English research

Eco tourism is defined as tourism that sends people to relatively untouched parts of the world and that is sensitive to the impact to nature caused by humans. Eco tourism is an attempt to allow tourism that does not damage nature or traditional culture. It is an idea that has massive appeal as those with money can now visit places in good conscience. They can see wonderful things and feel at the same time that their money is helping the local environment and indigenous people.

Since the 1980s the eco tourism sector has grown and grown. It is the fastest growing sector in tourism – growing at an annual rate of between 10% – 15%. Tourism is one of the few sectors of the world economy that continues to grow despite the ups and downs in the world economy. It has become so important that the IMF now includes stipulations about tourism as part of its preconditions for lending money to developing countries.

The Pros of Eco-tourism

If done rightly eco tourism has several advantages. It is more concerned with the environment and does encourage developers to build with more consideration for the natural environment. This means that more natural habitat is preserved and that the resources for building come from sustainable sources. This is the theory anyway.

Another advantage is that eco tourism provides an income for local inhabitants in an area. The argument is that if the local people can generate revenue from showing tourists around a jungle, lake, savannah etc. then it is much better than killing elephants for their ivory or capturing gorillas to sell on the black market. Moreover, showing people a rainforest rather than logging the forest is a good compromise if the forest is preserved.

People in the developed world through eco tourism get to experience places of great natural significance as well as interact with local and indigenous people. It is hoped that this contact will benefit both parties, fostering better understanding of the issues on the ground, and overcoming prejudice.

The Cons of Eco-tourism

It is felt by some environmentalists that there should be some parts of the world that are ‘off bounds’ for any tourists as any human activity will damage the eco system and disrupt the routine of the animals.

Although scuba divers try to be careful, any tourist scuba business is going to have a negative impact on fragile coral marine environments. Although, people walking carefully through the forest might not do much harm, building their eco lodges does.

A good example of this is the safari business in Africa. Tour jeeps going across the savannah scare off the animals that the lions rely on catching. The result is that lions can no longer hunt in parts of Kenya and Tanzania during the morning when the tour jeeps are out.

They have to wait until the hottest part of the day to hunt. This is draining for them and affecting lion numbers.

The Masai people in Kenya have been moved out of their traditional lands because of the demarcation of National Parks for eco tourism. They are settled on land next to the reserves. Much of the best land next to the reserves has gone to non-local people and eco tourist operators. When animals come on to this communal land any damage caused by the animals is not compensated by the government. The result is that the Masai who once co-existed with the animals of the savannah now come to regard them as pests.

Another issue for the Masai and other indigenous people is that they have become ‘tourist attractions’ that are expected to pose for the cameras and perform dances etc. for money. Not only is this extremely patronizing, but it is discouraging the Masai and other indigenous people from pursuing their traditional life styles. Unwittingly the tourists are destroying the culture that they are paying to preserve.

Eco-tourism seeks to go to the remotest places. These places are often not well policed. There is nothing stopping people taking money from tourists as well as pursuing environmentally unfriendly activities. In the case of Brazil, illegal logging will not stop because of eco-tourism because the logging companies make too much money.

It seems that the cons often outweigh the pros of eco tourism. It might be better to take pictures of animals rather than shoot animals, but given the choice the animals would sooner not have people around. Policing of eco tourism is another matter. Do eco tourist outfits deliver what they promise? It seems whether eco tourism should be allowed should be judged case-by-case, and that the consultation must include the local people, and not the IMF.

http://worldtourismforum.org/global/pros-and-cons-of-eco-tourism/

Introduction

Originally conceived in the 1960�s in response to declining environmental and economic conditions throughout the Developing World, ecotourism is described as tourism that has a low-impact on the environment, contributes to the local economy, engenders cross-cultural exchange, and fosters environmental education.  Since its conception, many governments within the Developing World have embraced and encouraged ecotourism as a means of attracting foreign investment and exchange.  Costa Rica, with its rich biodiversity and extensive ecosystem, is inarguably one of the leaders in this type of tourism, which is rapidly becoming the largest sector of that country�s tourism industry.

To be sure, the promotion of ecotourism in Costa Rica has led to several desirable outcomes.  For example, the continued expansion of ecotourism has created opportunities

for income generation and employment, at both the national and local levels.  Additionally, ecotourism has provided greater incentives for natural resource conservation in the form of state-protected areas and private lands.  As a result, natural resource conservation is on the rise.  With nearly ½ million acres of land designated as protected areas, tourism to that country has surged, with scientific and nature tourists from around the world converging on this naturally endowed, tourist�s paradise. Finally, heightened emphasis has been placed on environmental education.

While the Costa Rican government has successfully stimulated economic growth and environmental preservation by marketing the country�s ecotourism destinations, recent studies suggest that it has not invested adequate attention or resources for the management of the natural assets which attract tourists or in the infrastructure required to support ecotourism.  As a result, fragile sites of ecological or cultural significance have been exposed to the threat of degradation by unregulated tourism development and over-visitation.  In short, while the tourist explosion has attracted world attention and new funds to Costa Rica, it has also put a strain on the country�s environment and population.

Clearly ecotourism is a multi-dimensional, complex practice that has resulted in tradeoffs, in costs and benefits for Costa Rica.  All the same, it is a practice that is being promoted with increasing fervor by the Costa Rican government and the tourism industry.  But how long can this practice sustain itself?  Is ecotourism sustainable?

The purpose of this paper is to explore these questions, to go �below the surface� and take a deeper look at ecotourism in Costa Rica, thereby facilitating a clearer understanding of the complexity of this phenomenon.  Specifically, this paper examines ecotourism�s impact on the economy and environment of the country.  For that purpose, tourism, environmental, and economic transitions are critically researched, with an emphasis on how these transitions interrelate.   Findings and conclusions around the benefits and disadvantages of ecotourism are presented.  Based on these findings, this paper attempts to articulate creative and proactive policy measures for mitigating the drawbacks associated with ecotourism.

What Is Ecotourism? Before entering into a detailed description of the various dimensions of ecotourism in Costa Rica, it is useful to have a clear understanding of what ecotourism is.  As mentioned earlier, ecotourism is a concept that originated in the early 1960�s, at a time when significant criticism was being levied against traditional tourism, otherwise known as mass tourism. Essentially, critics believed that mass tourism -- characterized by package deals to familiar destinations, limited interaction with local populations, high levels of security, and a contrived experience with local life and culture -- was resulting in adverse ecological and socio-cultural effects, the results of which were only beginning to be observed.

These critiques emerged at a time when a larger, more global environmental movement was beginning to take shape.  Eventually, this movement culminated in the creation of the 1987 report of the Bruntland Commission, which introduced the world to the notion of sustainable development.  This report also provided the first working definition for

environmentally sustainable tourism, also known as alternative tourism, which differs from mass tourism in that it is characterized by a higher degree of risk, novelty, and interaction with local cultures.  Essentially, this tourism can be defined as �tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period of time and does not degrade or alter the environment� (Butler, 29).

Ecotourism is a form of alternative tourism which aims to achieve economic gain through natural resource preservation.  While they disagree on its exact definition, many tourism experts generally agree that ecotourism is characterized by �ecological and socio-cultural integrity, responsibility and sustainability� (Cater, 3).  For the most part, the success of this form of tourism in different locations depends on a variety of factors including the area�s political stability; the host governments� and local communities� commitment to ecotourism; the extent of its promotion by local governments and tour operators; the area�s image; ease of travel in the respective area; and �product� demand.

Ecotourism in the Developing World As a form of tourism with smaller-scale infrastructural needs and less �sophisticated� consumer demands, ecotourism is ideally suited to the Developing World.  It does not necessitate multi-billion dollar investments.  Local, small businesses and entrepreneurs can successfully fulfill the demands of ecotourism, especially in the areas of lodging and food services.  As a result, ecotourism has become incredibly popular within the Developing World, particularly as a means of stimulating economic development.

Struggling with severe balance of payments difficulties, ecotourism provides these countries with the opportunity to earn foreign exchange without destroying their environmental resource base. For the most part, countries in the Developing World have something of a �comparative advantage� when it comes to ecotourism, in terms of the vast biodiversity and extent of pristine, natural environments in those countries.  According to the World Wildlife Fund for nature, that �comparative advantage� translated into nearly $12 billion in ecotourism revenues for Developing Countries in 1988.  Overall tourism earnings in the Developing World for 1998 were $55 billion (Cater, 71 The Earthscan Reader).  This segment of tourism is reported to have been growing at a rate of 10-15% per year, whereas mass tourism is said to average only a 4% annual growth rate.

Ecotourism�s popularity among Developing World countries has only increased since 1988, as evidenced by the proliferation of specialized ecotourism tour operators and by the increasing number of ecotourism conferences in those countries.  For many destinations within the Developing World, ecotourism is becoming the most important tourism market segment.

An Introduction to Ecotourism in Costa Rica

Costa Rica is one Developing Country that has taken advantage of and benefited from the promotion of ecotourism.  That success is illustrated in a variety of ways.  For example, since 1964, tourism revenues in Costa Rica have grown significantly as can be seen in

Figure 1 (Tourism Transition in Costa Rica, 1964-1995, International Receipts).  In 1995 alone, Costa Rica generated $661 million in tourism receipts.

Similarly, from 1964-1995, international tourist stayover arrivals skyrocketed, as illustrated in Figure 2 (Tourism Transition in Costa Rica, 1965-1995, International Stayover Arrivals, Source:  Europa World Yearbook Selected Years.  Taken from Ecotourism in the Less Developed World by D.B. Weaver).   A comparative analysis of select tourism destinations in the Caribbean Basin highlights the fact that, despite its relatively small size (51, 100 sq. km), Costa Rica attracts a significant portion of tourism to that region of the world (refer to Figure 3). (Tourist Stayovers in Select Caribbean Basin Destinations, 1989,  Source:  Europa World Yearbook Selected Years.  Taken from Ecotourism in the Less Developed World by D.B. Weaver).

Although most of the findings above reflect gains made within tourism as a whole in Costa Rica, it is reasonable to assume that a large percent of the general growth in tourism is the product of specific growth within the ecotourism sector, since that is the kind of tourism for which Costa Rica is known.  That point is substantiated by results from a survey conducted by the ICT (Costa Rican Institute of Tourism) during the peak travel season of 1986, when nearly 75% of tourists who were interviewed indicated that they had come to Costa Rica primarily because of its natural beauty.  36% stated that they had specifically come to Costa Rica to observe its nature.  For that year alone, nearly one-third of all peak-season tourists were ecotourists.  (Budowski, 52).

A similar informal survey conducted in 1995 indicated that over 40% of American and European (excluding German) visitors to Costa Rica came to the country for nature-related activities (refer to Figure 4, Purpose of Visit to Costa Rica, Selected Results of 1995 Visitor Survey, Source:  TTI, 1996d.  Taken from  Ecotourism in the Less Developed World by D.B. Weaver).

These facts about ecotourism in Costa Rica demonstrate the important role it has played in bolstering the country�s tourism industry.  However, a few questions persist.  For example, why is ecotourism so popular in Costa Rica?   What has made tourism the largest generator of foreign exchange there?  Why has the Costa Rican government so aggressively promoted ecotourism?  The following sections provide greater insight into these questions.

The Development of Ecotourism in Costa Rica Around the same time the global environmental movement was galvanizing in the 1960�s, the Costa Rican government was being criticized for its environmental policies, or lack thereof.  Essentially, Costa Rica had no effective environmental policies, which was resulting in widespread deforestation of the countryside.  As a result, a number of scientists and environmentalists who had studied and experienced, first-hand, the spectacular biodiversity and variety of environments in the country began to apply pressure on the government to create more proactive, aggressive environmental preservation programs.  These same people began to lobby various international environmental organizations, such as the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and governments to intervene and take part in helping to protect the environment within Costa Rica.

Initially, the Costa Rican government was not very responsive.  Up until this time, environmental protection had been a low priority for the Costa Rican government due to financial constraints, and that continued to be the case despite the rigorous lobbying efforts. However, when various foreign governments got involved and threatened to cut development assistance to the country if it did not implement environmental preservation programs, the Costa Rican government responded.  In 1970, the government officially established the National Park Service, whose mission it was to consolidate natural lands into parks.  The first four national parks were established between 1970 and 1971.  These parks were created with the express mandate of preserving Costa Rica�s biodiversity.

In 1987, during a reorganization of the Executive Branch of the government, the National Park Service was incorporated into the newly created Ministry of Environment and Energy.  This agency was restructured in 1990 and became known as the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy, and Mines (MIRENEM).  MIRENEM was created as a response to increasing social demands to develop institutional guidelines for the protection of the country�s natural resources.  Finally, in 1995, the development of the Environment Organic Law delineated a more specific role for MIRENEM with regard to natural resource management, and it officially became the Ministry of Environment and Energy which it is known as today.

Since the establishment of the first four parks in 1970, the system has expanded to include over 70 entities, comprising approximately 1,000,000 hectares or 21% of the national territory (refer to Figure 5, Costa Rica, Selected Protected Areas,  Source: Boza, 1998; Rovinski, 1991; and Carey & Jones, 1993.  Taken from Ecotourism in the Less Developed World by D. B. Weaver).  Within this system, the level of preservation differs, with just over one-half designated as completely protected national parks, biological reserves, and national wildlife refuges.  The rest is comprised of forest reserves and protective zones, which accommodate a limited amount of lumbering and other extractive activities.

Since its creation, one of MINAE�s primary objectives has been the consolidation of the conservation areas into a more organized system, in order to facilitate better management of those areas.  To that end, MINAE has established the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistem Nacional de Areas de Conservacion � SINAC) which is a decentralized and participatory government agency that assembles MINAE�s responsibilities regarding protected wildlands, wildlife, and forested areas.  SINAC�s overall goal is to plan and carry out the processes necessary for achieving sustainable management of the country�s resources.  To help achieve that goal, SINAC has established eleven conservation areas, or territorial units which are managed, in principle, under the same set of strategies (refer to Figure 6, MIRENEM, Areas of Conservation, Source:  www.inbio.ac.cr  1998).  These are administrative areas where private and government activities come together around issues such as the use and conservation of natural resources, while sustainable development alternatives are sought as part of a collaborative effort with the citizenry of Costa Rica.

From the creation of the first four national parks in 1970 to the establishment of over seventy parks in the early 1990�s, Costa Rica has come quite a long way with regard to environmental preservation.  The government�s most recent administrative undertaking,

SINAC, is just further evidence of the progress the country has made.  

Why Is Ecotourism So Popular in Costa Rica? When the Costa Rican government first started setting aside land for the creation of a system of national parks, reserves, and protected zones, it did so under a mandate of preservation.  Over time, however, the protected-area system has �emerged as a focal point for the Costa Rican tourism industry, as evidenced by the proportion of visitors spending at least some time within such areas and by the exponential pattern of visitation growth with the system� (Weaver, 89).  This phenomenon can be linked to a variety of factors.

First, Costa Rica�s location is unique in that it is situated in the Central American isthmus, the only region of the world which is both interoceanic and intercontinental (refer to Maps of Costa Rica in Figures 7 [Source:  www.excite.com] 1998 and 8 Source:  www.centralamerica.com  1998).

The resulting bottleneck effect helps to explain why Costa Rica has such amazing biodiversity, despite its relatively small size (51,000 sq. km).  The tropical setting and extreme variations in altitude also help create a situation where diverse plant and wildlife species can thrive.  �Evidence of this biodiversity includes the presence of 20 �life zones� (ranging from mangroves and coastal rainforest to subalpine grassland, containing at least 850 bird species, 1260 tree species, 1200 orchid species, 237 mammal species, and 361 species of reptiles and amphibians� (Weaver, 81).  Topographically, Costa Rica is covered by a series of young mountains, including several active volcanoes, running along the entire length of the country.  These mountains are interrupted by the existence of a centrally situated plateau known as the Meseta Central.  Extensive lowlands line both the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.

It is the exceptional biodiversity and such great variety of ecoregions that attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists to Costa Rica each year to participate in some activity related to ecotourism.  The Costa Rican government has responded to the tremendous growth in this sector of the tourism industry by enhancing preservation efforts within the national parks system.

To be sure, Costa Rica�s reputation as a premier destination spot has only been further enhanced as a result of its social and political stability which has given it the image of �Switzerland of Central America.�  Similarly, the fact that nearly one-third of all national tour operators specialize in ecotourism and that the government has spent a considerable amount of money on infrastructure related to tourism has only made travel for ecotourists in Costa Rica easier and more attractive.

The  Benefits of Ecotourism The promotion of ecotourism in Costa Rica has had positive impacts on the environment and the economy within the country.  As already mentioned, while not the case initially, over time ecotourism has become one of the main justifications for preservation of natural

areas throughout Costa Rica, resulting in rapid expansion of the national park system which now includes seventy different entities.  Looking at it from a different perspective, close to 14% of the country has been designated as national protected areas, which puts Costa Rica among the leaders in environmental preservation throughout the Caribbean (refer to Figure 9, Comparative Perspective on % National Land Area Protected--Caribbean Basin).   Similarly, the emphasis on natural preservation for the sake of ecotourism has helped stem the widespread deforestation of the countryside.  Although deforestation in Costa Rica is still problematic, Figure 10 (Total Deforestation in Costa Rica, 1980-1995) illustrates that such deforestation has decreased over time.

In addition to fulfilling its mandate of promoting environmental sustainability, ecotourism in Costa Rica has also generated significant economic development, at both the national and local levels.  As already mentioned, since 1964 international tourism receipts have risen considerably.  Since 1984, international tourism receipts have grown from $117 million to $136 million in 1987, and $577 million in 1993 (Weaver, 83).  Such phenomenal growth has made tourism the leading source of foreign exchange in Costa Rica; it surpassed the banana trade in 1992.  This trend has certainly been felt at the national level, where the GNP has literally taken off (refer to Figure 11, Costa Rica's Gross National Product in US$, 1970-1995).

Specifically, since 1970, Costa Rica�s GNP has grown from approximately $1000 million to roughly $9000 million in 1995.  At a more micro level, Costa Rica�s GNP/capita has risen from around $1500 in 1978 to nearly $2000 dollars in 1992 (refer to Figure 12, Costa Rica's GNP per Capita in US$, 1978-1992).

While the growth of the GNP is ostensibly linked to many factors, the fact that tourism is the greatest source of foreign exchange in the country makes it a prominent factor in Costa Rica�s economic growth.  To illustrate this point, Figure 13 (Tourism Revenues as Percent of GNP in Costa Rica, 1970-1994, Source:  World Resources Institute  1994-1995) represents the percentage of Costa Rica�s GNP that is derived from tourism revenues.  As can be observed in this figure, since 1970, when ecotourism was just beginning to take off in Costa Rica, tourism revenues have comprised an increasingly significant portion of GNP.  Specifically, tourism revenues as a percent of GNP grew from 2% in 1970 to around 8% in 1994.  Clearly, then, the Costa Rican government�s efforts to promote ecotourism have �paid off� in terms of the national economy.

The benefits of ecotourism have not been felt just at the national level, however.  At the more local level, parks have spawned a number of ecotourism-related activities in adjacent communities, such as the Talamancan Ecotourism and Conservation Association (ATEC).  ATEC is an organization that was established by local communities in south-eastern Costa Rica to service visitors to the extensive park network of that region by providing trained local guides, food and lodging.  While the full economic activities of the Talamancan initiative have yet to be determined, some indication of the effects of ecotourism can be derived from a 1990 study of Tortuguero, a village of 211 residents bordering the park of the same name.  According to this survey, most tourism activity was indeed related to

ecotourism, and additional surveys revealed that most residents were highly satisfied with the development (Weaver, 91).  Other similar studies indicated that in several instances, ecotourism-related activities have raised the standard of living within certain local communities.

It is evident, then, that ecotourism has had positive impacts, both large and small, on the environment and economy of Costa Rica.  Certainly, such outcomes are embraced by a country that has worked diligently to promote this segment of its economy.  However, as with any type of tourism, ecotourism has also had negative impacts on Costa Rica.  The following section describes those impacts in greater detail.

The Costs of Ecotourism in Costa Rica While there have been many benefits associated with ecotourism in Costa Rica as outlined above, there have also been costs.  One of the more fundamental issues surrounding ecotourism is the lack of standards regarding its practice.  Presently in Costa Rica, there are few national laws and regulations that dictate who can rightfully engage in ecotourism and how it must be carried out.  Similarly, there are no licensing procedures.  Therefore, any tourism outfit can claim to conduct ecotourism even if it has little to no experience in that kind of tourism.  Such unrestricted practice of ecotourism by inexperienced tour operators has inevitably resulted in types of ecotourism that do not adhere to its basic principles of environmental sustainability and local income generation.

Several other problems related to ecotourism are the byproducts of inadequate funding, poor park management, and insufficient monitoring and evaluation of programs.  For example, while significant investment has been made in creating a national park system geared towards ecotourism, overall funding falls severely short of the amount necessary to support adequate park management, infrastructure, and programming.  As a result, problems such as trail deterioration, habitat disruption, pollution, and litter are becoming more commonplace.

Over-visitation is yet another factor that compounds the problem.  Although policies in Costa Rica direct ecotourists into areas expressly designated for that purpose, thereby alleviating the pressure on other more fragile environments, the fact is that even the ecotourism designated environments are also fragile.  That reality is precisely one of the reasons so many people converge upon such areas; they cannot experience such unadulterated nature in their own countries.  What has happened, then, is that areas that are already strained are becoming more strained by the presence of humans.  Figure 14 (Visitation to Select Costa Rican National Parks, 1996) represents the total number of visits to various national parks in 1996.  As can be seen in this figure, there are some areas that receive well close to 200,000 visitors a year.  Together, they account for close to 65% of visitation to the national parks.  These parks, however, are negligible in terms of their share of the protected land area.  Clearly, there is an issue of carrying capacity in these parks.  How many more visits will these parks be able to sustain before trail deterioration, litter, pollution, and habitat disruption become even more problematic?

In addition to the ecological and biophysical problems related to ecotourism, there are other, economic and socio-cultural problems .  For example, while ecotourism can be

attributed with generating some economic development at a local level, quite often, it has resulted in disruption of local economic activities.  Not only does ecotourism disrupt the local economic activity, often times, the economic benefits of ecotourism in a particular area do not accrue to the local community.  In those cases, the income is repatriated to some national tour operator, and quite often, to an international tourism agency.

In a similar fashion, high levels of visitation by foreign tourists have led to disturbance of local cultural practices and lifestyles.  Essentially, many communities that were previously isolated have had to adapt to the constant presence of strangers in their backyard.  While the exact nature of the effects of ecotourism on cultural and lifestyle practices are yet to be determined and quantified, given the prominence of ecotourism in Costa Rica, there is sufficient reason to believe that it has had and will continue to have fairly significant socio-cultural implications.

Clearly, the aforementioned points beg one question: Is ecotourism in Costa Rica truly a sustainable practice?  Has it fostered community empowerment, local income generation, and linkages with existing communities, while promoting environmental sustainability? While on paper, this may seem to be the case, when one looks under the surface and studies the evidence, it does not appear as if ecotourism in Costa Rica has achieved those goals.  Moreover, it does not seem that ecotourism in its current form will be sustainable in Costa Rica.  So what measures should the government take to ensure that ecotourism is a more positive force in the county and that it fulfills its original mandate � that of, promoting and protecting the environment into the future as a means of generating economic development?  The following section contains a series of ideas and suggestions on how the Costa Rican government can revise its policies around ecotourism, thereby making it a sustainable option for economic growth and environmental preservation throughout the country for many generations to come.

Mitigating the Con's, Emphasizing the Pro's In many ways, ecotourism is a desirable model for achieving environmental prosperity and environmental sustainability.  However, in Costa Rica�s case, the ecotourism model has to be seriously revisited and revised if it is to be beneficial.  The following suggestions provide a working framework for how the Costa Rican government can initiate the process of practicing ecotourism more sustainably.

Better Management   Key to the success of ecotourism in Costa Rica is better implementation, monitoring, and evaluation around this practice. Specifically, there needs to be the establishment of a system that considers all aspects of ecotourism ranging from the biophysical to the social.  To that end, more scientific studies related to the biodiversity of the parks, habitat and its disruption, park carrying capacities, pollution, visitation, and other similar issues will need to be conducted.  Similar studies related to income generation and economic development activities, as a result of ecotourism, must also be carried out on a regular basis in order to determine if local economic growth is indeed occurring.  Likewise, the government, in collaboration with different governmental and non-governmental agencies, needs to identify issues regarding ecotourism�s impact on the cultural practices and lifestyles of local communities, to assess and hopefully forestall any negative consequences.

Increased Funding   To be sure, many of these measures will require additional funding. To that end, the Costa Rican government needs to develop more creative ways to generate income for the maintenance of the parks system and for other issues such as the training of park rangers and staff.  One way the government could accomplish this goal is to set up a more comprehensive differential fee and admissions structure to parks .   Such a system is based on the principle of charging a higher admission rate to foreign tourists, who typically comprise the majority of visitors to the parks.  While it is being employed in some parks, such a system is not presently universal.  Standardizing the system would be justified on the grounds that it is largely the presence of foreign visitors which necessitates comprehensive park management.  Therefore, they should be required to pay for it.  Such a structure would also be desirable since it keeps the costs of admission for local residents low, thereby enabling them to also enjoy the parks� natural beauty.

Stricter Standards   In addition to funding the parks better, the government needs to develop a more stringent set of standards and regulations regarding the practice of ecotourism.  For example, within certain protected areas, only visitors with trained guides should be allowed to enter.  Similarly, in other areas, the government should restrict the number of visitors that can enter the park each day.  Establishing such regulations would require a better understanding of the carrying capacity of each park within the system, which is something that the managing bodies should work towards.

The government could also set up a ratings system for all self-proclaimed ecotourism operators.  Such a system would essentially assign a rating to each operator, indicating its level of environmental sensitivity in its operations. This kind of system would provide a means for potential ecotourists to better align themselves with tour operators that are conducting ecotourism in a proper way.  Hopefully, such a system would result in more responsible ecotourism to fragile environments.

With regard to local economic development, the government needs to increase the involvement of local communities within various ecotourism enterprises. Studies in some parts of Costa Rica, and in other parts of the world such as Nepal, have proven that where local communities are actively involved in ecotourism, there is an evident increase in standards of living.  No doubt, the sociocultural impacts of ecotourism are not quite as severe, as well.

Development of Alternatives Eventually, the Costa Rican government will have to develop other sectors of tourism and the economy, thereby generating income.  In order to do this, the government can capitalize on its existing reputation as a prime tourist destination with one of the most stable economies in the region.  Developing other sources of income will mean less dependence on ecotourism as one of the primary means for economic development.  That will translate into less strain on the national protected areas.  Moreover, it will mean that more money can be spent on creating programs and policies to preserve the natural environment in other parts of the country.  Finally, the generation of other kinds of income will hopefully reduce the need of activities such as lumbering which have led to the deforestation of the majority of the country.

To be sure, in order to achieve all of these goals, the Costa Rican government will have to more earnestly commit itself to the environmental preservation component of ecotourism.  While it is evident that the government has seen the economic development value of ecotourism, it has not been as effective in supporting the preservation ideals inherent in the concept, as illustrated by the inadequate funding and management of the national parks system.  Basically, the government needs to start making preservation as high a priority as economic development.  Just as it spends significant money to promote ecotourism, it needs to spend greater money to support the infrastructure that supports the practice (i.e. the national parks).  Additionally, the government will need to take the lead in orchestrating cooperation between a wide range of actors including itself, NGO�s (especially environmental groups), tour operators, and local communities.  Moreover, all of these players will need to recognize the limitations of ecotourism.  However, with the sincere and earnest commitment and stewardship of all of these groups, ecotourism can become a means for economic development and environmental sustainability in Costa Rica, both now and into the future.

http://www.umich.edu/~csfound/545/1998/narayans/chap07.htm

According to the International Ecotourism Society (TIES), 83% of developing countries rely on ecotourism as a major export while others, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador, Nepal, Kenya, Madagascar and Antarctica, also rely on ecotourism as the major contributory factor in their gross domestic product and employment level calculations.

With the tourism industry now experiencing growth rates of 7%, the current rebound is not only good news for these aforementioned countries, it is also good news for the protection of natural resources and ecosystems. But, with the ecotourism industry growing 5% annually worldwide (representing 6% of the world gross domestic product and reflecting 11.4% of all consumer spending), are other countries really prepared for rising consumer expectations with respect to ecotourism?

The answer largely depends on the level of consumer awareness concerning ecotourism certifications, cultural and family ecotourism experiences, host community poverty alleviation measures, and mitigation of environmental damage.

A high-level analysis of the eco-destinations that have the most to gain (or lose) with the rapid rise of ecotourism includes:

Costa Rica – has a well-established ecotourism market and voluntary ecotourism certification program. Most of the tourist attractions are nature and wildlife focused family ecotourism activities (e.g. bird watching, flora and fauna) that are run by

local residents and by most criteria, the country has a decent environmental record except for some deforestation controversies.

Ecuador – has the fortunate distinction of being the easiest gateway to the Galapagos Islands, which is well known for its distinct wildlife. Along with a booming community based tourism trade, its highly regarded ecotourism certification program focuses on environmental education and tourist waste management though there are some issues with deforestation.

Nepal – although one of the poorest countries in the world, Nepal is a popular tourist destination known for trekking expeditions. While there are some government initiatives to add tourist attractions, there is no eco-certification program in place to distinguish ecotour operators nor many community based ecotourism programs to help with alleviating poverty.

Kenya – is in the midst of an image problem. It was showing increasing ecotourism gains with a thriving safari tourism industry until consumer concerns about pirate activities off the coast of Somalia and other violence began to distribute tourists to other African countries. For its part, the Kenyan government has developed an ecotourism certification program, but environmental issues include deforestation, soil erosion and degraded water quality need attention.

Madagascar – is labeled as one of the most unique places on earth for flora, fauna, culture, and food. But, its political situation results in consistent safety warnings for travelers. For its part, the government has developed a certification program to begin combating the environmental issues of deforestation and soil erosion.

Antarctica – is widely considered to be one of the last tourism frontiers. Yet, tourism is growing to become the main commercial activity on the continent (replacing scientific research) which coupled with the introduction of alien species continues to have a great impact on the fragile environment. There is no eco-certification program in place, but there is an association of tour operators which aims to promote environmentally responsible travel to the continent.

Only consumer awareness of both the true meaning of ecotourism as well as the benefits and challenges that ecotourism brings to a community, will result in the greater preservation and protection of natural resources and ecosystems.

http://greenloons.com/ecotourism-blog/introduction-to-ecotourism/ecotourism-101-which-countries-are-most-dependent-on-ecotourism-revenue.html

This section provides quantitative and qualitative information regarding tourism and ecotourism in the Asia-Pacific region. The statistical data are based on World Tourism Organization (WTO) and World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) estimates. In

addition, the WTO figures in particular generally are for international tourism and do not include domestic tourism, which often is quite substantial.

More importantly, readers should remember the inherent limitations of tourism and ecotourism statistics. There are a several problems associated with measuring tourist flows and resulting economic impacts (WTO 1997). One of these problems is the lack of a universal definition of tourism. Thus, the data presented here should be treated with caution.

Caution is even more important when one turns to ecotourism, as definitions of this activity are even less universal. There have been relatively few attempts to develop an operational definition of ecotourism, one that allows the number of ecotourists or their economic impacts to be measured. Therefore, there have been very few estimates of the importance of ecotourism, either in absolute terms or as a proportion of tourism generally. Moreover, for practical reasons, the estimates that have been made typically are based on definitions focused on the nature component, with little or no consideration of the sustainability component. Thus, estimates typically reflect nature tourism rather than ecotourism. In short, currently it is all but impossible to estimate with any accuracy the importance of ecotourism in the Asia-Pacific region.

Given these important caveats, the following information provides an indication of tourism and ecotourism in the region.

Tourism in the Region

As noted by the WTO (1996), the Asia-Pacific region has experienced rapid tourism growth during the past decade. The absolute and relative growth in arrivals and receipts is shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

As illustrated by the figures, tourism in the East Asia and Pacific region has grown much faster than in the South Asia region, and somewhat faster than global tourism. WTO (1997) estimates that the East Asia and Pacific region had 87 million international arrivals in 1996, with South Asia having 4.5 million international arrivals in that period. These arrivals generated US$80.8 billion and US$4.0 billion in receipts, respectively2. The importance of tourism relative to other economic sectors is illustrated by the share of tourism receipts in services and merchandise exports (WTO 1997:18):

2 The Asia-Pacific region thus accounted for about a sixth of world international arrivals and nearly a quarter of receipts in 1996 (editor).

Region Share of tourism receipts in services

Ratio of tourism receipts to merchandise exports

Northeast Asia 30.3% 3.6%Southeast Asia 42.3% 8.8%Australasia (AU + NZ) 46.7% 13.9%

Other Oceania 260.4% 63.5%

Figure 1: International Tourism Arrivals (millions)

Figure 2: International Tourism Receipts (US$ billions)

Though tourism plays a particularly important role in Oceania, these figures indicate its importance throughout the East Asia and Pacific region. WTTC (1997) estimates of travel and tourism's impact on regional output are (includes domestic tourism, amounts in US$ billions):

Northeast Asia 751Southeast Asia 105South Asia 46Oceania 67

Within the East Asia and Pacific region, the top ten countries in terms of international tourism receipts, excluding transport, for 1996 are (WTO 1997:51, amounts in US$ billions):

Hong Kong 10.8China 10.2Australia 8.7Thailand 8.5Singapore 7.9Indonesia 6.1Korea (Rep.) 5.4Japan 4.1Malaysia 3.9Macau 3.5

The top ten East Asia and Pacific countries in terms of average annual growth rate for receipts, 1986-1996, are (WTO 1997:40, 43, 46):

Indonesia 26.3%Australia 20.9%China 20.9%Vanuatu 20.9%Macau 20.8%Malaysia 19.9%Thailand 19.6%N. Mariana Is. 17.0%Hong Kong 16.8%Singapore 16.2%

Importantly, the region is not solely a recipient of visitors from outside the region. Indeed, the following figures for market share (percent of total arrivals in East Asia and the Pacific coming from each source region, 1996) indicate that countries within the region generate most of the region's tourism arrivals (WTO 1997:54):

East Asia/Pacific 79.3%Europe 11.4%Americas 6.9%South Asia 1.6%Africa 0.5%Middle East 0.4%

Using a different country grouping, the Pacific Asia Travel Association (1996) reports that 61% of the international arrivals in the Pacific Asia region originated from Asia, up from only 45% a decade ago.

The current importance of intraregional travel is illustrated by the case of Malaysia. As of 1994, the ten largest markets for Malaysia were, in decreasing order (MCAT 1995):

Singapore (by far the largest)ThailandJapanTaiwanIndonesiaUKBruneiHong KongAustraliaChina

The future importance of intraregional travel is illustrated by efforts by national tourism organizations and the private sector to increase such travel. For example, Tourism Malaysia's bimonthly publication Malaysia Tourism summarizes efforts to attract the Japanese (March/April and September/October 1996 issues), Chinese (March/April and July/August 1996), Indonesian (September/October 1996), and Indian (July/August 1996) markets.

Future Growth in Tourism in the Region

As noted by the WTO (1997: 10, 34), the reasons for regional tourism growth include:

rapidly growing income; freer intraregional travel; increased leisure time;

dynamic trade and investment; government promotion measures, such as launching "visit years"; and political stability in many of the region's countries.

Many of these factors are expected to continue, with the result being continued tourism growth into the future. Indeed, the East Asia and Pacific region is expected to surpass the Americas to become the world's number two tourism region by 2010, with 229 million international arrivals (WTO 1996). Of all the WTO regions, East Asia and Pacific is forecast to have the highest average annual growth rate (7.6%) between 1990 and 2010, with South Asia having the second highest rate, at 6.7% (the world rate is forecast at 4.1%).

The growth in arrivals is expected to result from roughly equal growth in the various source markets, including East Asia and the Pacific countries. Intraregional source market growth is particularly expected from the emerging economies of China, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore (WTO 1997).

The WTTC (1997) estimates that regional tourism output will increase by the following percentages in the ten years from 1997 to 2007:

Northeast Asia 52%Southeast Asia 103%South Asia 119%Oceania 44%

Ecotourism in the Region

There has been much discussion and debate regarding the size and growth of the ecotourism market. Although supporters of ecotourism, or any other phenomenon, like to provide large estimates, others question this growth in some contexts (Blamey 1995). Estimates of market size depend on the definition used to describe the market. As noted above, the lack of a widely-accepted operational definition of ecotourism hinders estimates of the ecotourism market and prevents effective comparisons across sites. Moreover, because the sustainability component of ecotourism definitions is particularly difficult to measure, most existing estimates are based solely on the nature-based component. Therefore, most estimates of ecotourism really are estimates of nature tourism.

Keeping in mind that estimates should be treated with caution, Ceballos-Lascurin (1993) reports a WTO estimate that nature tourism generates 7% of all international travel expenditure (c.f., Lindberg 1994). Campbell (1994) reports that approximately 20% of all foreign tourists to Thailand (in 1990) visited nature tourism sites. In some countries, such as Australia, the percentage is even higher (Blamey 1995). Assuming that the Asia-Pacific region follows the global pattern, 7% might be used as an extremely rough estimate of the region's international tourism that can be viewed as ecotourism, with several countries exhibiting higher proportions.

Lew (1997) divides ecotourism in the region into three zones: 1) South and Southeast Asia, which together comprise the major international destination region, 2) Australia and New Zealand, which have substantial domestic ecotourism industries, as well as a secondary international market, and 3) the peripheral ecotourism areas, including China and Japan to the north, and the Pacific islands to the east.

A thorough evaluation of ecotourism offerings and experiences across the region's countries was not possible given limited project resources. However, one ecotourism operator with many years of experience in Southeast Asia ranks countries in the following decreasing order in terms of ecotourism experiences: Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Several other countries are not ranked and do not play major ecotourism roles, including: Laos, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, and Vietnam.

Currently, most nature tourists at some sites and for some activities are foreigners, typically from North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. For example, Chudintra (1993) reports that 90% of Thailand's jungle tour clients are foreigners. However, domestic visitation predominates at many sites. For example, Campbell (1994) reports that about 90% of visitors to Indonesia's national parks are domestic tourists, while Chudintra reports that the percentage of such visitors in Thailand increased from 58% in 1986 to 85% in 1990. Further information on adventure and ecotourism source markets is provided in Aderhold (1996) and Wight (1996a; 1996b).

The characteristics of ecotourists and ecotourism vary widely across sites in the region. Nonetheless, Taman Negara in Malaysia illustrates some of these characteristics (DWNP 1996a, 1996b; Stecker 1996). From 1984 to 1993, visitor numbers increased 360%, from 8,200 to 30,000, respectively. Numbers have continued to increase, reaching 36,924 in 1994 and 43,491 in 1995 (an 18% growth rate from 1994 to 1995). Of the 1995 visitors, 48% were Malaysian, 8% Singaporean, 7% British, and 7% German.

The majority of the visitors were male (58%), young (89% under 40 years old), university educated (71%) and of high income. Motivations for visiting the park include:

To see and experience rain forests (45% of respondents) For a holiday (16%) To get new experience (10%) For relaxation and sightseeing (8%) To see wildlife (8%) For recreation and adventure (6%) and To enjoy the camping life (3%).

Activities undertaken by visitors include (in decreasing order of frequency) jungle trekking, birdwatching, swimming, caving, visiting indigenous forest dwellers, botany, mountain climbing, and fishing. Somewhat more than a third of the visitors were on pre-arranged package tours from Kuala Lumpur, while somewhat less than two-thirds made their own travel arrangements.

Past and Future Ecotourism Growth in the Region

Though estimates of ecotourism's growth are rare, due to the definitional problem, most observers feel that ecotourism has grown faster than tourism generally during the past several years. Based on a survey of ecotourism operators in the region, Lew (1997) found that average annual growth rates have been steady at 10% to 25% over the past few years, and many are projecting higher growth in coming years.

There are various explanations for ecotourism's growth, including:

increasing environmental awareness and interest, including the desire to be perceived by others as environmentally sensitive;

increased media exposure to natural areas around the world;

related to the above two, a desire to see natural areas before they disappear;

increasing dissatisfaction with traditional tourism destinations and products, and a desire for more educative and challenging vacations;

desire to go to novel destinations, sometimes as a way to "outdo" others (e.g., to be the first person one knows who has been to Antarctica); and

easier access to remote ecotourism destinations through development of air routes, roads, and other infrastructure.

Insofar as the increased motivations to experience and preserve natural environments stem in part from more fundamental changes in societal values (Blamey 1995; Inglehart 1990), the continuation of these fundamental changes, particularly in developing countries, should lead to continued growth in demand for ecotourism. Many observers believe that the growth rate for ecotourism will be higher than for tourism generally. Thus, assuming an increase in the proportion of tourism represented by ecotourism from 7% to 10% and assuming that the WTO forecast of 229 million international arrivals by 2010 is accurate, an extremely rough estimate of the region's international ecotourism arrivals for 2010 would be 22.9 million. To this, one must add the substantial number of domestic visitors to natural areas.

The ecotourism market is expected to evolve over time. Much of the ecotourism growth probably will stem from intraregional travel (Choegyal 1996; Shukla 1996; WTO 1996; Wylie 1994). As noted above, growth in intraregional travel is expected for tourism generally as incomes rise and infrastructure improves. Moreover, intraregional ecotourism in particular is expected to grow as regional population centres become increasingly crowded and polluted, and as increased wealth and education lead to greater knowledge of, and interest in, the natural environment.

As noted in Section 4, growth in Asian ecotourism source markets will affect the type of experience sought by visitors. In general, it is expected that Asian ecotourists will travel in larger groups and will demand a higher degree of comfort than is the case for western ecotourists. They also may be more interested in ecotourism day trips while lodging and dining in comfortable resorts. An example of this is the Juldis Khao Yai resort and golf course on the border of Khao Yai National Park in Thailand. Asian visitors (mostly Japanese) flock to see the park, play golf, and stay in luxury in the middle of jungle surroundings.

Evolution probably also will result from demographic changes occurring in society. For example, in source countries the "babyboomer" population is ageing, which will increase leisure time amongst this group. However, the group may require ecotourism experiences that are less physically demanding, more easily accessible, and with more comfortable facilities.

In addition, various factors affect the types of ecotourism experiences sought. For example, substantial media attention has been focused on the loss of tropical rainforests, and many tourists wish to visit them partly out of a concern that they may be lost entirely. Future interest in forest visitation may depend on continued media coverage and public concern about forest issues.

Other trends, such as the increased popularity of SCUBA diving, may affect forest-related ecotourism to varying degrees, depending on individual site characteristics. For example, forest areas near dive sites may benefit from add-on trips to the forest by divers. On the other hand, some forest areas may lose visitation as potential visitors choose diving-oriented trips rather than terrestrial-oriented trips. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to identify future trends of this sort.

Several other factors, many of them external, may affect demand at individual sites and countries (Brandon 1996; Laarman and Durst 1993; Lindberg and Huber 1993). For example, political or economic instability may cause strong decreases in visitation, an event that has at times affected tourism demand for many countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

In summary, historic data, trends, and expectations indicate that:

tourism makes a substantial contribution to the region's economy;

tourism has experienced rapid growth in the region (though less so in South Asia), and this growth is expected to continue;

ecotourism in the region and globally has grown faster than tourism generally, and this probably will continue over the next several years;

domestic and intraregional visitors are an important component of the region's ecotourism, and this importance is expected to increase in the future; and

ecotourism demand will evolve over time, and the region's ecotourism sites will need to adapt to these changes.

3.4 The Dimensions of Ecotourism

Environmental DimensionExperiential DimensionSociocultural DimensionEconomic Dimension

In order to provide background for Section 4 (ecotourism trends and options), this section describes the dimensions of ecotourism.

Environmental Dimension

By definition, the descriptive component of ecotourism involves the natural environment as an attraction. Conversely, the prescriptive component involves the impacts of visitation on the natural environment. Although most discussions of this dimension focus on negative impacts, ecotourism also can generate positive environmental impacts. For example, some tours involve cleaning trails or undertaking rehabilitation work. Also, ecotourism indirectly can generate positive impacts by increasing political and economic support for natural area conservation and management (Lindberg, Enriquez, and Sproule 1996).

Some argue that ecotourists are motivated to preserve the environment, so one would expect them to generate little or no negative environmental impact. However, as Wall (1994) pointed out:

ecotourists often go to environmentally fragile areas, such as alpine and arid areas;

visitation may occur during sensitive periods, such as during breeding or hatching periods;

visitation by ecotourists eventually may lead to mass tourism at the site, such that the ultimate impact is much greater than the initial impact; and

visitation may cause off-site impacts, such as the consumption of airplane fuel.

Despite the centrality of the environment to ecotourism, there is relatively little accumulated knowledge regarding ecotourism's impacts on the environment and the effect of these impacts on the ecotourist experience. In part, this is due to the complexity of these impacts, the difficulty of evaluating them rigorously, and the comparative lack of research in this area. Most of the analysis that has been undertaken has focused on North America or Europe and has appeared within the recreation or natural science literatures. Although

several recent publications deal with tourism's environmental impacts (Buckley and Pannell 1990; Hunter and Green 1995; Mieczkowski 1995), there also is relevant literature from the recreation field (Hammitt and Cole 1987; Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).

Ecotourism's impacts often are categorized using groups like "direct" (effect or the visitors themselves) and "indirect" (effect of the infrastructure or activities necessary to provide the visitor experience) or "on-site" and "off-site". Using the latter groups, some on-site impacts include:

soil erosion and compaction; disturbance of wildlife; trampling of vegetation; removal of vegetation (e.g., collection of plants or firewood); accidental introduction of exotic species; increased frequency of fire; and litter and vandalism.

Some off-site impacts include:

reclamation of land for infrastructure (e.g., clearing of forests for hotels); generation of solid waste (e.g., rubbish/garbage); water and air pollution (e.g., effluent in rivers and oceans); and purchase of souvenirs utilizing threatened or endangered species (e.g., black coral).

Given that ecotourism can generate some negative environmental impacts, the critical questions become:

What are the acceptable levels of these impacts? What is the relationship between use and level of impact? How is this relationship affected by management activities?

The question of acceptable levels is particularly thorny and has frustrated resource managers and other stakeholders for years. The answer is political rather than technical, and different stakeholders provide different answers.

The relationship between use and level of environmental change (i.e., the impact of ecotourism) is difficult to evaluate, in part because few environmental parameters are amenable to the requirements of experimental design needed to establish causal relationships. As a result, many studies are correlative rather than causal. The reliance on monitoring as a replacement for experimental analysis is an example of this problem. Monitoring can provide useful information, but one should be careful when inferring causality from monitoring studies due to the potential presence of confounding factors.

The research that has been conducted indicates that use-impact relationships generally are non-linear and vary across parameters. For example, the relationship between use and soil

compaction may be different than the relationship between use and wildlife disturbance. Commonly, the relationship is asymptotic curvilinear, with marginal impacts at high use levels being small or non-existent (Hammitt and Cole 1987). That is, a medium number of visitors may cause significant change, but additional visitors may not cause significant additional change. Studies of recovery from impacts indicate that recovery occurs more slowly than the initial impact. Given such relationships, the common strategy of dispersion may be misguided, and concentration may cause less overall impact.

To further complicate matters, several factors may affect use-impact relationships, including:

level of site hardening; types of visitors and their activities; characteristics of the organism impacted; and timing and location of interaction.

As discussed in Section 4, managers can reduce ecotourism impacts by managing visitor numbers and these other factors.

Experiential Dimension

Most of the attention within ecotourism, and within sustainable tourism generally, has been on environmental sustainability. However, tourism should be sustainable in other dimensions, including the experiential dimension. If the visitor experience is sufficiently degraded there will be a reduction in visitation that jeopardizes sustainability. Despite the relative inattention paid to experiential impacts within the ecotourism literature, they have been a focus within the recreation literature (Kearsley 1995; Manning 1986; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). For some sites, experiential impacts may be a greater limiting factor than environmental impacts (Worboys et al. 1995).

At the most basic level, managers should monitor the quality of the visitor experience to determine what can be done to address concerns and to improve experience quality. Often, experiential improvements focus on the addition (or removal) of specific infrastructure or programmes. However, the experience often depends on how visitors affect each other. Such experiential impacts can be grouped into three categories (Roggenbuck 1992:155):

Crowding, in which the quality of the experience is reduced by visitor perceptions that they saw too many other people during their visit.

Conflict, in which the quality of the experience is reduced by visitor perceptions of incompatibility or animosity with other visitors.

Environmental degradation, in which the quality of the experience is reduced by visitor perceptions of environmental deterioration caused by other visitors.

These impacts, and the associated concept of satisfaction, often are complex, affected by a variety of factors, and can be difficult to measure accurately (Manning 1986; Ryan 1995). Satisfaction is particularly problematic because simplistic measurement of this concept is popular amongst natural area managers yet can provide misleading information. For example, high levels of reported satisfaction may lead managers to become complacent. However, current visitors may report satisfaction while nonetheless desiring improvement in facilities, activities, or conditions. In addition, previous visitors who were unsatisfied during their visit likely would not be represented in the sample of current visitors, as they would have stopped coming to the site, a process known as displacement in the recreation literature. Similarly, potential visitors may never have come to the site due to word-of-mouth or otherwise-obtained knowledge regarding the experience offered.

The concern over environmental degradation, resulting from tourism or other causes, and its effect on the visitor experience is widespread. It has been argued that environmental integrity must be preserved if the visitor experience is to be maintained, thereby providing an additional rationale for conservation. However, the extent to which visitor experiences are affected by environmental degradation has not been well researched, and the research that has been conducted suggests that visitors often do not notice tourism-related environmental degradation (Roggenbuck 1992; Shelby and Shindler 1992). This is an area that would particularly benefit from additional research.

Sociocultural Dimension

As with the natural environment, the sociocultural environment serves as both an ecotourism attraction and a recipient of ecotourism's impacts. If these impacts become, on the whole, too negative, the local sustainability of ecotourism can be jeopardized. In some areas local residents have been sufficiently unhappy with ecotourism development that they sabotaged the natural resource on which this development was based. Many ecotourism activities involve relatively intense interaction between greatly differing cultures, and these differences may exacerbate the negative sociocultural impacts of ecotourism.

The impacts of tourism on host communities, and resulting resident attitudes toward tourism, have been popular research topics in the past several years (e.g., Lankford and Howard 1994; Lindberg and Johnson 1997; Mercer 1994; Smith 1989). In addition, many policy makers are now becoming aware of the need 1) to incorporate local communities into the tourism development and natural area management process and 2) to understand and address the negative impacts on communities.

Though the difference between cultural and social impacts is blurry, one grouping might include the following as cultural impacts (Brandon 1996:17):

commodification of culture, in which cultural symbols are treated as commodities to be bought and sold;

changes in group social structure, the way in which lives are ordered and patterned;

changes in cultural knowledge, the body of information possessed; and

changes in the way in which cultural property is used and viewed.

The following grouping is of common social and sociophysical impacts. Depending on how tourism is developed, these impacts might on balance be positive or negative, and this balance may affect resident attitudes toward tourism (Lindberg and Johnson 1997):

economic--tourism can generate a wide variety of economic benefits (such as jobs) and economic costs (such as inflation).

disruption--tourism can generate an increase in traffic congestion, crowding in stores and other areas, and crime.

recreation facilities--tourism can increase both the number of recreation facilities and the demand for such facilities (recreation is used broadly here to include outdoor recreation, urban entertainment, and related activities).

aesthetic--tourism can contribute to an aesthetically pleasing environment, for example, by catalyzing waterfront revitalization; however, it can also detract from an aesthetically pleasing environment by, for example, leading to construction that is deemed inappropriate or by increasing the amount of litter or vandalism.

interaction with non-residents--tourism can lead to satisfying relationships with non-residents, even if those relationships are brief.

interaction with residents--tourism can affect local social relationships among residents, such as by reducing the friendliness of local residents.

community/culture--because tourists often are motivated by the desire to experience the host community and its culture, tourism can affirm that culture and lead to community pride; it also can disrupt local cultures, particularly when international tourists visit remote areas with little historic foreign contact.

influence over community decisions--studies have shown that residents are more supportive of tourism when they have been able to influence the tourism development process.

These impacts, and resulting attitudes, can strongly affect the viability of ecotourism. For example, commercial tourism activity in natural areas in Australia is undergoing a period of rapid expansion. In Victoria's Alpine National Park, the number of licenses granted to tourist operators has increased four-fold in the past five years to more than 110. This level of growth, and the perception that park policy now favours tourism interests over use by local residents, has resulted in antipathy toward tourism (McKercher 1996). This may lead to ecotourism becoming the next target for the national park movement, thereby jeopardizing access privileges to natural areas.

Economic Dimension

The final dimension is economic. There are various stakeholders in ecotourism, from operators to natural area managers to local communities. One thing they have in common is that they often seek economic benefits from ecotourism, whether it be sales and profits for operators, user fee revenues for natural area management, or jobs and income for local communities.

With respect to natural area finance, many public natural area systems around the world have encountered severe financial difficulties as the number of national parks and other areas has grown while funding has remained stable or declined (Eagles 1995; Reynolds 1995). As a result, many area managers and environmentalists have turned to ecotourism as a source of revenue, as a means to at least cover the ecotourism-related park costs that historically have been financed by governments.

There have been numerous studies of user fees in the ecotourism context (e.g., Laarman and Gregersen 1996; Lindberg and Enriquez 1994; Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule 1996; Mak and Moncur 1995; Tisdell 1996). Though a full discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this paper, several points are worth noting (additional discussion is provided in Section 4). First, the appropriate fee system will depend on the objectives for the area. If the objective is to generate revenue, fees should be relatively high. If the objective is to maximize the number of visitors to provide job opportunities for local businesses, than the fees should be low or non-existent.

Second, there are strong economic reasons for charging user fees, including that ecotourism generates costs that would otherwise need to be financed by non-users (Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule 1996; Yong 1996). In the case of developed country visitors to developing country public natural areas, it is particularly inappropriate for relatively poor local non-users to subsidize the visits of relatively wealthy users (Lindberg 1991).

Third, most analyses conclude that current fee levels at most sites could be increased with little or no impact on the number of visitors. In cases where fee increases would reduce the number of visitors, such increases may remain appropriate as a means to maximize total revenue and/or reduce negative environmental, experiential, or social impacts. Fourth, often, there are opportunities for increasing non-fee revenues, such as through donation programmes or through souvenir sales.

With respect to job creation, natural areas provide many benefits to society, but few are tangible. Ecotourism-related jobs are one of the most tangible benefits provided by these areas. In some cases, these jobs can provide direct alternatives to practices, such as poaching of forest products, that threaten natural area conservation. In other cases, the jobs will simply, but importantly, diversify local economies (Lindberg and Enriquez 1994). As ecotourism jobs increase, it is likely that support for the natural areas providing the jobs will increase (Han and Guo 1995; Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule 1996). Conversely, if ecotourism is perceived to generate more costs (e.g., reduced access to the area and its resources) than benefits, it may reduce local support for natural areas.

The economic impacts of tourism, or any economic activity, can be grouped into three categories: direct, indirect, and induced. Direct impacts are those arising from the initial tourism spending, such as money spent at a restaurant. The restaurant buys goods and services (inputs) from other businesses, thereby generating indirect impacts. In addition, the restaurant employees spend part of their wages to buy various goods and services, thereby generating induced impacts. Of course, if the restaurant purchases the goods and services from outside the region, then the money provides no indirect impact to the region, it leaks away. Figure 3 illustrates some of these impacts and leakages.

Figure 3: Tourism's Economic Impact

Several studies have assessed the local employment benefits of ecotourism (Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule 1996; Powell and Chalmers 1995; Shackley 1996). Not surprisingly, the level of benefits varies widely. In part, this is due to variations in the level of direct impact (tourist expenditure), which may depend on the quality of the attraction, access, and so on. In part, this is due to variations in the level of linkage (or, conversely, the level of leakage), which may depend on the size of the economy and other factors.3 The following estimates provide indications of the percentage of tourism spending leaking away from host country economies:

70% in Nepal 60% in Thailand 55 % for the typical developing country

3 There is often wide variation in leakage estimates across sites. This is partly a result of the type of tourism development and the size of the economy being evaluated. Small-scale nature tourism tends to use more local goods than does large-scale traditional tourism. However, smaller

economies may have more leakages because a lower diversity of goods is produced in small economies than in large economies. Variation in leakage estimates may also be due to definitions and methods used.

More than 90% of tourism spending is thought to leak away from communities near most nature tourism sites (Lindberg, 1991; Brandon, 1996; see also Soemodinoto, Lubis, and Oktaviany 1996).

Though the high level of leakage should be considered and should be reduced where possible, one should remember that this leakage not only results from the nature of the tourism industry, which requires substantial expenditure before arrival on-site, but also from the nature of the remote communities where ecotourism occurs. Other economic activities in these communities probably also will exhibit high levels of leakage simply because the local economies are small and not very diverse. Moreover, though the number of jobs created will be low, in rural economies even a few jobs can make a big difference. Still, ecotourism benefits should not be oversold, or there may be a backlash as reality fails to live up to expectations.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7714e/w7714e06.htm#3.3%20overview%20of%20tourism%20and%20ecotourism%20in%20the%20asia%20pacific%20region

As more and more people left their beaten paths in search of new experiences, the devastating effects of natural tourism on the environment must be minimized, United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette said this morning, at a special event marking the launch of the International Year of Ecotourism. 

Following up a decision made by the General Assembly in 1998 to designate 2002 the International Year of Ecotourism, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) organized today’s meeting to welcome the International Year.  Speakers highlighted the development possibilities of ecotourism and the resulting disturbing environmental trends of increasing tourism to unspoiled natural environments. 

Ms. Fréchette drew attention to the urgent need to make the public more aware of the effect of growing “natural tourism” on the environment.  She said enormous seaside resorts had been overdeveloped, beaches and coral reefs had been harmed or even destroyed by visitors and indigenous cultures had been disrupted by the influx of foreign goods and cultural values.  The key principles identified by the World Tourism Organization, the United Nations and others should guide successful management of the industry.

Indeed, the tourist industry had a role in the sustainable fight against poverty, the Executive Director of UNEP, Klaus Toepfer, asserted.  Ideally, sustainable tourism would create jobs and protect the environment, but simply applying the label “eco” or “green” to a tourist activity had not automatically meant that all was good and environmentally fair.  Special care must be taken to minimize the impact tourists could have on the local population or environment.

Francesco Frangialli, Secretary-General of the World Tourism Organization, agreed that tourism was an instrument of poverty alleviation -- it helped lighten the burdens of developing countries and created jobs.  Tourism was one of the biggest sources of international trade receipts and had generated $476 billion in revenue in 2000.  Ecotourism should be seen as a standard of the tourism industry, rather than a passing fad or market niche.  It was possible to reconcile economy with ecology, and the environment with development.

Following the opening statements, a round table and a short question-and-answer session was convened.  The Minister of Tourism of Mexico, Leticia Navarro, moderated the segment.  Other participants included: President, International Ecotourism Society, Megan Epler Wood; CEO, GAP Adventures, Bruce Poon Tip; CEO and Chairman of the Board, Conservation International Foundation, Peter Seligmann; and Gambia Tourism Concern, Adama Bah. 

Closing remarks were made by the President and CEO of the Canadian Tourism Commission, Jim Watson. 

Background

The UNEP organized a meeting this morning to launch the International Year of Ecotourism 2002, as decided by the General Assembly in 1998. 

Statements

SIMONE DE COMARMOND, Minister of Tourism and Transport, Seychelles, said the International Year was aimed at further ensuring the sustainable future of the world’s largest industry.  Seychelles’ remarkable achievements in the area of ecotourism and its firm commitment to keep up that economic activity in a manner that was economically viable and socially responsible was the real essence of sound ecotourism practices. 

She recalled that the General Assembly, in 1998, had adopted resolution 53/200, which had proclaimed 2002 as the International Year of Ecotourism.  Since then, no effort had been spared by the Commission on Sustainable Development, the UNEP, and others in ensuring the full attainment of the noble objectives enrshined in that text.  Today, it was an accepted fact that sustainable tourism was a very important development option for the international community to pursue. 

In the aftermath of the 11 September tragedies, she said, those deliberations would send a clear message to the international community that the United Nations would not falter in its commitment to ensure that the tourism objectives were fulfilled for all mankind.  For its part, the tourism industry sector would do its utmost to ensure not only the success of the Year, but that those issues assumed their rightful place on the agenda of the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development. 

The tourism policy of the Seychelles had striven to balance economic development with environmental sustainability, she said.  The revenue generated by that industry had helped lay the foundation for remarkable advances in national and socio-economic development.  For that most compelling reason, her country would participate actively in the activities planned for the Year. 

LOUISE FRECHETTE, Deputy Secretary-General, said it was urgent to make the public more aware of the effect of growing tourism on the environment and the need to promote responsible tourism.  Beaches, coral reefs and other natural habitats had been harmed or

even destroyed by irresponsible development and floods of visitors, and indigenous cultures had been disrupted by the influx of foreign goods and cultural values. 

She said that tourism had gained popularity worldwide, as more and more people were leaving their beaten path for new experiences.  Ecotourism might well have devastating consequences if not managed properly.  More than any other form of tourism, ecotourism jeopardized the very allure of the environment.  The objective must be to enjoy the planet’s natural resources while preventing any negative impact.

While each country and region had its specific characteristics, she said that it was still possible to agree on the key principles and guidelines for ecotourism development and management, as identified by the World Tourism Organization, the United Nations and other international bodies.  Among those, it should be ensured that ecotourism contributed to conservation and to the sustainable development of adjoining lands and communities.  Specific strategies should be created to avoid anarchic and disorderly development. 

Also, she said, the participation of local communities at all stages of an ecotourism project should be ensured, in order to minimize the negative impact that accommodation, transport facilities and any tourist-related activities might have on the natural and cultural environment.  It should also be ensured that a reasonable proportion of the income generated by tourism went to local communities and into conserving the natural heritage.  Also important was raising awareness that tourism could be practiced in different, more environmentally friendly and socially responsible ways. 

She reminded members that tourism-related activities made up the world's largest economic sector, contributing directly and indirectly to approximately 7 per cent of global production.  That figure could be much higher in developing countries, thereby providing millions of jobs worldwide.  Indeed, for many countries, particularly in the developing world, tourism was a major source of income and job creation.  Today ecotourism represented a relatively small percentage of total tourism departures from developed countries, but a significant proportion of arrivals and related economic receipts in the developing world. 

Furthermore, she said, ecotourism was one of the fastest growing segments in the tourism industry, and it had a great potential for economic development, especially in remote areas where few other possibilities existed.  If properly planned, developed and managed,

ecotourism could help improve the living standards of local populations, while supporting the conservation of the natural ecosystems that were so necessary to sustain life on the planet.  The International Year of Ecotourism offered the opportunity to share best practices and successful experiences.

The main event of the Year would be the World Ecotourism Summit, which would be held from 19 to 22 May in Quebec City, Canada, she said.  That would give stakeholders a chance to express their views on how to ensure that ecotourism would generate the most economic, social and environmental benefits.  The Summit's conclusions and recommendations would be reported to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg, South Africa, in late August, which was a landmark event intended to secure economic, social and environmental well-being for present and future generations. 

She said that environmental sustainability was everybody's challenge.  Failure to act now would compromise the ability of the planet to provide for the needs of future generations.  Hopefully, the International Year would help put ecotourism on a truly sustainable path and would encourage all travelers worldwide to make informed and responsible travel choices, which were sensitive to local, natural and cultural riches, and supportive of sustainable tourism practices.  Travelling to foreign places was an opportunity to learn and enrich oneself.  It should be a "win-win" experience that also benefited local populations and the environment. 

FRANCESCO FRANGIALLI, Secretary-General of the World Tourism Organization, said his organization had spared no effort to make the International Year of Ecotourism a success.  Among other things, conferences on the subject had already been held in Mozambique, Brazil, Austria, Greece, the Seychelles, Germany and Algeria, and more were scheduled for the coming year.

On 11 September, New York was targeted by one of most heinous terrorist attacks of all time, he said.  The airline and tourism industries had been directly hit by that catastrophe, causing the rate of travel to drop about 7 per cent from 2000 to 2001.  However, a sudden crisis did not necessarily translate into a recession for tourism.  It had always managed to bounce back and recover to its previously strong levels.  Tourism would definitely pick up in 2002, with international travellers reaching more than 1 billion international tourists by 2010.

As for ecotourism, it should be seen as a standard of the tourism industry, rather than a passing fad or market niche, he continued.  Ecotourism helped lighten the burdens of developing countries and created jobs at a level where they were most needed.  Tourism was one of the biggest economic activities in today’s world.  It generated $476 billion in 2000 and was one of the biggest sources of international trade receipts.  The International Year of Ecotourism was sending a message that tourism should be considered an instrument of poverty alleviation.  Putting it on the agenda of the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development would convey the same message.  It was possible to reconcile economy with ecology and the environment with development, he concluded.

KLAUS TOEPFER, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), noted that it was exactly 10 years after the Earth Summit that the Organization was preparing the Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.  Major topics at the conference included the fight against poverty and giving globalization a human face.  Tourism must be integrated into the fight against poverty and acceptable consumption.

More than 200 million people worked in the tourism industry, he continued. That industry must be addressed to fight poverty in a sustainable way.  The best solution was sustainable tourism, which would create jobs and show a clear responsibility for the environment.  Ecotourism made people aware of the wonderful diversity of nature, promoting natural areas, educating people and benefiting the local population and economy.  The International Year would strive to firmly entrench ecotourism values, so that all could learn and understand them.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2002/envdev607.doc.htm

TREATMENTS OF ECOUTOURISM