2004) on effects of eco-tourists on the reproductive successof hoatzins (Opisthocomus hoazin) and on hormonal status of their chicksin Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador by comparing birds from undisturbed andfrom tourist-exposed nests reects that chick survival is much lower attourist-exposed nests than at undisturbed nests.

Increased number of tourists in the marine protected areas alsocauses much damage to coral reefs andmarine organisms. Dive tourismwhich is a major commercial activity in marine protected areas leads todamage of the reefs for the direct physical contact of the divers withtheir hands, body equipments and n (Hasler & Ott, 2008; Rouphael &Inglis, 2001). Rouphael and Inglis (2001) have well presented the gen-der differences in environmental damage by the scuba divers in GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. While female divers are more cau-tious and thus causemuch harm,male counterparts aremore adventur-ous causing more environmental damage to the reefs.

In few cases, the visitors also recognize that overuse of forests, veg-etation damage, litter, and soil-erosion are a few but signicant prob-lems that will worsen the natural experience that the site offers (Dixit& Narula, 2010). It is so because too many visitors often lead to unsus-tainable usage (Kruger, 2005). The author has provided a very practicalline of argument that ecotourism is less sustainable in South America,Asia and in island andmountain habitats. While scholars have exempli-ed Galapagos Island's growth through ecotourism, Kruger perceives

that lack of easy access to seewildlife in all these areas and high revenueleakages for the structure of the economy stand as an obstacle for in-crease in tourists. While on the one hand, these difculties pose prob-lem in bringing tourists, on the other hand more number of touristswill put more pressure on the carrying capacity of the sites. Since thevast majority of visitors are pleasure seekers, they are ignorant aboutconservation, with attitudes and behavior incompatible with responsi-ble ecotourism. Therefore, more tourists during the tourist seasonhave signicant negative impact on the wildlife behavior and habitat.

Often the ecotourism spots experience serious trail erosion due to ahigh number of tourist and vehicles on certain tracks in a fragile area.Kruger (2005) has cited problems like large scale habitat restorationin Malaysia, track erosion in Costa Rican National Park, a world famousecotourism spot, and severe pollution by garbage in the Himalaya inNepal, and has asked the authorities to take proper initiatives to bridgethe gap between policies and practice.

Even the potential local benets of ecotourism can lead to environ-mental damage to a protected area without careful planning and man-agement that balance ecological, social, and economic objectives. Forexample, an increase in employment opportunities, road improvement,technical assistance, or health care can stimulate migration of peopleinto the vicinity of the protected area (Gulinck et al., 2001). Baral andHeinen (2007) from their study in Bardia National Park (BNP) andSukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (SWR), Nepal, nd that both are underthreat of political turmoil, uncontrolled immigration, inefcient land re-form policies and unsustainable resource use. Because of all such prob-lems, the local cost outweighs the benets that the people receive fromparks to some extent.

In many articles, it is often pointed out that frequent humanpresence inside the wild ecosystem may affect the growth of bothora and fauna (Heltberg, Channing, & Sekhar, 2000; Laudati, 2010;Linde-Rahr, 2003). Laudati (2010) has emphasized the effects of ex-tending the territory of park land into the private land of rural farmers.The dispossession of private land and loss of control over the land usenecessitate farmers to venture into wildlife areas for food and survival.This leads to severe loss of life for which the author claims that peopleresiding near Bwindi National Park, Uganda consider that ecotourismis a Trojan horse. The locals in Western Terai landscape of Nepal alsohave the same kind of view that non-availability of alternative sourcesof livelihood compels them to depend heavily on forest resourceswhich affect in meeting the objective of ecotourism. On the otherhand increase in the number of wild animals for the protected statusof the wildlife sanctuaries has resulted in increase in people-wildlifeconict. The lives of the people and also the live stocks are at risk.Though people receive compensation for loss, these are inadequateand the process is very tedious. This makes the benet not worth of(Sawhney, 2003). Moreover the problem of political turmoil, uncon-trolled immigration, and inefcient land reform policies along withthe most dreadful unsustainable resource use distorts the very conceptof ecotourism (Baral & Heinen, 2007). Gossling et al. (2005) throughtheir different case studies have questioned the eco-efciency of eco-tourism. Their analysis has reected that ecotourism does not alwaysserve the purpose of reducing green-house gas emissions. Giving the ex-ample of Seychelles, they have given a very shocking truth that concur-rent emissions of CO2-e are seven times larger in Seychelles than theworld average.

The authors who have supported ecotourism development inprotected areas consider that ecotourism provides an alternative tothe exploitative use of environmental resources. Ecotourism as ex-plained by the authors recognizes the principles of sustainable tourism,as it minimizes environmental impact and contributes to conservationeither through direct effort like reforestation and habitat restoration,or through indirect effort likenancial benets. However, many authorshave also pointed out that the potential local benets of ecotourism canlead to environmental damage to a protected area without careful plan-ning andmanagement that balance ecological, social, and economic ob-

jectives. Considering many examples from the world, the authors have

13M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316questioned the eco-efciency of ecotourism. Their analysis has reectedthat ecotourism does not always serve the purpose of biodiversityconservation.

3.5. Conict management between biodiversity conservationand ecotourism

Eco-labeling often induces rms to adopt green technologies thatcan reduce pollution (Amacher, Koskela & Ollikainen, 2004). Thus in,the midst of an array of problems, ecotourism will help in retaining asmuch as possible of what remains of wild nature through a sensiblecombination of sustainable use, conservation and compensation forlocal people wherever necessary, makes a great economic sense(Balmford et al., 2002). Looking at our callous attitude toward exploita-tion of natural habitats, it is very much imperative that overall humanwelfare is eroding for short-term private gain. Lack of clear conceptual-ization of ecotourism as well as struggle between the traditional andconventional values by the locals often create major problems. A brightexample of Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary, Kenya can be given here. Thesanctuary that was awarded the prestigious Silver Otter, in 1996 bythe BritishGuild of TravelWriters (BGTW) is now criticized for the insti-tutional failure and corruptive practice. This has led to increasing re-sentment by the Kimana community (Southgate, 2006). Lack of thepossession of related resources including nance and managementskill as well as knowledge to get involved in ecotourism developmentare also some of the major barriers resulting in withdrawal of commu-nity support. The Maasai Group living near Kenya's Amboseli NationalPark raises their voices as It is we the Maasai who suffer from conser-vation.Wild animals eat our grass, kill our animals, destroy our shambasand kill our people yet Kenya Wildlife Service only gives us a tokencompensation, (pp. 87). It is to be noted here that the park attractsmore than 200,000 tourists annually. But few Maasai have derived anysubstantial benets from the thriving tourism sector. While some localmen and youths have gained employment as waiters and guards,many jobs are lled by non-Maasai Kenyans. Even the traditionalMaasai danceswhich entertain safari tourists each evening are nowper-formed by non-Maasai Kenyans (Southgate, 2006).

All such policy drawbacks that raise conict between people andpolicy are to be given due attention (Lai & Nepal, 2006). Therefore tomake the policy a successful one, ecotourism should be introduced ina progressive way with proper planning and be accompanied by a gen-eral educational pilot program related to sustainable use of natural andcultural resources (Gulinck et al., 2001). Once conservation in integrat-edwith the development needs of the people, it will be a successful pol-icy (Safafsky, 2011).

Proper management of the ecotourism sites is one of the major keyfactors of their success. The dynamics of the three major stakeholders:(a) resources, (b) community, and (c) tourists are most important forthe success of ecotourism and thus they are to be managed properly.To protect resources andmeet the conservation strategies, the adminis-trative body must restrict the scope of recreational use (Robinson,Torvik, & Verdier, 2006). Strategies like carrying capacity, regulatorypractices for the vehicles, and code of conduct for the tourists shouldbe introduced so as to minimize the negative effect of rising numberof eco-tourists (Tsaur, Lin, & Lin, 2006). The notion of criteria and indi-cators (C&I) for sustainable forest management (SFM) is another tech-nique that can be used to assess the activities and suggest someguidelines towards better management of natural resources (Dutta,Guha, & Chattopadhyay, 2010). Involvement of the local community inthe entire process is another key element of success in such conserva-tional policies, because sustainablemanagement of protected areas ulti-mately depends on the co-operation and support of the local people(Owinio, Jillo, & Kenana, 2012; Tomievi, Margaret, & Milovanovi,2010; Tsaur et al., 2006; Karanth, Kramer, Qian, & Christensen, 2008;Ghate, 2013). public compensation and community co-management

should be introduced to solve the conicts between communityeconomy development and biodiversity conservation (Chen et al.,2005). More awareness campaigns for both the locals and the touristswill also help in the conservation policies (Isaacs, 2000; Tsaur et al.,2006).Thus all the related agencies-governments, the local authorities,the visitors, the local community, and the developers as well as the op-erators have to be sensitive to the environment and local traditions andfollow a set of guidelines for the successful development of ecotourism.In addition, non-governmental organizations and scientic and researchinstitutions must play a key role in the development of ecotourism(Khanna, 2002). Reynolds & Braithwaite (2001) also mention in thesame line and proclaim that a wide range of management techniqueslike differential tax system, educating both visitors and operators willgo a long way in achieving sustainability.

Winwin scenarios, where both natural resources are conservedand human well-being is improved in ecotourism sites are though dif-cult but not impossible to realize (McShane et al., 2011). Long term ini-tiatives to integrate conservation, education, research and capacitybuilding will help locals to know more about their biodiversity andwhy they should protect it (ekerciolu, 2012). A variety of environ-mental indicators should be used to reect the trends in the environ-ment and monitor the progress made in achieving environmentalpolicy targets. As such, environmental indicators like DPSIR (Drivingforces, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response) can be used which canhelp policy-makers for better policy formulation (Gabrielsen & Bosch,2003; Maxim, Spangenberg, & O'Connor, 2009). Gibson et al.'s (2005)eight criteria for sustainability as used in Lambert's (2009) thesis,e.g., Socio-ecological integrity, Efciency, Sufciency, Opportunity,Intra- & Inter-generational equity, Civility and democracy, Precautionand Immediate and long term integration are also useful for the policymakers.

Development of some recognition schemes such as Costa Rica Certi-cation for Sustainable Tourism (CST) in Costa Rica, Australian Natureand Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) in Australia, Nature'sbest in Sweden can also be prepared to evaluate environmental, socialand economic impacts of ecotourism (Haaland & Aas, 2010; Tepelus &Cordobci, 2005). What should be more important is that the certica-tion programs should updated periodically to get better results. The in-volvement of the professionals to undertake research in updating thecriterionswill denitely yield better results. Alongwith the certicationprograms, introduction of external auditing and accreditation will facil-itate in improving the operation of the system. The system of externalauditing will also help in getting rid of the accusations like greenwashing (Haaland & Aas, 2010). Thus all these monitoring and evalua-tion tools of the ecotourism siteswill help in propermanagement of thesites (Rio, & Nunes, 2012).

4. Conclusion

Most of the literature about ecotourism and its impact analysis arequalitative one. The authors have mostly used descriptive analysis tocome to a conclusion.

Considering the experiences of ecotourism throughout the world,the present paper concludes that undoubtedly ecotourism has provento be an effective environmental conservation tool in many cases. Thesuccess stories of Galapagos Islands, Costa Rica's ecotourism spots,Chitwan National Park (Nepal), Sunderbans (India), Periyar TigerReserve (India), Kilum-Ijim National Park (Central Africa), CuyabenoWildlife Reserve (Ecuadorian Amazon region), community based tour-ism in Indonesia etc. are examples of such success stories. These storiesreect properly organized ecotourism, which enables local people toaugment their livelihood security through employment in ecotourismrelated activities and small enterprise development. Regular economicgains from formal or informal sector employment and business oppor-tunities empower the community economically. The economic empow-erment results in improved infrastructures, health facilities, awareness

and education of the locals which in turn empowers them socially.

14 M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 316Increase in standard of living of the locals also fosters respect for theirown culture andhelps them to participate in theprogram leading to cul-tural and political empowerment respectively. External recognition andappreciation of their resources boost their morale giving rise to psycho-logical well-being. This inculcates a positive attitude in their minds to-ward conservation and ecotourism succeeds. Biodiversity becomes anincome generating asset that wo