Transcript for:
Tourism and Ecotourism Insights

Lesson 1 For many people, the opportunity to travel on vacation is one of the great joys in life. Perhaps you have had such an opportunity. If you have, you undoubtedly appreciate the many dimensions of travel. For example, there are temporal dimensions to travel that encompass the research and planning for your trip, the journey to your destination, your itinerary of activities and sights to see at and around your destination, your journey home and, of course, the time spent reflecting on and sharing your experiences at home. The spatial dimensions of your vacation are, as we shall see, an essential aspect of tourism: tourism demands travel. Indeed, while the traveling can sometimes be stressful, it can also be relaxing, educational and fun (see figure 1.01). Indeed, seeking pleasure is a defining element of tourism. The subjective experience of pleasure as well as its attraction has made tourism a dominant global industry and a very diverse sector. Tourism is one of the world’s largest and most influential industries. Although it has declined somewhat from its pre-COVID pandemic highs, UN Tourism (2024) stated that it is an industry that generated 1.6 trillion USD in 2023 (including transportation). They also suggest that its total contribution is even higher: 3.3 trillion USD in 2023. Because of its ability to promote economic growth, including in areas which have few conventional resources or industries beyond their natural amenities, tourism has often been seen as an ideal way to facilitate local, regional and/or national economic growth. Because of its global influence, tourism has also attracted the attention of scholars and researchers from a wide variety of disciplines. Through their studies and the experiences of those directly impacted by tourism, it has become apparent that tourism is not necessarily a benign driver for economic development. Indeed, Butler (1980) examined the lifecycle of a tourist destination and found that the uncontrolled growth that is typical of such a destination inevitably planted the seeds for the ultimate environmental, economic and socio-cultural collapse. Similarly, Mitchell (1998) suggested that the commodification of the amenities for tourism ultimately leads to the creative destruction of the qualities of the destination that initially attracted tourists. Thus, despite its appeal, important concerns have emerged about its long-term sustainability. * According to the United National Environmental Programme (2024), if tourism continues on a “business-as-usual” model, by 2050, the sector will increase its energy consumption by 154%, its greenhouse gas emissions by 131%, its water consumption by 152%, and its solid waste disposal by 251%. * In this lesson, we will explore the rise of mass tourism, the realization of its impacts and concerns about its sustainability, the emergence of alternative tourism, and the place of ecotourism within alternative tourism. The Transformation of Tourism: Jafari’s Four Platforms In response to the realization of the unsustainability of tourism, the tourism sector has made some important changes. Jafari (1989, 2001) has developed a useful taxonomy for understanding the sequence of stages of these changes. It is important to note, though, that the emergence of new stages or, as Jafari calls them, “platforms,” does mean a universal transformation of the tourism sector: there are transitional periods and remnants of early platforms often persist. These four platforms are: * First Platform: Advocacy Platform - This platform emerged after World War Two and continued to dominate throughout the 1950s and 1960s. The platform viewed mass tourism as an ideal activity: one that promoted increased revenue as well as employment through the development of peripheral underdeveloped areas. This mass tourism also promoted indirect local, regional and national benefits through the multiplier effect. There were few if any concerns about the environment or socio-cultural impacts of the tourism development. * Second Platform: Cautionary Platform – Eventually, the impacts of mass tourism on the destinations’ environments, cultures, societies and economies become readily apparent. Host communities were also increasingly frustrated by revenue leakages of tourism revenues from their communities to offshore investors and owners. Finally, a variety of left-wing ideologies within academia and the political realm criticized the basis for mass tourism: the exploitation of the environment and local peoples for capitalistic gain. Thus, by the early 1970s, it became apparent that mass tourism was not sustainable and that alternatives had to be sought. * Third Platform: Adaptancy Platform – The 1980s saw the emergence of forms of tourism which were grouped under the category of alternative tourism because they were constructed as alternatives to mass tourism. Being founded on the same leftist critiques of mass tourism as the cautionary platform, these alternative forms of tourism were constructed as the antithesis of capitalistic mass tourism: they tended to be small, locally or communally run, and with equitable distribution of revenues and benefits. * Fourth Platform: Knowledge Platform – By the 1990s, it was apparent that there were challenges created by the adaptancy platform: it presented alternative tourism as the new ideal type and mass tourism as inherently unsustainably. The knowledge platform suggests that analyses of tourism operations could show that, with improper management, alternative tourism operations could be unsustainable and with careful planning and management, large or mass tourism operations could be sustainable. Thus, within the knowledge platform, the scale of a tourism operation is not necessarily related to its benefits. Alternative Tourism Alternative tourism emerged as a potential remedy to the impacts of mass tourism. Thus, alternative tourism can be thought of as the antithesis of, and mutually exclusive from, mass tourism, at least within the adaptancy platform. Fennel (2020) provides a useful summary of the characteristics and benefits of alternative tourism (see pp.10-11 in your textbook). While the benefits of ecotourism would seem to make it an attractive replacement for mass tourism, it remained as a fringe sector within the tourism industry rather than a replacement for mass tourism attractions. A problem with this definition of alternative tourism emerges within the knowledge platform. Since the knowledge platform dissociates the value and type of ecotourism from its scale, Weaver (2008) suggests that alternative tourism is potentially compatible with and encompassed within mass tourism. The characteristics of the knowledge platform also suggest that defining alternative tourism as “good” and mass tourism as “bad” is overly simplistic. For example, Weaver and Lawton (2006) have identified potential negative qualities of alternative tourism, such as the imposition of an elitist European model on non-European countries, reinforcing existing social hierarchies by privileging the existing local elites and providing only modest economic returns. Defining Ecotourism The need to define ecotourism may seem self-evident but the search for an appropriate definition has been prolonged; finding a suitable definition has been challenging and much effort has been done and much has been written about the search for such a definition. Indeed, McKercher (2010) and Fennell (2020) summarize the search for an appropriate and representative definition of ecotourism. As suggested by McKercher (2010), the academic exercise of trying to identify the key components of a definition of ecotourism has synergistically helped steward the evolution of ecotourism and provided standards with which the sector could try to establish its legitimacy. A search for an appropriate definition of ecotourism has focused on the identification of the foundational or core principles that distinguish the sector. As discussed in Fennell (2020), the roots of ecotourism lie both in nature-based tourism and alternative tourism. Thus, defining ecotourism would seem to simply be to find a definition that encapsulates the characteristics of these two lineages while excluding differences. Although we will examine these core principles in more detail in lesson 3, Fennell (2020) summarized them as: * sustainability * education * a nature base * a conservation mandate These core principles are very similar to those proposed by the Quebec Declaration (World Ecotourism Summit, 2002): the principles of the Declaration differ primarily in a more explicit description of the relevant elements of sustainability (minimal impact management and contribution to community). Synthesizing these core principles, we can establish a useful definition. For this course, we will use the following definition of ecotourism: “Travel with a primary interest in the natural history of a destination. It is a non-invasive and participatory form of nature-based tourism that is built around learning, sustainability (conservation and local participation/benefits), and ethical planning, development and management” (Fennell, 2020, p.20). It is important to note that this definition excludes learning about the cultural context of the destination. This is a significant distinction from many other definitions. For example, the World Ecotourism Summit (2002) defines ecotourism as a form of tourism that explicitly “Interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors” (p. 2). Similarly, Weaver (2008) defines ecotourism as a form of tourism “… that fosters and learning experiences and appreciation of the natural environment … within its cultural context” (p. 2). These differences reflect disagreements about whether or not cultural tourism is entirely distinct from ecotourism or if there is some overlap. Defining Types of Ecotourism In your textbook, Fennel (2020) explores a variety of definitions of ecotourism. Each of these definitions provide characteristics or goals of ecotourism. These definitions can be further qualified by the extent to which or the manner in which these goals are achieved. For example, we can qualify ecotourism based on a variety of aspects, including but not limited to the physical rigour of the activities, the extent or depth of interaction with nature, the level of interest in nature, the nature of the accommodations and the reliance on agencies to arrange the tourism. Thus, ecotourism can be qualified as either hard or soft ecotourism as well as either deep or shallow ecotourism. However, when thinking about deep and shallow ecotourism or hard and soft ecotourism, it is important to appreciate that both exist along a continuum and there are gradations between each category. As noted in Acott et al. (1998), shallow ecotourism bears strong similarities to mass tourism and varies principally in the ways in which the two are promoted: shallow ecotourism would typically emphasize proximity to natural areas and advertise nature-related activities. As in mass tourism, the primary consideration is the profit motive: environmental and cultural implications are of secondary importance. Nature is valued for its utilitarian rather than its intrinsic value. On the other hand, deep ecotourism is based on an ecocentric philosophy. Within this philosophy, the economic accounting for an ecotourism operation would attempt to recognize nature’s intrinsic value. The distinction between hard and soft ecotourism mirrors many of the distinctions between deep and shallow ecotourism. Weaver and Lawton (2002) characterized hard ecotourism as a form in which the ecotourists seek deep and meaningful interactions with nature, physically challenging activities, minimal services and simple accommodations. Soft ecotourism, on the other hand, involves short-term and mediated interaction with nature as well as well-serviced accommodations. While hard and soft ecotourism categories represent different ends along a continuum, many ecotourists would reflect motivations and preferences that lie somewhere between these two categories. Weaver and Lawton (2002) also identified an intermediate category of ecotourism described as structured ecotourists, a category that describes people who behave like hard ecotourists when interacting with nature but prefer the comfortable accommodations more typical of soft ecotourists. They also suggest that structured ecotourists may behave like hard ecotourists on one trip but behave more like soft ecotourists on another trip, thus complicating attempts to categorize ecotourists. Test Your Knowledge Now that you have completed this lesson and read the chapter in the textbook, consider the following questions. While these questions will not be graded, they will provide you with the opportunity to review content that will be useful for assessments that will be graded. * Many definitions of ecotourism have been developed. Why is this term so difficult to define? * Describe Jafari’s four platforms. * Distinguish between soft and hard ecotourism. * Distinguish between deep and shallow ecotourism. * Describing alternative tourism as “good” and mass tourism as “bad” is overly simplistic. Explain this claim. Conclusion Although tourism is one of the world’s largest and most lucrative industries, concerns about its sustainability have long plagued the industry. In response, alternative forms of tourism have emerged and ecotourism initially grew out of these efforts. Defining ecotourism has been a challenge, though. This is partially because the study of ecotourism has been approached by a wide variety of disciplines. It is also a product of the construction of alternative tourism, including ecotourism, as “good” and mass tourism as “bad:” determining what makes one form of tourism good and desirable is frequently contested. This is complicated by the implications of Jafari’s knowledge platforms which separate the value of tourism from its scale. Finally, within ecotourism lies a continuum of defining characteristics, from shallow or soft to deep or hard. This continuum sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish ecotourism from mass tourism. Lesson 2 Introduction Perhaps you have had the opportunity to travel on vacation. If you have, was this vacation relatively nearby (relative to the Laurier campuses), such as a visit to an exotic animals “safari” in southern Ontario? Perhaps your vacation was a little more distant and for a little longer time, such as spending a weekend at a cottage in Muskoka? Was your vacation a camping trip to one of Ontario’s many parks? Was your trip to a more distant location? Using the definition used in lesson one, would you consider your vacation to be “tourism?” If you were participating in tourism, would you have considered yourself to be a “tourist?” The connection between “tourism” and “tourist” seems obvious but it is complicated by a number of considerations. Firstly, our definition of “tourism” is rather broad and does not account for the diversity within tourism and, therefore, tourists. Secondly, the term “tourist” is often associated with negative connotations and has sometimes even been used as a slur. Thus, individuals participating in tourism as defined in lesson one may be reluctant to identify themselves as tourists. However, if we are to understand and/or manage tourism, we must be able define “tourist” and, eventually, “ecotourist.” We must also appreciate the diversity among tourists and the diversity of their motivations to participate in tourism Understanding the typologies and motivations of tourists is critical for a wide variety of people with an interest in understanding and managing tourism. This would include, but not limited to, those with a commercial, regulatory or academic interest in tourism. Distinguishing the characteristics of different tourists also allows us to better understand the different types of tourism, including ecotourism. Given the centrality of such studies, it is not surprising that there is a long history of trying to understand tourists in general and ecotourists in particular. These studies have also often been from a variety of academic disciplines and frequently involve multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approaches. The eclectic nature of environmental studies and geography allow us to benefit from these diverse approaches. In this lesson, we will begin by defining “tourist.” This will include an examination of the motivations of tourists in general. We will then apply these insights to better understand the nature of ecotourists. Defining “Tourist” A discussion of the different types and motivations of ecotourists must begin with an understanding of the definition of a tourist. In lesson one, a preliminary definition of tourism was provided that recognized the activity’s social, cultural and economic dimensions. This definition also introduced, yet generally limited, the motivation of those participating in tourism to seeking pleasure (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2010). This definition of tourism is unquestionably concise and would seem to suggest that the individuals who are participating in tourism are “tourists.” However, the conciseness of this definition conceals the historic challenges that have been faced when trying to define “tourists.” Indeed, there is no consensus on a generally accepted definition of tourist. There are, however, common themes that occur within many or most definitions of tourist (Leiper, 1979; Yu et al., 2012). For example, there are inevitable geographic elements in the definitions, typically indicating travel outside the person’s usual environment. Minimum thresholds for distance travelled are common but not standardized. There is also typically a temporal element, such as the length of stay. Most definitions also include an element that describes the purpose of the stay. A widely-used definition also comes from the United Nations World Tourism Organization (2010) and defines tourist within the context of “visitor.” “A visitor is a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside [their] usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited. These trips taken by visitors qualify as tourism trips. Tourism refers to the activity of visitors” “A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified as a tourist (or overnight visitor) if [their] trip includes an overnight stay, or as a same-day visitor (or excursionist) otherwise” (p. 10). However, even this UNWTO definition has been criticized as being far too limiting (see, for example, Ghanem, 2017). The temporal element, the spatial elements and the purpose are sometimes seen as far too restrictive. While our preliminary definition of tourist in lesson 1 suggested that “pleasure being the usual motivation” (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2010, p.1), this more qualified definition recognizes a greater diversity of motivations or purposes. Despite this more flexible definition, it has still been viewed as inadequately addressing the individual motivations of the tourist. Thus, in order to develop a more comprehensive definition of tourists, we must examine the motivations of tourists. Motivations of Tourists A person’s motivation for travel may be very personal and reflective of the individual’s unique psychological and sociological factors. This individuality complicates attempts to understand the motives of tourists and our search for a satisfactory definition of tourist. However, we can examine frameworks for understanding the motivations of tourists that have been provided by different disciplines. For example, Iso-Ahola (1982) suggested social psychological factors as critical determinants of motivation, identifying two broad categories of motivations: 1. the desire to escape one’s everyday environment, whether that escape is based on personal factors, such as personal troubles or failures, or interpersonal factors, such as difficulties with family members or co-workers 2. the desire for intrinsic psychological rewards, whether that reward is personal, such as learning about new cultures or rest and relaxation, or interpersonal, such as interacting with old friends or making new friends Our original definition of tourism stated that, for those participating in tourism, seeking pleasure was their usual motivation (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2010). Thus, it is useful to explore this psychological motivation to seek pleasure in a little more detail. Fennell (2018) suggested that this pleasure-seeking motivation among tourists may be classified as either ego-centred or other-centred. The concept of ego-centred motivations for tourism, initially introduced by Wheeler (1993), was applied to describe tourism focused on self-centred enjoyment, often at the expense of other’s well-being. Examples of tourism where ego-centred motivations are common or ubiquitous would include sex-tourism, all-inclusive mass tourism, medical tourism and cruiseline tourism. Conversely, the category of other-centred motivations describes pleasure derived through altruistic activities, such as volunteer tourism or ecological rehabilitation tourism. From just these two categories of pleasure-seeking motivations for tourism, we can see the potential for a wide variety of tourism types and a variety of destinations. An influential sociological examination of the motivations of tourists was offered by Cohen (1972) (Please note: your textbook cites the title of this article as “Toward a Sociology of Tourism” when the actual title is “Toward a Sociology of International Tourism”). Cohen classified tourists and their motivations within the context of a perceived conflict between the tourist’s desire for novel or authentically different experiences at their destinations and their comfort or familiarity of the “environmental bubble” (p. 166) of their home. Cohen identified the following four categories: 1. Organized mass tourists: This category was classified as the least adventuresome tourists, with a preference for remaining in their familiar environmental bubble. By utilized fixed travel packages and itineraries, these tourists attempt to minimize novelty while retaining as much familiarity as possible. 2. Individual mass tourists: This category of tourist is somewhat similar to the previous category except for a preference for making their own travel arrangements and creating their own itineraries. While tourists within this category still prefer the comfort of the familiar environmental bubble, they will occasionally accept and seek out novelty at their destinations. 3. Explorers: As suggested by the name of this category, these tourists will seek out a degree of novelty in the destination communities and cultures but also seek out and find comfort in familiar accommodations and daily routines. 4. Drifters: This category of tourist is the most adventuresome and will attempt to immerse themselves in the lifestyles and cultures of their destinations. They place the highest value on novelty and the authenticity of their experiences in the destination. They generally prefer to travel without fixed itineraries and avoid the familiar comforts of mass tourism accommodations. A variety of other sociological explanations of tourist motivations have also been offered. A useful example of such an explanation is based on the social spaces sought out by different tourists. For example, MacCannell (1989) distinguished between backstage and frontstage spaces (Note: your textbook abbreviates these terms as “back” and “front”). The frontstage space reflects an area within a community where modified and/or adapted versions of local culture are presented for tourists’ consumption (see figure 2.01). Conversely, the backstage space reflects an area within a community where the local culture is expressed and retained for the local residents. While the frontstage spaces may be intended to satisfy the expectations and motivations of mass tourists, the backstage spaces are often seen as more authentic and, therefore, more desirable for those groups of tourists motivated by a desire for authenticity and intimacy. Stop and Think: Participation Discussion #1 Many destination communities provide frontstage spaces for visiting tourists to experience modified features of local culture. Can you think of any potential problems for the local residents when they adapt their culture for visitors? Tourists seeking authentic experiences of local culture often seek out the backstage spaces of communities. Can you think of any potential problems for the local residents if tourists seek out these backstage spaces? In your answer, include reference to the relevant ideas from your readings or lesson notes, with citation. Post your responses in Discussion #1 on the course My Learning Space site. As you have seen, even a brief examination of some of the frameworks for understanding tourist motivations can be complex. An individual’s motivation for becoming a tourist may be a combination of a variety of psychological and sociological factors. Boztug et al. (2015) recognized the complexity of motivations and, indeed, behaviours, noting that tourists may change motivations and resulting behaviours during a visit. The recognition of these hybrid motivations and behaviours complicates attempts to define tourism. A more informative definition of tourism that addresses these complexities as well as the individual nature of a tourist’s motivations has been suggested by (Ghanem, 2017). Within this definition, being a tourist can be reflective of the: “… subjective perception (state of mind) of a person escaping from primary obligations and daily routine for a period of time (relative to each individual), through a specific displacement (geographical and/or psychological), in quest of unique experiences while seeking satisfaction and leisure (p. 37). Defining “tourist” and understanding the motivations of tourists in general can provide us with the foundations for understanding the characteristics and motivations of ecotourists. The challenge for understanding both ecotourism and ecotourists is that this sector of the tourism industry emerged relatively recently, at least in comparison to tourism in general. Thus, defining ecotourism and describing the socio-demographic characteristics of ecotourists has played an essential role in the growth of the sector and distinguishing it from other forms of alternative tourism. The Ecotourist The emergence of ecotourism as a distinct sector within tourism raised important questions about the characteristics and motivations of the ecotourists. Like early research in many fields, much of the initial research about ecotourists focused on describing their socio-demographic characteristics. While the early research identified diversity within ecotourists and their motivations, some important generalizations of initial characteristics are revealing as are later changes. Gender Studies of the genders of ecotourists have demonstrated some interesting trends since the early days of ecotourism. In this discussion about the gender of ecotourists, it must be noted that the studies that will be cited were all undertaken using the gender binary, a perspective that dominated in social science research during this period. The early research on ecotourism suggested that the majority of ecotourists were male. For example, in a study of birdwatchers in the United States (n=2,455), Kellert (1985) found that 73% of those interviewed were males. Similarly, in a study of Canadian ecotourists visiting Costa Rica undertaken in the late 1980s, Fennell and Smale (1992) found that 55% of the participants were male. Thus, in its early years, a majority of ecotourists were male. However, by the mid-1990s, there appeared to be a pronounced “feminisation” (Weaver & Lawton, 2007, p. 1172) of ecotourism (see figure 2.02). For example, in a study of Canadian ecotourists, Reingold (1993) found that 64% of study participants were female. Similarly, in a study of ecotourists in the United Kingdom, Diamantis (1999) found that 57% of occasional ecotourists and 54% of frequent ecotourists were female. In a study of ecotourists in Queensland, Australia, Weaver and Lawton (2002) found that 62% of respondents were female. The underlying reasons for this “feminisation” of ecotourists is uncertain but may be related to higher levels of tertiary education among women (Weaver, 2008) and more biocentric attitudes among females, as suggested by Vaske et al. (2001) and demonstrated in Weaver and Lawton (2002). It is important to note, however, that despite this broad trend of “feminisation” within ecotourism as a market segment, some ecotourism activities are still dominated by males: there is higher male representation in adventurous and strenuous activities (Weaver, 2008). Age Understanding the age structure of ecotourists is essential not only for understanding the sector but for marketing, managing and meeting the needs of the clients of ecotourism ventures. A good start for understanding the age structure of ecotourists would seem to be an appreciation of the age groups who are most interested in environmental issues. For example, in a study of over 25,000 Europeans, Morrison and Beer (2017) found that the relationship between environmental awareness and age takes the form of an inverted U-shape: environmental awareness increases with age and peaks in middle age (mid-30s to mid-60s), then decreases with further increases in age. Studies of ecotourists partially reflect this pattern of environmental awareness, although the most commonly observed age group would be in the older end of middle age. For example, in a study of Canadian ecotourists, Fennell and Smale (1992) found that the most common age group was 60-69 years old. Similarly, in a study of Australian ecotourists, Weaver and Lawton (2002) found that the average age of visitors to the Lamington National Park was 50.1 years old. In a more recent study of 944 ecotourists in West Virginia, Deng and Li (2015) found that a majority of study participants were older: 47.2% were 55 years old or older. Thus, the identification of the dominant age group is consistent with the findings of the dominant age groups for environmental awareness, even though this age group may be slightly older than allowed for by the broad category of “middle age.” As we discussed in lesson one, the category of “ecotourists” can be divided into hard ecotourists, soft ecotourists and structured ecotourists. In general, hard ecotourists are older than soft ecotourists (Diamantis, 1999; Weaver & Lawton, 2002, Wight, 2001). The category of structured ecotourists is not as well studied as the other two categories of ecotourism. However, Weaver and Lawton (2002) found that structured ecotourists were older than either hard or soft ecotourists. They also found that structured ecotourists made up the largest portion of their study: 40% of participants could be classified as structured ecotourists. The age structure of ecotourists is promising for the growth of ecotourism, at least in the short to medium term. Many of the dominant source markets for ecotourists are experiencing aging populations and lower birth rates (Weaver, 2008). Thus, there may be continuing growth in the sector for a while. Education and Income The majority of studies of ecotourists have long demonstrated that consumers in this sector typically have higher than average levels of education and income. For example, Fennell and Smale (1992) found that Canadian ecotourists in Costa Rica earned an average of about $60,000, compared to the average Canadian family income in 1992 of just under $53,000 (unadjusted value) (Statistics Canada, 1995). In their study of West Virginian ecotourists, Deng and Li (2015) found that 59% of participants had family incomes over $60,000, compared to the median US family income of in 2015 of $55,775 (Posey, 2016). This observation that ecotourists and the broader category of nature tourists have above average incomes is supported by many other studies (see, for example, Eagles & Cascagnette, 1995; Kellert, 1985; Wight, 1996). Income and education are often intimately linked: higher education is linked to higher incomes (Weaver, 2008). Thus, since the income of ecotourists is typically higher than average incomes and typically higher than other classes of tourists, it is not surprising that the highest educational attainment is also higher than average for ecotourists. For example, Diamantis (1999) found that over 60% of frequent ecotourists had university degrees: 37.5% had an undergraduate degree while an additional 23% had a graduate degree. In the study by Deng and Li (2015), it was found that 66% of the participants had college degrees and that individuals with high levels of education were 3.85 times more likely to be ecotourists than individuals with a high school diploma. This link between higher levels of educational attainment, high incomes and participation has been consistent for decades. Thus, there has long been the risk that ecotourism is and will remain an elitist form of tourism. Motivations of Ecotourists In lesson one, we examined the motivations of tourists in general. Here we will examine the motivations of ecotourists. As your textbook states, “…ecotourists are fundamentally different in their travel motivations from the general traveler” (Fennell, 2020, p.33). As suggested by the results of Fennell and Smale (1992), while the general Canadian population prefers sedentary and family-related activities and vacationing in cities or at resorts, Canadian ecotourists prefer adventuresome activities and vacationing in wilderness or rural areas. Eagles (1992) found similar distinctions between the motivations of Canadian ecotourists and other Canadian travelers. It was found that Canadian ecotourists were motivated to see and experience a wide variety of natural environmental features or activities, such as tropical forests, wilderness and undisturbed nature, as well as the opportunity to learn about nature. It was found that other Canadian travelers placed particular emphasis on travelling to visit friends and relatives. Eagles (1992) also found that ecotourists hold their travel motivations more strongly than other Canadian travelers. As discussed earlier, Weaver and Lawton (2002) noted that ecotourists are not a homogenous group. They subsequently categorized ecotourists into hard ecotourists, soft ecotourists and structured ecotourists. They also identified the preferences and motivations of these categories. For example, hard ecotourists or, because the categories are part of a hard-soft continuum, “harder” ecotourists exhibit strong environmental commitment; a preference for long, specialized trips; a deep and meaningful interaction with nature and physically challenging activities. “Softer” ecotourists exhibit a superficial environmental commitment; multipurpose, short trips; limited, shallow interaction with nature and physical comfort. Structured ecotourists express a strong commitment to the environment but in activities, services, and accommodations, their motivations mirror those of mass tourists. Figure 2.04. The Ecosystem Continuum of Hard and Soft Ecotourist Ideal Types. Adapted from Weaver and Lawton (2002). Fair dealing. Finally, some ecotourists are motivated by a desire to establish a deep emotional connection with a place and/or its flora and wildlife. While your textbook cites examples of these kinds of emotional attachment motivations of ecotourism, a more recent study by Ajuhari et al. (2023) examines the differences between ecotourists with low, medium and high attachment to a protected area. Ecotourists who expressed the highest attachment to the protected area tended to be repeat visitors to the protected area and were motivated by nature viewing opportunities and sought self-enrichment through the opportunity to be close to nature. These ecotourists also sought opportunities to physically relax and reduce tensions. The medium attachment was the most common category and tended to be first-time visitors to the protected area. Their attachment was reflected in a desire for hiking and creative expressions, such as taking photographs. The low attachment group also tended to be first-time visitors but their motivation was for family activities and spending time building relationships with companions. Understanding the attachments of different groups of ecotourists can allow destinations to tailor activities and education programs to those with different attachments. Thus, we can see that ecotourists share some common motivations. However, market segmentation within ecotourists reflects various group-specific motivations. Specialization Market segmentation within ecotourism occurred rather early in the history of the development and may be considered an essential quality of ecotourism. Specialization within the market segments of ecotourism may have been present at the start of ecotourism. If not, it most certainly emerged soon afterward and has been increasing ever since (Fennell, 2023). For example, bird watching was identified quite early in the history of ecotourism as a major market segment within the sector (see, for example, Hvenegaard et al., 1989). It was relatively soon realized that there were specializations within the segment of birder ecotourists. Cole and Scott (1999) distinguished two specializations: “casual wildlife watchers” (p.56) and “serious birders” (p.56), which could be distinguished not simply by their activities but by the depth of affiliations within birding. In a later study, Eubanks et al. (2004) identified a continuum of eight sub-groups within birds (SP1 to SP8) which were differentiated by significant differences in behaviour, motivations and economic characteristics. The finding of this continuum is consistent with findings of Ditton et al. (1992): they argued that such specialization reflects the creation of ordered recreational sub-worlds. These sub-worlds range from the least specialized at the low end to the most specialized at the high end. With each increasing level of specialization comes the increasing importance of the activity in the participant’s life, greater acceptance of rules and norms associated with that activity, increasingly sophisticated equipment and expertise in the use of that equipment. Such specialization within ecotourism adds complexity as well as new opportunities for ecotourism operators. Conclusion Tourism and ecotourism are not merely topics of academic interest. Understanding these business sectors, as well as the nature, interests and diversity of the consumers, the tourists and ecotourists, is of paramount importance to those who are marketing and managing these sectors. Considerable research has been undertaken to better understand the characteristics and motivations of tourists and ecotourism. Among ecotourists, we can see that they are typically older than tourists in general and have above average incomes and educational attainment. This makes ecotourism a potentially lucrative segment within tourism. However, the diversity and specialization of ecotourists, as well as the resultant segmentation within ecotourism, presents considerable challenges for the successful marketing and operation of ecotourism ventures. To realize the environmental and socio-economic benefits of ecotourism, these challenges must be overcome. Lesson 3 Lesson 3 Introduction Defining terms is an essential task for any field of study. These definitions are critical for differentiating concepts, setting limits or boundaries on the terms and placing them within the context of broader concepts. As a student, you have undoubtedly had to learn and/or memorize many definitions. Thus, you may have mixed feels about learning even more detailed definitions. However, it is useful to propose a much more detailed definition of ecotourism that examines the four core criteria for distinguishing ecotourism from other forms of tourism and for discerning legitimate ecotourism operators from tourism operators who are greenwashing their operations. In lesson one, we discussed the historical and ongoing challenges in defining ecotourism. In that lesson, we also offered a useful and concise definition of ecotourism. In this lesson, we will begin by examining the “nature-based” part of the definition in more detail. We will also examine the debate about the compatibility of consumptive tourism with the principles of ecotourism. Next, we will examine other forms of nature-based tourism to compare and contrast them to ecotourism. We will then look at the emergence of a hybrid form of nature-based tourism and examine the place of ecotourism within mass tourism. Finally, we will examine the unexpected emergence of urban ecotourism. Nature-based Defining ecotourism as being nature-based may seem self-evident. Indeed, in a survey of ecotourists in West Virginia, Deng and Li (2015) found that “nature-based” was the most important defining quality of ecotourism. However, noting that ecotourism takes place in nature does little to distinguish ecotourism from the other types of tourism that are distinct from and/or overlap partially with ecotourism. For example, hunting and fishing tourism are unquestionably nature-based forms of tourism. Are these forms of tourism distinct from ecotourism? This is a question that we will explore in more detail later in this lesson. There are many other forms of tourism which are nature-based but different from ecotourism. Agro-tourism and rural tourism are nature-based forms of tourism that are occasionally conflated with ecotourism (see, for example Zoto et al., 2013) but are generally accepted to be distinct from ecotourism (Ana, 2017; Nistoreanu, Dorobanțu, & Tuclea, 2011). Both also lack the explicit concern for sustainability that is a defining quality of ecotourism (Ana, 2017). Other types of tourism, including adventure tourism, cultural tourism and wildlife tourism, share ecotourism’s nature-based quality and have some overlap with ecotourism but are generally considered to be distinct categories of tourism (Weaver, 2008). Thus, while it is apparent that being “nature-based” is generally considered to be a necessary quality of ecotourism, it is not sufficient because many other forms of tourism share this quality. Figure 3.01 – Nature-based tourism and ecotourism. Adapted from Weaver (2008). Fair dealing. Economic Value of Nature-based Tourism It is easy to erroneously equate nature-based tourism as a category comprised of niche forms of tourism and, in doing so, underestimate its economic importance. As pointed out in your textbook (Fennell, 2020), nature-based tourism in all of its forms represents approximately one-third of the value of Australia’s tourism industry (Buckley & Sommer, 2000). Nature-based tourism also represents a significant part of Canada’s tourism industry. In their 2012 Survey on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada (2014) found that Canadians spent an estimated $40.4 billion on nature-related activities. Approximately one-third of these expenditures ($14.5 billion) was spent on “non-motorized, non-consumptive nature-based recreation activities” (p.2). It is important to note that the distinctions between nature-based tourism and nature-based recreation are becoming increasing blurred as such activities become part of everyday life (Vespestad & Lindberg, 2011). In a more recent study of the economic impact of protected areas on communities in Brazil, Fiji, Nepal and Zambia, Gupta et al. (2023) found that nature-based tourism in these communities increased annual real income for each household by US$ 169 – US$2,400 for every additional tourism. This increase in income is significantly more than average nature-based tourist’s expenditure and is a result of the multiplier effect stimulating other economic activities within the communities. Thus, while it is easy to dismiss nature-based tourism as a small and specialized category within the tourism sector, it actually makes significant economic contributions to the industry. Understanding the Diversity of Nature-based Tourists Since nature-based tourism encompasses so many distinct types of tourism, including ecotourism, understanding the motivations of such a diverse group of tourists can be challenging. Indeed, considerable scholarship has been undertaken to try to understand nature-based tourists. For example, Ek et al. (2008) point out that, unlike other forms of tourism, the experiences in nature-based tourism are highly dependent on the tourists themselves rather than qualities of the attraction. This is because nature cannot be controlled as predictably as it can in other tourist attractions, such as a theme park. Thus, while a nature-based tourism operation can provide the opportunity and location for access to nature, and it can offer interpreters to help explain the elements of nature, the quality of, and satisfaction with, the experience are ultimately up to the tourist and their expectations. The product being offered is merely the experience and the satisfaction with this product is based more on the qualities and expectations of the consumer/tourist than on the inherent qualities of the product. This insight highlights the importance of understanding the expectations of the tourist as well as understanding the diversity between these expectations. A useful taxonomy for nature-based tourists was offered by Vespestad and Lindberg (2011). The four categories of nature-based tourists are as follows: Genuine experience One category that they identify is the genuine experience. Tourists seeking a genuine experience of nature search for “untouched” and beautiful nature that stands in contrast to their everyday experiences. This search is for the experience of a “sacred” nature that contrasts with the increasingly mundane homogeneity of everyday life. Ultimately, this search for the experience of genuine nature can be seen as a search for the consumer’s authentic self. Entertainment Unlike the genuine category, those seeking entertainment do not focus on the quality of the nature experience but on nature as a setting for their experiences. The goal for these tourists is ultimately the search for the experience of fun or entertainment (see figure 3.03). Because an authentic experience is relatively unimportant to these tourists, the setting may be staged or constructed. State of being Within this category, the experiences sought by the tourists are reflective of the individual’s physical and psychological goals. Attainment of these goals is seen as a means of attaining a desired state of being. Within this category, the search is for an individual reward from being in nature rather than an appreciation of the qualities of nature. Socio-cultural community This experience emphasizes the culturally constructed symbolism within nature. Unlike the other categories which emphasize the individual context for experiencing nature, this one emphasizes the tourist’s cultural frameworks for defining the quality of the experiences of nature. Distinguishing between these nature-based experiences is not merely an academic exercise: it has significance for the tourism operators as well as the interpreters who mediate the tourists’ experience of nature. Natural Resources The concept of a resource is central to geography and to environmental studies. It is also a concept that has changed over time. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) discusses an influential definition by Zimmermann (1933). Zimmermann stated that “resources are not, they become; they are not static but expand and contract in response to human actions” (p.3). In this anthropocentric (i.e. human-centred) and utilitarian definition (Mitchell, 2002), the “neutral stuff” (Zimmermann, 1922, p. 3) of nature become resources in response to human wants or needs. Within Zimmermann’s definition, resources are also synonymous with natural resources. More recently, the concept of a resource has broadened and become less utilitarian. For example, the definition offered by Mitchell (2002) defines a resource as "the abiotic, biotic and cultural attributes on, in or above the Earth” (p. 6). This broader and more flexible definition does not simply view resources as inputs into industrial processes. Rather, it includes diverse attributes of nature or culture, including those that might be of interest to tourists. Since nature-based tourism and ecotourism are more narrowly focused forms of tourism, we must impose limits on our broad definition of a resource so that it only applies to natural resources. For this course, we can impose limits on Mitchell’s (2002) definition to confine it to natural resources while maintaining a degree of flexibility. Thus, natural resources can be defined as “the abiotic and biotic … attributes on, in or above the Earth” (p. 6). Nature-based tourism is based on the attraction of visitors to see and otherwise experience natural resources. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) cites a list developed by Chubb and Chubb (1981) of undeveloped natural resources that may be attractive to nature-based tourists. As Chubb and Chubb (1981) explain, the distinction between undeveloped natural resources and developed resources is very subjective and contingent upon how much a “pristine” natural resource may be modified before it is considered developed. Since Rosenzweig (2003) suggests that there are virtually no “pristine” areas (i.e. free from modification by humans) left in the world, this subjective evaluation becomes essential for the satisfaction of the nature-based tourist and the success of nature-based tourism. This also means that ecotourism operators must typically focus on conservation of natural resources rather than their preservation. The distinction between conservation and preservation is important because conservation involves active management to create or maintain natural resources in a condition that is desired by nature-based tourists in general as well as ecotourists. Preservation, on the other hand, suggests is the maintenance of current conditions. Thus, preservation eliminates the possibility of either consumptive or non-consumptive uses of resources (Redford & Richter, 1999). These conditions may or may not be those needed for a healthy and resilient ecosystem. Inconsistencies within Nature-based Tourism The conservation of natural resources by and for nature-based tourism in general and ecotourism in particular is essential for the continuation of the tourism ventures. However, some studies have suggested that nature-based tourists and ecotourists do not always support these conservation efforts. For example, in a study of nature-based tourists in the Gran Paradiso National Park in Italy, Frontuto et al. (2017) found that while visitors were willing to support the targeted conservation of specific charismatic ungulates, they were less willing to support broader conservation efforts that would help conserve all of the species being studied. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) summarizes the findings of López Espinosa de los Monteros (2002). In this study of ecotourism operators in Mexico as well as stakeholders in the conservation and ecotourism sectors, López Espinosa de los Monteros wanted to see if ecotourism lived up to its promise of improved conservation of species and habitats. Ultimately, López Espinosa de los Monteros found that the ecotourism operators generally did not meet all of the criteria to qualify as being part of the ecotourism sector. However, most of the operators felt that they provided direct conservation benefits, particularly through economic and logistical support. In contrast, the author found that many stakeholders in the conservation and ecotourism sectors felt that many ecotourism operators merely identified as ecotourism tours simply for short-term profits. The stakeholders also felt that ecotourism operators provided no conservation benefits for protected areas. Ultimately, it was felt by stakeholders that ecotourism operators reaped the benefit of the conservation of protected areas but left the cost of conservation efforts to the government. The stakeholders generally felt that the ecotourism operators had more in common with nature-based tourism operators who did not care about their impacts than with other more conservation-minded ecotourism operators. This study highlights the gap that sometimes exists between the intentions of ecotourism and other nature-based tourism operators and their actual contributions to conservation efforts. It would be unfair to completely condemn ecotourism and other nature-based tourism. Indeed, in an analysis of 70 studies on the conservation value of ecotourism, Wardle et al. (2021) found that ecotourism did contribute to conservation efforts, at least in some circumstances and in some places. However, they were unable to determine if ecotourism made meaningful contributions to conservation efforts at a larger scale. The nature of the conservation efforts was also examined: they found a great deal of effort on visitor education and community-based activities, but little evidence of direct impacts of the conservation of wildlife or ecosystems. Thus, while it is evident that ecotourism can provide meaningful environmental benefits, its promise to conserve threatened species and landscapes is still unproven. Is Ecotourism Non-consumptive or Consumptive Tourism? Let us return to the concept of a resource. You will recall that we used Zimmermann’s definition of resources: “resources are not, they become" (Zimmermann, 1933, p.3). When this definition was published, the dominant Eurocentric view of resources was a utilitarian consumptive perspective. This consumptive use may involve renewable or non-renewable resources. However, an appreciation of the non-consumptive value of resources has increasingly been recognized within the Eurocentric perspective. It is important to note that this rather complex taxonomy for resources is not universal, and is typically not reflective of many Indigenous peoples’ holistic and kinship view of the elements of nature (Davis, 1993). However, the concepts of consumptive and non-consumptive uses of resources can be applied to nature-based tourism. Using these concepts, we can divide nature-based tourism into the two broad categories of consumptive tourism and non-consumptive tourism: the former involves the extraction of tangible products from nature while the later involves the provision of “intangible experiences” (Weaver, 2008, p.24). As Fennell (2020) points out, it is in the distinction between consumptive and non-consumptive tourism that the broader consumptive category of nature-based tourism usually diverges from the more narrowly-defined and non-consumptive ecotourism. Such a distinction must be qualified, though. Ecotourism is typically defined as a non-consumptive form of tourism. While ecotourism focuses on intangible experiences, such as wildlife viewing, it often, and perhaps inevitably, involves the consumption of resources. For example, ecotourism typically involves travel, which generally involves the consumption of fossil fuels, at least for now. At their destination, the ecotourists consume food and water, both of which may be locally limited and require energy resources to obtain. Thus, despite being commonly described as non-consumptive tourism, ecotourism typically involves a great deal of resource consumption. While this consumption of resources in ecotourism is often conveniently overlooked, much debate has occurred over the compatibility of hunting, an exemplar form of consumptive tourism, with ecotourism (see, for example, Knezevic, 2009). Hunting is also controversial as an activity due to ethical, social and cultural concerns (Hofer, 2002). Despite this debate, a number of arguments have been made to suggest that sport and trophy hunting may be compatible with ecotourism. For example, some studies have provided evidence that suggests that sport hunting is no more invasive than other forms of tourism and does not necessarily have a larger ecological footprint (Newsome et al., 2005; Roe et al., 1997). Of course, such evidence that hunting is sometimes no more environmentally harmful than other forms of tourism would seem to set a very low bar, one that ecotourism emerged to surpass. There are, however, more substantive arguments for including hunting in ecotourism. Some studies have suggested that sport hunting provides sustainable economic benefits to local communities: a critical component of our definition of ecotourism. For example, in a study of the sport hunting of polar bears in Nunavut, Dowlsey (2009) found that each sport hunt provided 20 times the income for local Inuit communities than could be provided by subsistence hunting. Since these hunts represent a portion of the communities’ polar bear quotas and since these quotas were based on conservation considerations about the level of sustainable hunting, these sport hunts provide substantial economic benefits to the community while remaining biologically sustainable. Indeed, even if market forces provided an incentive for increased sport hunting of polar bears, this increased demand would come from devoting a higher percentage of the quota to sport hunting and not from an increased quota. Ultimately, Dowsley argues that this sport hunting satisfies most definitions of ecotourism because it is biologically sustainable, it is flexible enough to accommodate local cultural concerns, it provides local residents with critical economic opportunities, and it encourages other Indigenous communities to utilize their natural resources in sustainable and economically profitable ways. It is important to note that there are conflicting claims about the economic value of hunting to host communities. For example, in a comparison of the economic value of hunting bears in the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia with the economic value of non-consumptive bear-viewing tourism, Honey et al. (2016) found that the non-consumptive tourism was worth 12 times more than the total income from bear hunters. In a comparison of shark hunting and shark viewing in the Maldives, Vianna et al. (2012) found similar economic benefits for non-consumptive tourism. In their study, it was found that, at some of the most popular dive sites, a grey reef shark would be worth $35,000 per year. With an average life span of 18 years, this grey reef shark would be worth $630,000 to the local community. The consumptive value of the same shark would $32 at the local market. Thus, it appears that in some instances and in some places, hunting provides little economic benefit for the host communities. Since these studies on the relative economic value of hunting to host communities provide conflicting results, it is useful to examine other potential arguments related to the appropriateness of hunting in ecotourism. Promoting conservation is a key part of our definition of ecotourism and hunting has long been used as a management tool for conservation (Hofer, 2002). The justification for the use of hunting as a conservation tool has long been a desire to maintain a balance in nature (Krebs, 2008). However, the existence of balance in nature has long been shown to be a myth (Pierotti, 2016). Despite this, hunting is still seen as a useful tool for achieving specific conservation goals, such as the protection of rare species, the elimination of invasive species or protecting habitat (Hofer, 2002). Hunting does not only provide direct conservation benefits, though. As pointed out in Novelli et al. (2006), sport and trophy hunting can provide important economic incentives for the conservation of wildlife and their habitats. Thus, ecotourism can be compatible with hunting because of hunting’s direct and indirect incentives for conservation. A number of researchers have examined the place of hunting within ecotourism from a moral or ethical perspective. Novelli et al. (2006) argued that excluding hunting from ecotourism preferentially supports the global North’s view of people’s relationship with nature over those of the global South. It is important to note that Novelli et al. also referred to the North by the somewhat antiquated term “western” (p. 63) and refers to the South as “developing” (p. 63). The North, Novelli et al. argued, views wildlife consumption and conservation through a “wilderness as a tourism commodity” (p. 63) lens. This view contrasts starkly with the South’s emphasis on “wilderness as a daily commodity” (p. 63), in which wildlife and nature are part of the practical experiences of daily livelihoods. Within the South, tourism in general and ecotourism in particular are seen as pathways to development. Ecotourism is viewed as a short-term economic activity rather than long-term sustainable tourism. To achieve these economic benefits, though, the residents must satisfy the ecotourists’ expectation of restricted access to resources and land. Consequently, this “wildlife as a tourism commodity” non-consumptive perspective dominates even though it conflicts with the residents’ “wilderness as a daily commodity” perspective. It is within this conflict that sport or trophy hunting is seen by residents of the South as embracing their “ethics of use” (Wearing & Neil, 1999, p. 11) rather than the “ethics of nature” (Wearing & Neil, 1999, p. 11) of the ecotourists from the North. This argument mirrors those of Tremblay (2001) who suggests that non-consumptive tourism is too often portrayed as “noble, modern and morally superior” (p. 84). The experiences of wildlife and nature for these non-consumptive tourists are typically portrayed as deeper and more meaningful. Conversely, consumptive tourism, involving hunting or fishing, is portrayed as utilitarian, less authentic and, quite simply, bad. Since hunting and fishing are frequently subsistence activities of local residents in the host communities, the association of their utilitarian activities to those of the consumptive tourists stands in contrast to the supposedly morally superior experiences of the non-consumptive tourists. Ironically, despite the non-consumptive tourists’ belief in the depth of their experience of wildlife, the consumptive tourists and local residents often have more intimate contact with wildlife. Thus, it can be argued that excluding hunting from ecotourism reflects a biased view of nature. Wildlife Tourism Like ecotourism, wildlife tourism can be classified as a subset of nature-based tourism. Higginbottom (2004) describes wildlife tourism as encounters with captive or non-captive non-domesticated animals. Although wildlife tourism is often, and erroneously, conflated with ecotourism, you can see in figure 3.05 that the two forms of nature-based tourism do not entirely overlap. For example, the captive element of wildlife tourism include non-consumptive activities within anthropogenic enclosed facilities, such as zoos, aviaries, aquaria, some circuses as well as some safari parks. It can also include consumptive activities, such as those at commercial stocked fishing ponds or captive animal hunting parks. Wildlife tourism can also include non-captive elements, again including non-consumptive activities, such as birdwatching or whale watching, as well as consumptive activities, such as hunting and fishing tourism. When we compare these activities to those encompassed by ecotourism, we can see that wildlife tourism encompasses a greater diversity of activities than ecotourism. At the same time, not all ecotourism activities would be classified as wildlife tourism, such as those focused on geological or botanical attractions. Figure 3.05 – Wildlife tourism and wildlife tourism. Adapted from Weaver (2008). Fair dealing. Cultural Tourism The inclusion of cultural tourism within a discussion of nature-based tourism and ecotourism may be unexpected: culture is often considered to be distinct from nature and our definition of ecotourism does not recognize culture as a component of ecotourism. However, we will see why it is being included in this discussion. Defining cultural tourism can be a challenge. Indeed, McKercher and Du Cross (2002) quipped that “the number of definitions for cultural tourism nearly matches the number of cultural tourists” (p. 34). The challenge becomes even more onerous if we accept MacCannell’s (1993) claim that “all tourism is a cultural experience” (p. 67). It is made even more challenging by its reliance on the word culture, which Williams (1976) describes as “one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” (p. 76). Despite these challenges, your textbook (Fennell, 2020) offers a useful definition of cultural tourism. This definition states that cultural tourism involves “visits by persons from outside the host community motivated wholly or in part by interest in the historical, artistic, scientific or lifestyle/heritage offerings of a community, region, group or institution” (Silberberg, 1995, p. 361). Please note that this much cited definition was originally provided by LORD Cultural Resources Planning and Management (1993). Cultural tourism is often stereotypically associated with visiting museums, monuments and heritage sites. However, Mousavi et al. (2016) suggest that this traditional view of cultural tourism is inadequate: cultural tourism does not just involve consuming cultural products, such as buildings or art, but also involves experiencing contemporary ways of local or regional ways of life and cultures. It is in this view of cultural tourism that we begin to see the relationship between cultural tourism, nature-based tourism and ecotourism. Culture is founded in the relationships between humans and their natural environments. This relationship is often most apparent in Indigenous cultures. Thus, cultural tourism explores the products of this relationship (see figure 3.06). Given the mutual influences between cultures and their natural environments, it is impossible to separate the two. Thus, it is not surprising that Ryan (2002) would claim that “Cultural tourism can be regarded as a subset of ecotourism … concerning small groups of tourists seeking to know about and sustain natural environments, and also wishing to learn about the cultures associated with such places and the need to sustain local communities” (p. 953). It is also not surprising that many scholars who study ecotourism, such as Weaver (2008), argue that there is meaningful overlap between cultural tourism and ecotourism. However, in your textbook, Fennell (2020) recognizes the influence of the environment but argues that it is a distraction from the main focus of ecotourism and that ecotourists and ecotourism operators have different motivations and expectations than those influencing cultural tourists. For the purposes of this course, we will use the same interpretation as your textbook and treat cultural tourism as being distinct from ecotourism. Adventure Tourism Like the debates about the relationship between ecotourism and cultural tourism, there is much debate over the relationship between adventure tourism and ecotourism. Indeed, some have suggested that ecotourism can be accommodated within adventure tourism (Fennell, 2020). In order to evaluate this claim we must propose a useful definition of adventure tourism. For this course, we will be defining adventure tourism as a type of tourism that involves some elements of risk as well as relatively high levels of physical exertion and skill. Although this definition is a composite of a number of definitions, it is heavily reliant on the definition offered by Weaver (2008). This definition would not be universally accepted, though. Much of the debate over the definition of adventure tourism and its distinction from other forms of tourism has centred on the elements of risk (see, for example, Rantala et al., 2018). For example Walle (1997) suggested that including the element of risk in the definition of adventure tourism is inadequate: it is argued that risk is a side-effect of adventure tourism rather an essential part of the goal of participants. The ultimate goal of adventure tourism, Walle argues, is gaining insights and personal fulfillment through the activity. However, Ursin, Baade and Levine (1978) argued that the perception of risk is an essential component of the motivation for those who are attracted to adventurous activities. Please note that your textbook attributes this claim to Ewert (1985) even though Ewert cites Ursin et al. (1978) for this claim. Despite this debate, the definition used in this course includes risk as a defining element of adventure tourism. We shall now examine the reason why it is useful to side with the risk-taking definition of adventure tourism. It is possible to include risk-taking in the definition of adventure tourism while addressing the criticisms of its inclusion. As Quinn (1990) points out, adventures vary in intensity just as the motivations of adventure tourists vary in how much risk they are seeking to experience. Ultimately, it is argued, the tolerance of risk varies between individuals and is linked to the amount of risk needed for that individuals need for personal growth. Thus, risk can be spread out along a continuum from low-risk soft adventure tourism to higher-risk hard adventure tourism. Christiansen (1990) develops this soft-hard adventure tourism spectrum further by suggesting that soft adventure tourists are seeking high perceived risk but low actual risk. Hard adventure tourists are those that seek high risk even though the tourist operator may have to moderate that risk out of safety concerns. This would allow the inclusion of risk as an essential part of the definition of adventure tourism while recognizing that this risk is determined by the individuals needs for personal fulfillment. Now that we have a useful and defendable definition of adventure tourism, we still need to explore adventure tourism’s relationship to nature-based tourism and ecotourism. While some adventure tourism may be nature-based, such as mountain climbing, sky diving or white-water rafting (see figure 3.07), not all adventure tourism can be classified as nature-based. An example of this would be indoor rock wall climbing. The overlap with ecotourism is even less pronounced, though (see figure 3.08). This is partially because the definition of adventure tourism does not require sustainability, even though some adventure tourism business make an attempt to be sustainable. Ecotourism and adventure tourism also differ in their visitors’ interactions with the attraction: ecotourists desire an educational experience while adventure tourists seek a degree of risk and physical challenge (Weaver, 2008). Ultimately, both ecotourism and adventure tourism rely on subjective experiences and can be described in hard and sort expressions of their activities. Figure 3.07. White-water rafting on the Ottawa River in Ontario, Canada. Image by Seek writ awe there. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 4.0.Figure 3.08. Ecotourism and adventure tourism. Adapted from Weaver (2008). Fair dealing. ACE Tourism As you have seen, there are close, if sometimes complex, relationships between nature-based forms of tourism. Some of these relationships have evolved to the point that a hybrid form of nature-based tourism has emerged: ACE tourism, a hybrid of adventure tourism, cultural tourism and ecotourism. First described and named by Fennell (1999), ACE tourism exists as a distinct form of tourism and not simply a combination of the three, although, within any tourism operation, the relative influence of each of the three may vary. The existence of this distinct hybrid emerges because adventure, cultural and ecotourism lack sufficient commonalities with each other for each to retain their identity when combined. The emergence of a hybrid ACE tourism also dilutes the qualities of each of the constituent forms of tourism for any one of them to retain its identity. For example, in a study of ecotourism operations in Asia focusing on mountain trekking, Weaver (2002) found that the lines between ecotourism, adventure and cultural tourism blurred and that the defining criteria for ecotourism were no longer evident: these ecotourism operations had been “subsumed under the broader rubric of ACE tourism” (p. 167). Similarly, Esrock (2021) describes a number of ACE tourism destinations involving Indigenous tourism in Canada. However, ACE tourism should not be viewed simply an evolution of nature-based forms of tourism into a form that is more adapted to the current markets. Rather, because it can co-exist with adventure, cultural and ecotourism, even within the same operation, it can be viewed as increasing diversity within nature-based tourism. Ecotourism as Mass Tourism The emergence of ecotourism is closely associated with criticisms about the impacts and sustainability of mass tourism. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that ecotourism is incompatible with mass tourism. However, as we saw in our earlier discussion of Jafari’s knowledge platform, with careful planning, conscientious management and diligent monitoring, large mass tourism operations can incorporate elements of ecotourism. It is important to note, however, that when mass tourism businesses incorporate the principles of ecotourism into their operations, they tend to focus on soft ecotourism (Weaver, 2002). Examples of soft ecotourism experiences that have been incorporated into mass tourism destinations would be swimming with dolphin attractions (Curtin, 2006) and the many wildlife experiences associated with mass tourism in Costa Rica (Lumsdon & Swift, 1998). Furthermore, there is always a risk that soft ecotourists will display veneer environmentalist tendencies. Ultimately, ecotourism can be compatible with mass tourism. However, the sustainability of such operations is dependent on the commitment of the operators and the consumers to the principles of ecotourism. Urban Ecotourism The idea of combining ecotourism with urban areas may be seen as an unexpected development. Indeed, ecotourism is often defined as occurring in non-urban or peripheral areas (see, for example, Hall & Boyd, 2004) and the nature within these peripheral areas is often quite different from the nature experienced in cities. However, our definition of ecotourism does not expressly limit ecotourism to peripheral areas nor are the natural areas that are typically needed for ecotourism limited to peripheral areas. Indeed, many urban areas include considerable and diverse natural areas, although the quality of the habitat for most species of wildlife is typically less than optimal (Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002). Urban areas also include locations that have been degraded by industry or other human activities: these areas offer the opportunity to rehabilitate, renovate or restore natural habitat for use in ecotourism (Jegdić & Gradinac, 2016). The world is also increasingly urbanized: 56% of the world’s population live in cities and the number of people living in cities is expected to double by 2050 (World Bank, 2024). Urban residents are also more likely to be attracted to ecotourism than rural residents (Weaver, 2008). Thus, urban areas represent a growing opportunity for ecotourism (Fennell, 2020). For example, Toronto’s many ravines (Kao, 2022) and the Ojibway Prairie Complex in Windsor, Ontario, (Austin, 2024) offer very attractive opportunities for urban ecotourism in Ontario. Conclusion In this lesson, we examined the relationships between ecotourism and various forms of nature-based tourism, including both wildlife tourism and adventure tourism. We also examined cultural tourism and discussed how this seemingly disparate form of tourism can be considered to be compatible with nature-based tourism. During these discussions, we saw that the relationships between these forms of nature-based tourism are often complex and frequently contested. In this lesson, we also examined the contentious debate about the compatibility of ecotourism with consumptive tourism, particularly hunting. In reading the textbook chapter, it was apparent that Fennell (2020) believes that ecotourism is ultimately compatible with consumptive tourism. In this lesson, though, we have highlighted research that there is still conflicting economic, conservation, ethical and cultural evidence about the suitability of consumptive tourism within ecotourism. We also examined the emergence of a distinct hybrid form of nature-based tourism and revisited mass tourism to see if it can coexist with ecotourism. Finally, we looked at the emerging sector of urban ecotourism, a potentially critical development in an increasingly urbanized world but one that challenges our assumptions about nature-based tourism and ecotourism. Through these topics, we have expanded our definition of ecotourism and showed the broader context of other forms of tourism that help shape our understanding of ecotourism. Lesson 4 Lesson 4 Introduction So far, we have focused a great deal of attention on understanding what ecotourism is and what it is not. This is an important academic exercise for understanding the history and context under which ecotourism emerged as well as for differentiating ecotourism from a variety of other forms of tourism. It is also a practical exercise to determine if ecotourism ventures are addressing the interests and expectations of people with distinctive motivations: those who we identify as ecotourists. Now that we have an understanding of the nature of ecotourism, we will begin to examine the extent to which ecotourism lives up to its defining characteristics and goals. Every human activity has impacts (see, for example, Knaus et al., 2006; Rosenzweig, 2003): this is equally true for the activities that are part of ecotourism. Consequently, understanding and identifying these impacts so that they may be mitigated is essential. There are many possible impacts but they can generally be categorized as socio-cultural/economic or environmental. It is important to note that the relationship between socio-cultural and environmental impacts is complementary: one may lead to the other, one may exacerbate or mitigate the other, or one cause may lead to both types of impact. Thus we will discuss both types of impacts in this course. We will begin by examining the environmental impacts, partially because this is a key part of your first assignment. If you have already done the readings for this lesson, you have undoubtedly noticed that the textbook does not use the term “environmental impacts.” Indeed, this lesson uses a different term: ecological impacts. While there are similarities in the meanings of the terms “environmental” and “ecological,” the latter not only expressly includes the organisms in an environment, it also focuses on the relationships between those organisms and their environments as well as the relationships between organisms and the other organisms that are part of that environment. Thus, by examining the ecological impacts of ecotourism, we can get a more complete understanding of abiotic and biotic elements of ecosystems. Ecological Impacts: Rising Awareness about the Impacts of Tourism Before we begin our examination of the rising awareness of the ecological impacts of tourism, it is important to note that the earlier literature typically used the term “environmental” instead of the more appropriate term “ecological.” Therefore, when discussing this earlier research, “environmental” will be preferentially used in this lesson. As we discuss more recent studies, we will typically use the terms “ecological” and “ecology.” In the immediate post-World War 2 period, the confluence of a variety of socio-economic, political and technological factors precipitated rapid growth in the global tourism market (Van Doren & Lollar, 1985). This time period corresponds with the advocacy platform (Jafari, 1989; 2001) discussed in the first lesson. During this period, tourism was seen as an ideal economic activity for peripheral areas: a way to boost employment and regional income with few risks. It was also seen as an environmentally benign economic activity: a sector that Holden (2008) described as a “smokeless” (p. 67) industry. Similarly, Zierer (1952) stated that tourism “… does not – or should not – lead to the destruction of natural resources” (p. 463). This image persisted well into the 1960s, despite a growing environmental movement that followed the publication of Rachel Carson’s (1962) “Silent Spring.” However, as the 1960s progressed, it became more apparent that the amenities that attracted tourists, including those of the natural environment were losing some of their appeal. For example, Mishan (1969) noted: “Once serene and lovely towns such as Andorra and Biarritz are smothered with new hotels and the dust and roar of motorised traffic. The isles of Greece have become a sprinkling of lidos in the Aegean Sea. Delphi is ringed with shiny new hotels. In Italy the real estate man is responsible for the atrocities exemplified by the skyscraper approach to Rome seen across the Campagna, while the annual invasion of tourists has transformed once-famous resorts, Rapallo, Capri, Alassio and scores of others, before the last war no less enchanting, into so many vulgar Coney Islands (p. 141). By the early 1970s, it had become increasingly apparent that damage to environmental amenities or tourist destinations was threatening the attractions that enticed tourists to visit. Cohen (1972) noted that part of this destruction was a result of transformations needed to maintain a degree of environmental familiarity demanded by mass tourists to maintain their comfort in the midst of the destination’s environmental novelty. Clare (1971) noted that profound environmental damage results not only from the construction of facilities to accommodate the tourists but by widespread land speculation and the resulting building booms. Indeed, the transformation of the destinations was often so profound that Jones (1972) suggested that it destroys the very landscape quality which attracts development in the first place" (p.57). Sometimes the transformation of the existing environment was so extensive that contrived environments (Cohen, 1972) were created. Examples of these contrived environments included Disneyland (Cohen, 1972) and Singaporean Tiger Balm Gardens (Robinson, 1972). Thus, as the mid-1970s approached, it was clear that tourism was far from the benign “smokeless” industry as many had hoped. Figure 4.01. A crowded beach in 1976 in Warnemünde, a popular tourist destination in the former East Germany. Image by Jürgen Sindermann, from the collection of the German Federal Archives. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0 DE. Once the myth of benign tourism had been exposed, there was increased scholarship to examine the nature of the environmental damage. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) highlights some of the key studies into these environmental damages. For example, Budowski (1976) examined the diverse relationships between tourism and natural resources, amenities upon which tourism typically relies, and the need for conservation of these resources. Budowski suggested that there are three such relationships: conflict, coexistence and symbiosis. Conflict exists when tourism is at odds with the goals of conservation. Coexistence exists when neither tourism nor conservation are well developed in an area, either because of administrative barriers or ignorance of each other’s’ goals. Finally, symbiosis occurs when both tourism and conservation benefit from each other’s existence: conservation of natural resources provides amenities that encourage tourism and tourism provides an incentive to promote conservation. Unfortunately, at the time, Budowski suggested the typical relationship between tourism and conservation of natural resources was coexistence leaning towards conflict. The preferred relationship for both tourism and conservation was symbiosis, even though it was then still rather elusive. By the 1980s there is increasing recognition that an alternative to the status quo in the tourism industry was necessary. As Travis (1982) pointed out, tourism’s focus on economic benefits without consideration of the ecological impacts and externalities of their industry threatened the short-term and long-term economic sustainability of tourism. In advocating for alternative forms of tourism, Farrell and McLellan (1987) stated: “For many countries and regions, … the physical environment in its completeness, and conceived as a unit, is the greatest resource per se – not for what it contains but for what it is and what it expresses. For many places, if it is lost, little of value may remain. An aware and completely changed industry can sustain tourism. In terms of modern thinking and ecodevelopment, if tourism is sustained significant steps have then been taken toward maintaining environmental integrity. A healthy environmental integrity means the possibility of successful tourism, which, when managed properly, becomes a resource in its own right” (p. 13) Thus, it was from these ecological and economic concerns that alternative forms of tourism, including nature-based tourism and ecotourism emerged (Romeril, 1989). The Concept of Carrying Capacity An essential concept needed to understand and mitigate the ecological impacts of ecotourism is the concept of carrying capacity. Indeed, carrying capacity is an essential concept in both ecology and biology, even though it is a term that originated in mechanical engineering (Sayre, 2008). The application of the term wildlife or game dates back even further, to at least the sixteenth century (Anonymous, 1598, cited in Brougham, 1969). Its application to the study of species population within ecosystems has been a long one, as has its application to the limits of human populations. Indeed, there was so much debate over its application that it was almost completely rejected as an academic concept (Butler, 1996). Despite the criticisms over the application of the concept of carrying capacity, it remains a useful ecological concept. In your textbook, Fennel (2020) provides a concise summary of the concept of carrying capacity: “In the strictest sense, species maintain a balance between birth and death, and predator-prey relationships within an ecosystem” (p. 201). Fennell (2020) then states, “It is the human factor and the manipulation and exploitation of resources that offset this balance” (p.201). It some ways, this summary approximates the definition of carrying capacity used in this lesson: Carrying capacity refers to “the maximum potential number of inhabitants which can be supported in a given area. The upper limit is set at the point where the environment deteriorates. Carrying capacities are far from being universal constants, but alter with value judgements and objectives, and carrying capacities in the shorter term may differ greatly from those in the longer term” (Mayhew, 2023). Both Fennell’s summary and Mayhew’s definition acknowledge the importance of human influences on carrying capacity. Unfortunately, Fennell’s summary relies heavily on the concept of a balance in nature and within ecosystems. Such a balance in complex systems, including nature and ecosystems, has long been rejected by ecologists (see, for example, Simberloff, 2014). By the 1960s, the concept of carrying capacity had been applied to tourism and tourism destinations (Butler, 1996). Unfortunately, the early studies that applied carrying capacity typically based their determinations about carrying capacity on the ecology of the destination and simplistic assumptions about the activities of tourists. They did demonstrate, though, that there were limits to the number of visitors as well as the amount and degrees of ecological impacts that could be tolerated by a destination before its ecosystem was transformed into something quite different from its earlier state. These studies assumed that the carrying capacity was fixed. However, with careful management, carrying capacity can be much more flexible. There are many ways in which carrying capacity of a destination can be made flexible. One way is to limit the activities undertaken in the area, either through education, established visitor codes of conduct or regulation (Weaver, 2008). Another way is to evaluate various areas within a destination to establish each area’s sensitivity to damage as well as resilience when damage occurs. Sensitive and less resilient areas may be designated as zones with restricted access. Such zoning strategies would rely on education, regulation and enforcement to be successful. It is also possible to increase carrying capacity through site-hardening, a process by which facilities, such as trails or wetlands, are provided with pavement, stones and/or boardwalks (Weaver, 2008). Site-hardening is usually followed by site-softening, not to undo the efforts of site-hardening but to rehabilitate the soil and vegetation that was impacted by the processes of site-hardening (Weaver, 2008). One other strategy for increasing a destinations carrying capacity relies on an understanding of the “95-5” rule of park usage. This rule suggests that approximately 95% of visitors to a natural area will confine their activities to just 5% of the area (Lawton, 2001). For example, in a study of park usage by visitors to Banff National Park in Alberta, Dearden (2000) found that the overwhelming majority of visitors restricted their activity to the Bow River valley, particularly the town of Banff and the Lake Louise area. Thus, almost all visitors limited their use to just 3-4% of the park. Using this insight, managers can create sacrificial spaces within which most of the attractions and services are concentrated, allowing the rest of the park to remain largely untouched. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Ecotourism emerged as a sustainable form of tourism, one that, in part, attempted to mitigate the impacts associated with the broader category of tourism. While some of these impacts were socio-cultural (to be examined in lesson 7) and economic (to be examined in lesson 8), many of them were ecological. Despite the goals of ecotourism, it is widely recognized that ecological impacts persist in this form of tourism (Fennell, 2020). Indeed, it is internationally recognized that “all human activities have environmental impacts” (Antarctic Treaty, 1990, p.1). In this section we will discuss these ecological impacts of ecotourism. We will first discuss the direct ecological impacts and we will then discuss the indirect ecological impacts. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Direct Ecological Impacts: Construction Impacts Ecotourism operations typically demand the construction of diverse infrastructure, including but not necessarily limited to onsite visitor and employee accommodations/lodges, administration buildings, sewage and water treatment facilities and/or storage, roads, bridges, infrastructure associated with trails, drainage management infrastructure, docking facilities and even landing strips for aircraft. The results of the construction of these facilities is as diverse as the types of facilities although most have rather localized or small-scale impacts (Newsome & Hughes, 2016). Perhaps the most immediate impacts involve loss of vegetation and deforestation, habitat loss and fragmentation. The loss of vegetation is unlikely to be significant in total area, except for large-scale soft ecotourism focused developments. However, the loss of even relatively small amounts of vegetation if the vegetation includes rare species, endemic species (see figure 4.03) or species at risk, can have significant implications. For example, Ballantyne and Pickering (2012) found that ecotourism related construction had impacted threatened wild orchid populations in Australia. Similarly, habitat or forest interior species may require large undisturbed patches (Lidicker, 1999; Sisk et al., 1997). Thus, even relatively small developments may create substantial loss of useable habitat for some species. Fragmentation of habitat can also be a problem, particularly when it is created by the construction of roads and trails. Such fragmentation may limit species dispersal and create isolated populations (see, for example, Burkey, 1989). Once again, the scale of the impact of fragmentation is generally dependent of the size of the development as well as the size and mobility of the species (Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002). Fragmentation due to road construction is also related to increased mortality in many species (Bennett, 2017). Road construction in wilderness areas can also facilitate access to previously inaccessible natural areas, potentially allowing unauthorized and /or unsustainable exploitation of natural resources (Coffin et al. 2021). Thus, while the construction of ecotourism facilities may have significant impacts on habitat use and availability, as well as species dispersal, the overall impact is usually small. The construction process may also have a variety of other immediate and long term ecological impacts. For example, while much of the construction material used for the facilities may not be produced on-site, the need for materials may be substantial, causing ecological effects on local or distant areas. The construction process will undoubtedly contribute to local air pollution and global climate change (Hawkins et al., 1995; Lenzen et al., 2018). There are also increased risks from water pollution from untreated sewage and other liquid wastes, as well as run-off of fuels, lubricants and sediments (Weaver, 2008). Finally, the construction process also increases the risk of the introduction of invasive species (Weaver, 2008) which can have profound ecological impacts (Pimental, 2011) and can also impact the aesthetics of the destination (Lovelock et al., 2022). Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Direct Ecological Impacts: Wildlife Observation As we have discussed in previous lessons in this course, wildlife observation is a popular and common activity in ecotourism. Thus, it is critical to understand the impact that such observation has on wildlife. Fortunately, there is considerable research on the impacts of such observation. Most of these studies focus on ungulates, carnivores and rodents (Marion et al., 2020). However, the impacts that are investigated by these studies varied. While this discussion will not provide a comprehensive review of these studies, we will examine a representative sample of key studies. The first impact that we will discuss is a physiological response of wildlife to disturbance caused by the presence of tourists. These studies examined if wildlife is stressed by the presence of humans, typically by observing them and by measuring elevated levels of glucocorticoid hormones (i.e. stress hormones). For example, Barja et al. (2007) examined stress levels of European pine martens (Martes martes) when viewed by tourists in a national park in Spain. It was shown that stress levels in the pine martens were very sensitive to the presence of humans and the greater the presence, the higher the stress levels. Stress levels were noticeably higher during reproductive periods for the pine martens. Stress levels were lowest in areas where humans were generally excluded although there was considerable variability between individuals, with some pine martens maintaining high levels of stress hormones even after they moved to the restricted area. Very similar results were found in other studies, such as a study of tourist-induced stress in chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra ssp. tatrica) by Twijacz-Kozica et al. (2013). It was found that stress levels were highest when the number of tourists was highest in the summer. It was found that increased stress levels due to tourist visitation decreased feeding activity leading to decreased fat reserves heading into winter. This could potentially lead to reduced reproduction rates as well as reduced winter survival rates. Other studies have focused on tourist activities and not just the presence of tourists. In general, in the short-term, such elevated stress hormone levels results in increased energy mobilization as might be expected if the animals had to flee from a predator (Romero & Wikelski, 2002). This may decrease overall energy reserves for the animals. In the long-term, such elevated stress levels are associated with reduced reproductive success and the suppression of their immune systems (Creel et al., 2002). Other studies have examined the impacts of the disturbance of wildlife by vehicles. While some of these studies show similar stress responses to those seem simply by the presence of tourists, some showed some different and/or additional responses. For example, Creel et al. (2002) examined the effects of wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles on grey wolves (Canis lupus occidentalis) and elk (Cervus elaphus). In elk, a stronger stress response was exhibited for snowmobiles than for wheeled vehicles. The wolves also experienced a much higher stress level for snowmobiles but the levels varied between wolf packs and the amount of snow, with deeper snow resulting in higher stress levels. Roe et al. (1997) found a rather more complex response: they found that hyenas and baboons would follow tourists in wheeled vehicles. It appeared that this behaviour was a result of ecotourists’ desire to see cheetahs and the predators and scavengers were following the vehicles in order to steal cheetah kills. While this was a benefit to the hyenas and baboons, it was a high cost to the cheetah. Cheetahs expend a great deal of energy in a hunt and have a relatively long recovery period after a hunt, even if it has failed. Another unexpected result was found by Nevin and Gilbert (2005). In a study of grizzly bears in British Columbia, they found that some female grizzly bears with cubs sought out busy roads because the vehicles discouraged male grizzly bears. As a result, these cubs had a higher survival rate than other cubs, likely creating an over-representation of their genes in the local grizzly bear population. Thus, it is apparent that disturbance by vehicles creates more complex disturbance responses than the simple presence of humans. A particularly popular ecotourism activity is whale watching. This activity has predated the emergence of ecotourism as a distinct sector within tourism: its beginnings date back to whale watching tours in Mexico in 1970 (O’Connor, 2009). During the intervening years, many studies have examined the impact of whale watching on cetaceans, although most studies have been species-specific. In a meta-analysis of these studies, Senigaglia et al. (2016) found that cetacean responses to the stresses imposed by whale-watching boats varied between species. For example, minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) decrease their intervals between breathing while killer whales (Orcinus orca) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) significantly increased their inter-breath intervals (i.e. longer times between coming to the surface of the water to breath). In general, however, it was found that cetaceans stressed by the presence of whale watching boats tended to increase their travelling activities and decrease their resting and foraging activities. It was also found that the cetaceans increased the sinuosity of their movements and changed direction of travel more frequently. Although regulations have been enacted to regulate whale watching, they seem to have had little effect in reducing stress-induced behaviours in cetaceans. Figure 4.04. Whale watching Hervey Bay Australia, by eGuide Travel. Retrieved from flickr. CC BY 2.0. Habituation may also be the result of the exposure of wildlife species to tourists and ecotourists. To many ecotourists, it is difficult to imagine that habituation is a problem: they typically seek closer contacts with wildlife and habituation makes such contact more predictable and constant (Whittaker, 1997). Habituation has also been successfully exploited for zoological studies, such as the pioneering work of Jane Goodall with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Dian Fossey with gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) (Knight, 2009). However, habituation has generally been considered as a negative response to wildlife interactions with humans because it reduces the flight response of habituated individuals and may lead to reduced fitness with their populations (Highham & Shelton (2011). Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Direct Ecological Impacts: Invasive Species All species depend on dispersal so that their offspring do not try to occupy the same space as their parents. All species have specific habitat requirements. Some species have very narrowly defined requirements. Invasive species typically have greater phenotypic plasticity than species that lack invasive tendencies: they are more flexible in different environmental conditions (Zhang et al. 2022). Because of this flexibility, some invasive species are able to establish themselves in areas where they did not previously exist or had not existed within historical memory. They may also be able to displace native species within the native species’ ecological niches (Peterson & Vieglais, 2001), thus changing the composition, structure and functions within ecosystems. The impact can be quite profound. Indeed, Wilson (2002) has listed invasive species as one of the five main factors currently causing species extinctions: the other four factors were habitat destruction, pollution, [over]population and overharvesting. It is important to note, however, that not all ecologists, biologists and biogeographers are equally concerned about invasive species. For example, most invasive species do not accelerate extinctions within ecosystems but usually increase species richness (Davis, 2009). At the same time, it must be noted that currently benign invasive species have the potential to cause great ecological harm in the future (Davis et al., 2011). However, the same can be said about native species if conditions change significantly. As Hodkinson and Thompson (1997) famously noted, “Man (sic) must now be included, not just as a modifier of the landscape itself, but as a major (perhaps the major) dispersal vector” (p. 1492). With their global travel and their intimate connections with ecosystems in their origin areas as well as their destination areas, tourists and ecotourists may play an important role in the introduction of invasive species. Indeed, tourist boats in the Galapagos Islands have been responsible for the dispersal of insects onto nearby islands where they did not previously exist (Silberglied, 1978). Buckley, Clough and Warnken (1998) found that an ecotourist’s faeces had introduced the pathogen Plesiomonas shigelloides into a national park in Australia. A variety of mechanisms have been suggested or discovered for the transport of invasive species into ecosystems by tourists and ecotourism. For example, plant seeds may be carried in the treads in the soles of shoes, in clothing, in vehicles and in faeces (Weaver, 2008). Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Direct Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Hiking Hiking is a common activity for ecotourists, even in very remote locations. While it may seem like a rather benign activity, Cole (2004) summarized the many ecological impacts of hiking. For example, trampling along trails and campsites can cause abrasion of vegetation, abrasion of the organic soil horizons, and compaction of soils. These may then create cascading and interconnected impacts, such as the abrasion of soil leading to reduced plant vigour, reduced plant reproduction, lower plant species recruitment and, ultimately reduced vegetation cover. The abrasion of the organic soil level can cause a loss of soil surface detritus and lower level of soil organisms. Each of these can, in turn, exacerbate the cascading impacts on plants and vegetation cover. The compaction of soils may lead to reduced soil permeability for air and water, leading in turn to the cascading vegetation impacts as well as an increase in water runoff and erosion. This runoff and erosion can cause a loss of soil sediments and the ultimate contamination of streams and wetlands. It can also lead to a loss of soil nutrients which, in turn, reduces soil fertility which adds to the cascading vegetation impacts. Thus, the simple act of trampling may produce a series of potential long-term ecological impacts. Buckley (2001) summarized and synthesized research about the impacts of trampling and these insights can inform the management of hiking in natural areas. For example, the impacts of trampling vary enormously between different ecosystems so management approaches for one location may not be applicable in other locations. However, if trampling is heavy enough, every ecosystem will exhibit plant death and soil erosion. Fortunately, if the trampling ceases, at least some recovery will occur, although considerable time may be required in some ecosystems. It has been found that the impacts of trampling do not generally extend much beyond the trail although the creation of new trails and trailing widening can be a problem, particularly when mountain bikers and horseback riders also use the trail. Indeed, mountain bikers and horseback riders cause far more trail damage than hikers. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Direct Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Diving In some ecotourism destinations and operations, diving is a central activity. Unfortunately, there are a number of ecological impacts associated with diving, particularly on benthic organisms. Some of the most worrisome impacts are on reefs. For example, Zazakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) found extensive damage to benthic organisms on reefs that had intensive diving activity. Chung et al. (2013) found that the rigid structures of corals were frequently fractured and the soft bodies of other benthic species were abraded. Continuing damage to the reefs made the corals more susceptible to predation, limited their growth and reduced reef complexity (Guzner et al., 2010; Lamb et al., 2014; Lyons et al. 2015). Even though these impacts are influenced by the growth in the popularity of the activity and the resultant number of relatively inexperienced divers (Garrod & Wilson, 2003), Harriott et al. (1997) found that a disproportion amount of the damage was caused by a small number of inexperienced divers. Despite the findings of Harriott et al., Roche et al. (2016) found that most divers contributed to the impacts: they found that 88% of the divers in their study (n=100) made contact with a reef at least once in every dive. It is apparent that this is a problem that demands further responsible diving education. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Indirect Ecological Impacts: Transit Effects Climate change is currently one of, if not the, most worrisome environmental concerns. This is principally the result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2023). Tourism accounts for about 8% of anthropogenic CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions and 20% of tourism-related CO2 emissions are produced by air travel (Lenzen et al., 2018). Thus, the transit effects of tourism, or the impact of simply getting to the destination, are a significant contributor to the processes of climate change. Reducing these emissions is also difficult because greenhouse gas emissions from international air transportation and bunker shipping are excluded from the Paris Agreement, an international agreement on combatting climate change (Lenzen et al., 2018). Understanding the transit effects of ecotourism is somewhat more complicated than understanding the impacts for tourism in general. This is because researchers who focus on ecotourism have typically concentrated on the destinations rather than the impacts of ecotourism-related travel (Hall, 2013). However, most ecotourists arrive at their destination by jet airliner and most of these involve long-haul routes (McLaren, 2003; Weaver, 2002). Thus, while tourists involved in mass tourism make up most of tourism’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (Weaver, 2008), ecotourists contribution to greenhouse gas emissions are proportionally little different than those of other tourists. However, ecotourism’s definition and goals demand recognition of and, whenever possible, mitigation of its impacts. As Higham and Lück (2007) point out, though, ecotourists’ transit effects are typically not acknowledged by either the ecotourist or the ecotourist operators. Weaver (2002) noted, however, that some ecotourism operators plant trees in an effort to offset the CO2 emissions of their clients. Such mitigation efforts may be ecologically inappropriate, particularly if they involve reforestation in prairie or savanna ecosystems, and may have genetic consequences when non-local provenances are introduced (see, for example, Hufford & Mazer, 2003). It is important to recognize that this paradox about ecotourists’ recognition of their transit effects may be changing. In a more recent study, Lee and Koo (2020) found that, when asked directly about the impacts of their travelling, young Australian ecotourists (average age of 21.6) would acknowledge the ecological impact of their travelling. When asked about their willingness to pay for carbon offsets for their travelling, Lee and Koo found that the ecotourists were generally willing to pay for carbon offsets if the offset program was certified. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Indirect Ecological Impacts: Induced Building As discussed in the direct ecological impacts section, ecotourism operators require a variety of structures to support their operations. This is true even for hard ecotourism, even though the demands might not be as extensive as those that might be required for soft ecotourism. There are a variety of structures that are indirectly related to ecotourism operations. The concerns for these kinds of construction projects are very similar to those discussed in the direct ecological impacts section. However, there may be offsite induced building of employee accommodations as well as the infrastructure required to support these accommodations. Such induced building may have immediate connection to the operation of the ecotourism development. For example, in studies in the United States and Australia, Moss (2006) found that ecotourism developments may serve to highlight the natural amenities of the surrounding area, thereby stimulating the construction of residences for retirees and amenity migrants. A number of ecological impacts may result from this induced building although the ecological consequences can be quite varied. For example, Honey (1999) examined the substantial increase in the numbers of people living near the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica attracted by the growth in the number of jobs related to ecotourism development. Thus, these economic migrants may not share the values of ecotourism or the Reserve. This unplanned development in the surrounding villages and along access roads resulted in loss, fragmentation and degradation of natural habitat as well as increased air and water pollution. Induced building resulting from amenity migration may mirror some of these impacts although they can also be qualitatively different. In their desire to maintain the aesthetics of the natural amenities that attracted them, these amenity migrants often hold pro-environmental values (Jones et al., 2003). Indeed, they may promote pro-environmental values in existing, long-time residents (Smith & Krannich, 2000). These pro-environmental values often spur restoration efforts of degraded land and waters (Abrams et al., 2012). These restoration efforts may aid conservation efforts in adjacent protected areas by creating a buffer zone of typically lower quality habitat (Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002). At the same time, these restoration efforts may have little benefit or even lower habitat quality while enhancing habitat fragmentation. This occurs when the aesthetic preferences of the amenity migrants are different from those associated with the local native species and their habitat requirements (Abrams et al., 2012; Gosnell et al. 2007). Thus, whether induced building is the result of economic in-migrants or amenity migrants, there are potential ecological impacts. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Indirect Ecological Impacts: Encouraging Less Benign Forms of Tourism Even though ecotourism is defined, in part, as ecologically sustainable, it can potentially lead to less sustainable forms of tourism. In lesson one, we defined ecotourism and identified the core principles of ecotourism: sustainability, education, a nature base and a conservation mandate (Fennell, 2020). We also discussed the prolonged search for a suitable definition of ecotourism. A commonly used definition begins, in part, “Ecotourism is a form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas …” (Honey, 2008, p.32-33). As discussed in lesson 3, the use of the word “pristine” can be deceptive because there are virtually no pristine natural areas remaining. However, it is a useful marketing term for ecotourism because it invokes the image of an unspoiled wilderness. Thus, ecotourism operations are frequently developed in relatively remote locations offering many natural amenities. As we have discussed in the discussion about the impacts of induced building, such natural amenities attract the attention of more people than just ecotourism operators and ecotourists. Ecotourism may lead to less benign forms of tourism. To examine the process through which this may happen, Weaver (2008) applied Butler’s (1980) concept of a tourist area’s cycle of evolution (see figure 4.08). Within Butler’s conception model, a tourist destination begins with an exploration phase: small numbers of tourists begin to visit an area. These initial tourists typically make their own travel arrangements, visit irregularly, and use whatever accommodations and services already exist at the destination. As visitor numbers increase and visits become more regular, local residents begin to provide accommodations and services intentionally constructed to serve the visitors. This is the involvement phase. If tourist numbers increase, the destination enters the development phase. Within this phase, marketing of the destination increases substantially. Larger and more elaborate tourist facilities are developed as locally-owned facilities disappear. As this occurs, the involvement of local residents as well as their control over the local amenities declines rapidly. Ultimately, the destination enters the consolidation phase and the rate of increase in the number of visitors declines although the total number of visitors continues to increase. Once total numbers of visitors no longer continues to increase, the destination enters the stagnation phase. As environmental, socio-cultural and economics problems appear, the abilities of local decision-makers will determine if the destination is rejuvenated, retains its appeal for visitors or declines in popularity. In Weaver’s application of Butler’s concept to ecotourism, the exploration phase is characterized by the pioneering visits by hard ecotourists. As the destination increases in popularity, the involvement phase sees the appearance of basic services as well as the opening up of access to popular local attractions and natural amenities. If popularity continues to increases, intensive tourism development begins and soft ecotourists begin to outnumber and eventually replace the hard ecotourists. From this stage, it is a small step to environmentally unsustainable mass tourism. Thus, the pioneering efforts of environmentally conscious hard ecotourists serves as a “Trojan Horse” (Butler, 1989, p. 9) for environmentally worrisome mass tourism. Figure 4.08. A graph based on Butler’s (1980) tourist area life cycle. Modified from an image by Coba56. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 4.0. Ecological Impacts: The Impacts of Ecotourism Indirect Ecological Impacts: Placing an Economic Value on Nature Providing an economic value on nature is most certainly not unusual: consumptive uses of natural resources often result in placing a monetary value on nature or components of nature. Indeed, as discussed in lesson three, we examined how such valuation can promote the conservation of natural areas. Indeed, wildlife management strategies in many countries frequently relied on the conservation of one or a few species in the hope that the conservation of such umbrella species would result in the conservation of the ecosystems within which their habitat exists (Caro, 2003; Caro & Girling, 2010; Wilcox, 1984). The assumption was that the greater the area required to conserve the habitat of these umbrella species, the more background or non-target species would be protected (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967; Rosenzweig, 2003). Unfortunately, this conservation does not always work as expected (see, for example Carlisle, 2018). In ecotourism, the umbrella species conservation strategy is often attempted but is sometimes distorted by the economic value of species as reflected by their popularity with clients. As Weaver (2008) points out, ecotourists tend to prefer to see charismatic megafauna. For example, in Africa, ecotourists place high value on seeing the Big Five animals, a term first applied to large game animals that were popular with European sport hunters. As Caro and Riggio (2014) point out, the “Big Five” actually describes six separate species: lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Pantera pardus), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) and African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana). Because of the popularity and economic value of these species of charismatic megafauna in attracting ecotourism clients, managers of protected areas often prioritize the conservation of these species, often to the detriment of less charismatic species (Hausmann et al., 2017). By creating a hierarchy of conservation priorities based on economic value to ecotourist visitors, ecosystem dynamics may be negatively impacted (Weaver, 2008). The presence of these charismatic species may also result in an increase in the popularity of the area, resulting in the more direct ecological impacts to that area (Hausmann et al., 2017). At the same time, the absence or low density of charismatic megafauna may limit popularity of other protected areas, thus potentially restricting the funding of conservation efforts (Goodwin & Leader-Williams, 2000). Thus, the valuation of nature and the creation of a valuation hierarchy of species may have significant impacts on conservation efforts and the creation of direct ecological impacts. Conclusion Ecotourism was founded on the goal of lessening the ecological impacts that had become readily apparent in mass tourism. However, as we have seen, both direct and indirect ecological impacts persist in ecotourism. Some, like the transit effects from getting to the ecotourism destination are often ignored. Others are readily apparent. To address these ecological impacts, they must be identified, understood, monitored and mitigated. Doing this is essential for the future of ecotourism and failure to address these impacts may have repercussions for the entire tourism industry. The challenge is great, though, because of the diversity of ecosystems, the site-specific nature of many ecological problems and the need for mitigations that are ecologically appropriate while being economically and socio-culturally acceptable. In the next lesson, we will continue focusing on the relationship between ecotourism and ecology. However, rather than examining the ecological impacts of ecotourism, we will focus on ecological conservation and ecotourism. In this lesson, we will discuss the foundations of how we view nature, the history of conservation efforts and the emergence of parks, and finally, the challenges of ecological conservation. Lesson 5 Lesson 5 Introduction It may seem rather obvious to point out that most forms of nature-based tourism, including ecotourism, are founded on the existence of natural areas within which they can focus or base their activities. However, once we begin to examine this statement a little more deeply, things quickly become less obvious. For example, what is “natural?” While this may seem like a rather philosophical question, it has very practical implications for satisfying the expectations of ecotourists. A hard ecotourist undoubtedly has different expectations than a soft ecotourist. We may also need to examine if a natural area is synonymous with a park. If you grew up in a city, you may think of a park as a neighbourhood greenspace with carefully mowed grass, paved walkways and playground equipment. Indeed, your idea of a park may not even include greenspace. You may also think of a park as a conserved remnant or restored patch of a regional or local ecosystem. However, such remnants may not be always described as parks: in Ontario, many such conserved remnants or restored patches are described as “conservation areas.” Thus, while this lesson uses the title “Parks and Conservation” to match the chapter title in your textbook, it is useful to remember that “park” is a term with various meanings. Figure 5.01. Gunnersbury Park in the city of London in the United Kingdom. As in many urban parks, nature here is highly managed. Image by stevekeiretsu. Retrieved from flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. In this lesson and the matching chapter in your textbook, we will also examine the nature of conservation, its history, its relationships to parks, and its role in ecotourism. As we discussed in lesson 3, conservation and preservation are often used interchangeably, even though they reflect rather different philosophies and practices. Given that ecotourism involves the non-consumptive and, to some extent, the consumptive use of natural resources, ecotourism is dependent of conservation. Therefore, in this lesson, we will also build on the brief discussion about conservation in lesson 3 to further examine the role of conservation in ecotourism and the evolution of parks. The Exploitation of the Natural World In our previous lessons, we have discussed the nature of ecotourism as well as its emergence as a solution to criticisms of mass tourism. So far, this discussion has not examined the roots of this criticism. However, understanding these roots is important not only for understanding the emergence of ecotourism but for understanding the sustainability of ecotourism: does ecotourism reflect a paradigm shift in the dominant societies’ relationships with nature or is it simply a faddish reaction to specific criticisms of mass tourism (Weaver, 2008)? While many of us are loath to admit it, the emergence of ecotourism in the 1980s can now be considered to be a rather long time ago. However, if ecotourism were to fade away in the immediate future, it would likely be remembered as little more than a footnote in the history of tourism. Thus, in this section of the lesson, we will try to gain insights into the sustainability of ecotourism by examining it roots more deeply. In lesson 4, it was claimed that “all human activities have environmental impacts” (Antarctic Treaty, 1990, p.1). If we assume the worst possible implication of this claim, it would suggest a rather hopeless future for the environment and for humans. However, not all impacts are equal in scale or level of impact. For example, a current examination of southern Ontario would reveal profound transformations and many ecological impacts that have occurred since the beginning of extensive colonization by European settlers over the last 250 years (Larson et al., 1999). As Larson et al. (1999) point out, the first hundred years of non-Native settlement in southern Ontario was characterized by almost complete deforestation of the region. Such massive impacts were not experienced in the long history of Native settlement of southern Ontario: as Warrick (2012) notes, “The recent ancestors of the [Anishinaabe] and the [Haudenosaunee] lived lightly on the land, in a truly sustainable manner” (p. 158). Therefore, it is readily apparent that different societies and different cultures possess different views about nature and humans’ relation with nature. This critical insight was expressed concisely by Macnaghten and Urry (1998) when they stated that “there is no single ‘nature,’ only natures” (p. 95). The implication of multiple views of nature on nature tourism are worth exploring. The Earth’s Bounty: The Christian Roots of Western Views of Nature Despite the diversity of natures, it has been widely argued that nature tourism and ecotourism are firmly rooted in dominant Western perspectives of nature (Cater, 2006; Fennell, 2020; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Weaver, 2008). In your textbook, Fennell (2020) refers to White’s (1967) much-cited article about the roots of Western views about nature and how these views lead to contemporary environmental problems. White suggested that the Western view of nature was based on Christian beliefs which, in turn, was founded on Judaism. This belief system gave humans dominion over all of nature and set aside nature solely to serve humans’ purposes. Indeed, White claimed that “in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen” (p. 1205). White also suggests that this anthropocentric focus of Christianity provided a strong and continuing foundation of scientific thinking and insight. Finally, White argues that the influence of Christianity so tainted Western science that it cannot be relied upon to solve ecological problems. “Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone” (White, 1967, p. 1207). While White’s indictment of Christianity in ecological problems was widely supported by ecologists at the time, at least anecdotally (Wright, 1970), a discussion about White’s assertions would not be complete without recognizing the criticisms of the indictment. For example, Wright (1970) suggests that White’s thesis is based on a superficial understanding of Christianity, lacks any reference to Christian texts or the Bible to support its claims, and its rejection of science-based solutions to ecological problems is inconsistent with the goals of ecology. Despite these criticisms or, perhaps, because of them, White’s article continues to be referenced in scientific articles (see, for example, Spampatti et al., 2024) as well as criticisms of White’s thesis (see, for example, George, 2022). In your textbook, Fennell (2020) highlights the influence of Christianity in the social construction of the concept of wilderness and the importance of the idea of wilderness in how we perceive and/or imagine nature. The concept of wilderness is so imbedded within Western cultures that many within these cultures simply assume the wilderness is synonymous with nature (Short, 1991). However, as Nash (1982) points out, there is no thing or space that can be identified as wilderness. Rather, wilderness exists as part of a dichotomy arising out of Christian and Jewish texts (Elliston, 2016). Within these traditions, wilderness exists not merely as the binary opposite to the settled but as the opposite of civilization. Wilderness exists at the margins of the world of humans as something to be feared yet also as something that must be embraced and conquered (Elliston, 2016). As De Corteau (2000) describes it, within the Western context, wilderness is “a biological limitation that must be surmounted” (p. 93). Thus, to the Western colonizer as to the ecotourist, a wilderness is as much a spiritual journey as a physical one: a challenge to be met and conquered. It is useful to understand the influence that Christianity has had in shaping Western science and the resulting dominant Western environmental paradigm (Knill, 1991). However, the direct influence of Christianity is unquestionably much diminished. As Knill (1991) notes, the hierarchy of nature that placed God at the top, followed by angels and then humans, has been truncated by Western science, removing God and leaving humans at the top. As we shall see, the emergence and increasingly popularity of ecotourism is suggestive of a paradigm shift. A Paradigm Shift? As we discussed in earlier lessons, by the early 1970s, it was readily apparent that there were some significant problems with mass tourism and that it was likely unsustainable. These realizations did not happen in isolation from other criticisms of the dominant Western environmental paradigm. Indeed, there had been increasing criticism of the characteristics of this paradigm (see figure 5.02) throughout the 1960s (Rome, 2003). For example, concerns over a broad range of environmental issues as well as concerns over some qualities of the dominant Western environmental paradigm, such as its focus on patriarchal decision making, found particular resonance with middle-class women in the United States during the 1960s, leading to increasing environmental activism among a variety of women’s groups in the United States (Rome, 2003). During this time, there was little focus on environmental issues from constituent groups of the New Left: much of their focus had been on civil rights, social justice and anti-war activism (Lyons, 1996; Woodhouse, 2009). However, by the early 1970s, New Left groups focused more attention on environmental issues and was instrumental in expanding criticisms of the characteristics of the dominant Western environmental paradigm, although that term would be decades away from being coined. While the New Left did not establish a coherent alternative to the existing paradigm, it was instrumental in progressing the criticisms and spurring others to become involved. By the 1980s, a variety of left-wing or left-leaning environmental perspectives, movements and philosophies had contributed to what was evolving into a coherent alternative to the dominant Western environmental paradigm. Knill (1991) recognizes the contributions of social ecology, deep ecology, eco-feminism and Gaia in establishing the foundations of this new paradigm. A variety of names for this new paradigm have been proposed. A variety of names were proposed in anticipation of the eventual paradigm: the “new environmental paradigm” (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978, p. 10), the “new ecological paradigm” (Dunlap et al., 2000, p. 425) and the “green paradigm” (Knill, 1991, p.52). The ubiquitous use of “green” to refer to generic environmental consciousness and the preference of “green paradigm” with ecotourism scholars, such as Weaver (2008), underlies its use here. Dominant Western Environmental Paradigm Green Paradigm Humans are apart from nature Humans are a part of nature Humans are superior to nature Humans are equal to other parts of nature Patriarchal/androcentrism Matriarchal/gynocentrism Capitalistic Socialistic Emphasis on hierarchical structures Emphasis on communal organization Emphasis on competition Emphasis on cooperation Emphasis on hard technologies Emphasis on soft technologies Need for linear progress and growth Emphasis on steady-state sustainability Reality can be objectively determined Reality is subjectively determined Reality is orderly Reality is chaotic Reality can be compartmentalized Reality must be examined holistically The future is predictable The future is unpredictable Figure 5.02. A comparison of qualities of the dominant Western environmental paradigm with the qualities of the green paradigm as ideal types. Adapted from Weaver (2008) and Weaver and Lawton (2006). In comparing the characteristics of the dominant Western environmental paradigm with those of the green paradigm (see figure 5.02), it is important recognize that these are ideal types. Weaver (2008) notes that during the transition between paradigms, the newly dominant paradigm is often as synthesis of the old and the new paradigms. Kuhn (1996) argued that such a synthesis is typical of a paradigm shift as supporters of the old paradigm grudgingly try to accommodate elements of the new paradigm that do not contradict with their existing belief systems. The Roots of Conservation In this part of the lesson, we will examine a representative summary of the roots of conservation, at least within a Western context. It is important to make this qualification at the outset of this discussion. While the dominant Western environmental paradigm has been influential beyond the regions typically considered part of the West, many other countries, cultures and societies have very different traditions, histories and practices for the conservation of natural resources. For example, it has been widely documented that many Indigenous societies and cultures embrace conservation practices as integral parts of their cultural practices and belief systems (see, for example, Gadgil et al., 1993). However, as Diamond (1991) and Gadgil et al. (1993) point out, not all Indigenous cultures share similar beliefs and not all have lived in what might described as “harmony” with their natural environments. It is also important to highlight the qualification that this discussion is a selective summary of the roots of conservation. There is much research published and innumerable tomes written about the roots and history of conservation in the West. It is beyond the scope or focus of this course to provide a comprehensive overview of this topic. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) frames the discussion about the Western roots of conservation using Ortolano’s (1984) suggestion that conservation in North America evolved out of the growing need to maintain harmony with nature; increasing concerns about finite natural resources and the need to use them efficiently; and the influence of the Romantic movement’s emphasis on the spiritual qualities of nature. Fennell’s summary provides many useful insights that everyone who studies ecotourism should understand. However, in this lesson, we will supplement this summary with some additional insights. Like Fennell’s discussion, this part of the lesson will focus primarily on the roots of conservation in North America. This discussion about the roots of conservation in North America will begin in Europe. Choosing this as a starting point is done with great care because of the long and problematic history of framing our understanding of the Americas within the context of Europe. In this case, though, beginning this discussion in Europe provides useful context for understanding Western roots of conservation as a tool for understanding ecotourism. The conservation of natural resources in Europe evolved gradually (Peterkin, 1981). Over time, the landscapes were transformed by intensive agriculture and settlement, conservation reserves for the elite, and intensively managed common lands in which most conservation efforts had to be reconciled with economic activities (Peterkin, 1981; Rosenzweig, 2003b). Although sometimes qualitatively different, the Indigenous peoples of what would later be called North America were also practicing conservation land management (see, for example, Anderson & Moratto, 1996; Denevan, 1992; Mann, 2005; Oswald et al., 2020). However, the extent of the landscape modification is still debated (Denevan, 2011). For this discussion, though, the more relevant point is that, following initial contact with Europeans, there was rapid and massive depopulation throughout much of North America from what Callicott (1994) described as “inadvertent biological warfare” (p. 10). By the time that the European settlers began to arrive in North America, they were greeted by profoundly transformed landscapes. Indigenous peoples were still present, albeit in significantly reduced populations. To the European settlers, having been accustomed to relatively high populations in much of Europe and expansive cultural landscapes, North America seemed like a continent of untouched wilderness. While natural resources had become increasingly scarce with restricted access for most people, North America appeared to be a land of inexhaustible forests and limitless other natural resources to be discovered (Callicott, 1994; Denevan, 1992). Thus, the establishment of European settlement in North America also established two founding myths: the myth of a virgin wilderness and the myth of superabundance (Callicott, 1994). While these two myths would eventually be dispelled, they played in important role in ecological conservation movements in North America. Of these two, the most persistent myth has been the myth of the virgin wilderness: it endured well into the 20th century (Callicott, 1994). To the perceptions of the European settlers, the experience of landscapes that had been significantly depopulated of Indigenous peoples allowed them to believe that “the past of the wilderness stretched back to creation itself, untouched by human civilization. The virgin nature was as close as man (sic) could ever hope to get to the primal state of the world” (Talbot, 1969, 152). Thus, the myth of the virgin wilderness was intimately connected to the concept of the frontier: as the American frontier expanded and seemingly new virgin wildernesses were settled, the myth of the virgin wilderness was rejuvenated. Eventually, the myth was dispelled as an immensely long histories of Indigenous peoples’ influences on the American landscapes became too plentiful to dismiss. Figure 5.03. Title page from the first edition of Henry David Thoreau’s Walden; or, Life in the Woods (1854), first published by Ticknor and Fields. Unknown author. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. Public domain. The myth of superabundance was not nearly as long-lived as the myth of the virgin wilderness: it was the first to be dispelled. Natural resources that once seemed limitless to the settlers became increasingly scarce as a result of massive deforestation and clearance of the land; unregulated subsistence, sport and commercial hunting and fishing mining; damming of waterways; and the exhaustion and erosion of farmland. For a while, the myth persisted as settlers spread westward and new resources became available. However, by the second half of the 19th century, the first American recognition of the need for conservation (beyond the many unheeded pleas of Indigenous peoples) were being presented. The first influential call for conservation is generally attributed to George Perkins Marsh who noted the impacts of expanding settlement and unregulated exploitation of natural resources. Marsh (1874) proposed an American version of ancient Biblical justifications for careful stewardship: “Man (sic) has too long forgotten that the earth was given to him for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste” (p. 33). Some researchers, such as Lowenthal (2000), downplay Marsh’s ultimate influence on conservation efforts and philosophies in America in favour of more Romantic American writers of the 19th century. However, others highlight Marsh’s understanding of both ecology and American culture and identify him as the “architect of American conservation” (Judd, 2004, p.169). The American romantic authors, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, played a pivotal role on the creation of an American philosophy. While they lacked the ecological insights of Marsh, they understood American’s increasing concern for the “aesthetic, psychological and spiritual paucity of the prevailing American materialism and vulgar materialism” (Callicott, 1994, p. 4). The remedy that both prescribed lay in the spiritual rejuvenation that can only be experienced in wild nature (Callicott, 1994): part of the rapidly disappearing American wilderness must be preserved before it was defiled by progress and industry. It was this argument about the importance of spiritual renewal through nature, often referred to in the Victorian-era interpretation of the concept of the sublime, which led to the creation of the first national park, Yellowstone, in 1872 (Muir, 1898: Nye, 2003). It is important to emphasize the importance of the creation of Yellowstone and the role of a distinctively American interpretation of the sublime. Together, they founded not only an American philosophy of conservation but a global conservation movement (Fromme, 1992; Nye, 2003; Smith, 2004). Figure 5.04. A bird’s eye pictorial map of Yellowstone Park by Henry Welge (1850-1917), from the David Rumsey Map Collection. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. Public domain. Despite the lofty philosophies behind Yellowstone’s creation, the American government was unsure what to do with it. A national park was a new concept as were the emerging conservation movements. For a time, responsibility for Yellowstone passed between several federal government departments, including the War Department, and was pressured from commercial interests, such as the Northern Pacific Railroad, to develop the Yellowstone (Smith, 2004). Such conflicts over the role of parks would become almost universal: they began as, and continue to be, landscapes of ideology (Meinig, 1979) where competing governing ideas and philosophies are played out (Smith, 2004). Ultimately, though, the technology that threatened Yellowstone ensured its conservation: with the railroad, an ever increasing number of Americans were able to experience the sublime nature of Yellowstone. “The battle waged by park supporters elevated the ecological and aesthetic values of wildlands to new heights and infused the idea of a national park with relatively new concerns about watershed sanctity and habitat protection. No longer was Yellowstone considered worthless—it had become a contested landscape—known to have a vast potential for tourism development, possibilities for settlement, and nearby mineral resources. Yet these traditional values were subordinated, as Americans became aware of the wildlands being protected and Yellowstone became a sacred place” (Smith, 2004, p. 23). Through the battles over the first national park, a distinctly American sublime emerged that would define American’s attitude towards parks, conservation, tourism and, ultimately, ecotourism even after the word “sublime” had faded from popular use. As Nye (2003) observes “… the American sublime fused with religion, nationalism and technology, diverging in practice significantly from European theory. It ceased to be a philosophical idea and became submerged in practice. In keeping with democratic tradition, the American sublime was for all … Rather than the result of solitary communion with nature, the sublime became an experience organized for tourists.” (p.43). The Roots of Conservation in Canada Before we end our examination of the roots of conservation with emphasis on the emergence of North American conservation, it is worthwhile to specifically exam the roots of conservation in Canada. As Gillis and Roach (1986) note, conservation in Canada was influenced by some of the conservation efforts and attitudes in the United State during the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. However, Canada at the time lacked eloquent Romantic writers to espouse a distinctly Canadian definition of the sublime. At a time when Americans were beginning to appreciate their diminishing natural resources and wilderness and its impact on their identity, Canada was actively promoting settlement with advertisements and promotions in Europe. These promotions heralded the abundance of natural resources in Canada (Colpitts, 1998). The message to potential immigrants was one of natural abundance that could provide wealth for the newcomers. Preserved specimens and wildlife dioramas were sent to European cities to display the natural abundance and museums were established in Canada to educate newcomers about the available game (Colpitts, 1998). The only significant organized conservation efforts at this time came from the commercial interests of Canada’s then lucrative forestry sector (Gillis & Roach, 1986): they sought to protect forest resources from the rapid influx of immigrants. The message of Canada as a land of abundant natural resources available for the taking was not just directed at Europeans, As large game became increasingly scarce in the United States and conservation movements began to emerge to protect what remained, sport hunters came to Canada to ride across the Canadian west in CPR parlour cars on hunting tours, searching for “gameland our fathers lost” (Irland, 1896, cited in Oppel, 1988, p. 275.) Their goal was to hunt the remaining North American wildlife before it completely disappeared (Martindale, 1897). These hunting tours as well as advertisements to prospective immigrants about abundant resources in Canada contrasted starkly with the growing conservation movements elsewhere in the Western countries, including the United States. Some authors have noted that Canada lacked the critical conservation advocates for conservation and that any conservation efforts were merely the work of a few government bureaucrats (see, for example, Burnett, 2003; Foster, 1998). However, some popular conservation advocates have emerged in Canada, even though they often maintained a focus of economic and sport hunting interests. For example, Loo (2006) describes the popular activities of Jack Miner and his efforts to conserve migratory waterfowl, particularly the Canada goose. While Miner’s advocacy, as well as his “folksy demeanour and rural mannerisms” (Sandlos, 2013, p. 364) won him significant national and international fame and support during his cause, his conservation goals were primarily utilitarian (Loo, 2006). An equally well-known advocate for conservation in Canada during the 1920s and 1930s was Archie Belaney, an English immigrant to Canada who fraudulently passed himself as Grey Owl, an Indigenous person in Canada (Sandlos, 2013). Although Belaney’s primary focus was on the conservation of game animals, particularly the beaver, he did advocate for the conservation of wildlife in national parks. Had Belaney not been exposed as an imposter, he may have had a much greater influence on the development of a Canadian conservation movement (Loo, 2006). Canada’s first national park was Banff National Park in Alberta. In keeping with the underlying economic motivations of Canada’s early conservation movement, Banff began as a railway town in the Bow River Valley along the Canadian Pacific Railways route through the Rocky Mountains. In 1883, railway workers found a geothermal hot springs at the base of what would eventually be called Sulphur Mountain (Nelles & Armstrong, 2013). With the promise of an attractive tourist destination to help fund the Canadian Pacific Railway, a construction project that was a profoundly expensive investment for the still young country of Canada, in 1885, the CPR lobbied for the creation of a reserve to protect the hot springs and to ensure its continuation as a tourist attract along the railway (Binnema & Niemi, 2006). In response, the Government of the Dominion of Canada established the Banff Hot Springs Reserve in a 26 km2 area around the hot springs (Binnema & Niemi, 2006). In 1887, the area was enlarged to 673 km2 and the reserve was reclassified as a park: Rocky Mountains Park (Binnema & Niemi, 2006). In 1902 it was expanded yet again, right up to the edge of the Stoney Reserve (Luxton, 2008). By 1930, the park had grown to 6,697 km2 and was renamed Banff National Park. Figure 5.05. Moraine Lake, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Image by Diana Robinson. Retrieved from flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Ultimately, the emergence of a distinct conservation movement in Canada is still debated. While Canada’s conservation movement and nature tourism sector focused heavily on economic considerations, some researchers, such as Sandlos, 2013) argue that the American conservation movement eventually lost its focus on the sublime interaction with nature and focused, instead on economic considerations. The opposite has also been argued: Canada’s conservation movement was eventually influenced by later American conservationists, such as Aldo Leopold (2006). While Leopold is best remembered for his influence on game management, his emphasis on science and ecology arguably made the Canadian conservation movement somewhat less sentimental and patriotic than the American movement. Parks and Protected Areas Categories of Protected Areas In our discussion about the history of conservation, we examined the origins of the first national park in the United States, Yellowstone National Park, as well as Canada’s first national park, Banff National Park. Since then, the number of parks has expanded significantly: at the time when this was written, the United States Parks Service listed 413 units, or parks of various designations, covering approximately 343,983.5 km2 (National Park Service, 2024). In Canada, there 37 national parks and 11 national park reserves covering approximately 343,377 km2 (Parks Canada, 2024). Since the creation of the first national park, many more have been created in many other countries, although a reliable count of the number of national parks is unavailable due the complexity of distinguishing national parks from other types of protected areas and the flexibility with which many countries use the term “national park” (Dudley, 2013). This highlights the challenges of distinguishing different types of protected areas. This is not simply a bureaucratic issue. Categorizing a park helps to establish management practices and priorities. For ecotourists and other types of tourists, the designation can also determine the types of allowed activities and sets out any limitations on activities and where they may occur. In the following list, we will examine the IUCN classification system for protected areas on the land or in the ocean/sea. This system is generally accepted as the international standard for categorizing protected areas. The categories range for I to VI: the lower the category number, the stricter the protection, the more limited the allowable human modification and intervention. These categories are examined in more detail in Dudley (2013), from page 13 to 23. Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve This category is intended to provide the highest level of protection in order to conserve regionally, nationally or globally significant species, ecosystems, and/or geodiversity. Alternatively, this category may be used to designate natural areas that are critical for scientific research or environmental monitoring. Although this category is used to protect natural features created by non-human forces, it may be used to secure natural areas with significant cultural or spiritual values. Strict Nature Reserves are often small, although large examples do exist. Visitation to natural areas with this designation are strictly controlled and limited. The only ecotourist who are likely to be allowed to visit a strict nature reserve would be hard ecotourists involved in scientific research. These hard ecotourists are typically associated with volunteer non-profit agencies, universities or government agencies (Weaver, 2008). Category Ib: Wilderness Area This category designates protected areas that are typically large, unmodified or slightly modified natural areas that retain their natural character or influence on environmental/ecological processes. They must not include permanent or significant human habitation. The primary objective of this category is to preserve the integrity of natural areas that that remain largely undisturbed by human activities or infrastructure. These areas are also intended to protect wilderness-based lifestyles of Indigenous communities, to protect cultural and/or spiritual values of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and to provide opportunities for low-impact educational activities and scientific research. Category Ib wilderness areas may occur within Category II national parks to protect large, largely undisturbed and functioning ecosystems. Visitation is limited and confined to those with the equipment and skills to survive without constructed infrastructure. Thus, the only ecotourists who would visit a wilderness area would be small numbers of hard ecotourists (Weaver, 2008). Category II: national park This is the most common category of protected area. The purpose of this category of protected areas is to set aside large natural or near-natural areas in order to protect large-scale ecological processes, to protect natural biodiversity, as well as the underlying ecological structures and processes. National parks are also intended to provide a foundation for scientific, educational and recreational opportunities within an environmentally and culturally appropriate context. They are also intended to support local economies by facilitating recreation and tourism, to accommodate the needs of Indigenous communities, including subsistence resource use, and protect large scale ecological processes that might be lost in smaller protected areas. Both hard and soft ecotourists are likely to visit national parks although the implementation of park zoning would typically limit soft ecotourists to sacrificial spaces and interpretation areas. Hard ecotourists represent a very small proportion of visitors to national parks and are generally considered to be a “fringe element” (Weaver, 2008, p.69) among visitors. Category II: natural monument or feature This category designates areas that contain one or more specific natural monuments, such as a landform; coastal, offshore or submarine feature; a living feature, such as ancient and/or sacred grove of trees; or a specific natural site with traditional spiritual or cultural importance. These sites are distinguished by their rarity, their aesthetic qualities and/or their cultural importance. Unlike the previous (i.e. lower numbered) categories, the term “natural” may refer to features that are entirely the result of natural processes or features that have been culturally-modified. These sites tend to be small but have high visitor value. Ecological conservation efforts do not typically focus on entire ecosystems but on the protection of ecological features and processes with direct impact on the natural monument or feature. Category IV: habitat/species management area The objective of a Category IV protected area is the maintenance, conservation and restoration of habitats necessary for the protection of specific target species. To meet this objective, active management is typically necessary to protect and restore landscape patches of vegetation or fragments of habitat in the seascape necessary for the species. The management plan will also typically involve public education about the species and its habitats, and the creation of alternative sites where tourists may still have contact with nature. Broader matrix management strategies to create stepping stones of habitat or conservation corridors may also be required. Management challenges are often greater within this category because it is often dealing with legally protected species-at-risk and because they are typically located in settled landscapes or near urban areas. Given the objective of Category IV protected areas and the frequent links to species-at-risk recovery strategies, these areas may not be compatible with ecotourism activities, although visitation for educational purposes may be allowed. Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources This category of protected area seeks to conserve ecosystems and biodiversity as well as the associated cultural values. It is also intended to provide a sustainable supply of natural resources based on traditional management practices and low-level, non-industrial consumptive uses of the natural resources. Conservation efforts must be compatible with traditional local belief systems, world-views and socio-economic practices. Management should facilitate recreation and small-scale tourism while providing scientific monitoring of biodiversity conservation and resource use. Category VI protected areas may offer opportunities for soft ecotourism but are typically incompatible with the goals and interests of hard ecotourists. here is an intimate relationship between ecotourism and protected areas. Indeed in many places, protected areas are inseparable from ecotourism activities: the protected areas not only define the types of ecotourism activities, they are the generally considered to be the cornerstones of regional, national and global conservation efforts for the nature upon which ecotourism depends (see, for example Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002; Rosenzweig, 2003b). The IUCN classification system not only provides essential information for the destinations sought out by ecotourists, it also helps shape protected area management decisions. However, there are criticisms about the reliability of the classification system. For example Leroux et al. (2010) found that IUCN categories were not consistently interpreted and some classifications were inconsistent with the objectives for those categories. It is important to note, however, that Leroux et al. did not suggest that the classification system be abandoned. Rather, they simply argue for more stringent quantitative criteria when evaluating protected area conditions. Conservation Issues and Challenges A comprehensive examination of the challenges and issues facing the conservation of biodiversity is beyond the scope of part of a lesson and part of a chapter in a textbook. Indeed, a single dedicated course about conservation challenges and issues or an entire textbook on the subject would be inadequate. It is an issue that defines entire disciplines, such as conservation biology or conservation ecology. Thus, this section of the lesson will not attempt to provide a comprehensive examination of the topic nor will it provide a summary of the very useful summary provided in the textbook. Rather we will focus on the challenge that is generally considered to be the most important one for the conservation of biodiversity: habitat loss (see, for example, McKinney, 2006; Miller, 2005; Pimm et al., 2014; Ricketts & Imhoff, 2003; Rosenzweig, 2003a, 2003b). To understand conservation, we must appreciate what is being conserved. As highlighted in Fennell (2020), the ultimate focus of ecological conservation is biodiversity. Indeed, the concepts of biodiversity and conservation have become so intertwined in common usage that the term “biodiversity” is often implicitly assumed to mean “conservation” (Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997). Like “conservation,” the term “biodiversity” is widely used yet lacks universal agreement on either its definition or application in practice (Fischer & Bliss 2006). Etymologically, “biodiversity” is little more than a catchy contraction of “biological diversity.” In its abbreviated form, the term has relatively recent origins: it traces its origins to Walter Rosen and the 1986 “National Forum on BioDiversity” in Washington, DC (Wilson 1988). Conceptually, however, the scholarly recognition of the diversity within living entities dates back at least to the Aristotelian classification of species (Jefferies 1997). Unfortunately, such a simple definition does not adequately reflect the complexity inherent within the concept (Lister 1998). The Global Biodiversity Strategy offers a slightly more informative definition: “biodiversity is the totality of genes, species and ecosystems within a region” (World Resources Institute et al. 1992, p. 2). Thus, while biodiversity is too often simply considered to refer to the number of species, it refers to the number and diversity of species, the diversity within those species and the diversity of assemblages or communities of species. Attempts to conserve biodiversity must address these myriad different diversities. Many threats to biodiversity have been identified in your textbook, Fennell (2020) lists some of them: loss of habitat, the spread in the number and extent of invasive species, pollution of all types, the growth in human populations and the over-harvesting of species. This is certainly not a comprehensive list, though. There are also overlaps, such as the loss of habitat and the growth in human populations. Despite the number of threats to biodiversity, conservation efforts must address all of them. Fortunately, ecotourism offers the motivation, the political will, and the financial incentives to address these challenges. Our focus will be on habitat loss, a conservation challenge that impacts of all three elements of biodiversity. The reason that habitat loss is considered to be the greatest threat is rooted in the species-area relationship and what Rosenzweig (2003a) describes as “the tyranny of space” (p. 101). The species-area relationship is arguably one of the oldest and the most fundamental rules in ecology (Lawton 1999). For those who find great enjoyment and comfort in mathematics (and who doesn’t?), the species-area relationship is S=CAZ , where S is the number of species in an area, A is the area and C and Z are constants that vary with the data sets. For those who do not find comfort in mathematics, it is not necessary to understand the relationship. A typical species-area relationship is shown in figure 5.13. Figure 5.13. The species-area relationship plotted on arithmetic axes and on log-log axes. Image by Adam B. Smith. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. Released to public domain (by author). At its simplest, the species area relationship says that the bigger the area, the more species you will have. The number of species in the area is dependent on the speciation rate, the immigration rate and the extinction rate. There are two key important things to know about the species-area relationship. One is that the shape of the curve (see the graph with the arithmetic axes) and the slope of the line (see the graph with the log-log axes) will vary depending on the type of area that we are comparing. When comparing continents of different areas, the slope of the line is at least 0.6 (i.e. 60%) but generally close to 1.0 (100%). When comparing chains of islands in an archipelago that are different areas, the slope will be typically be 0.3 (i.e. 30%) but may be as high as 0.55 (i.e. 55%). Finally, when comparing parts of continents called biogeographic provinces, the slope ranges from 0.6 (60%) up to 1.0 (100%). These slopes will be similar whether we are examining birds, insects, mammals, species of fish, or any category of wildlife. While this may seem complicated and technical, it is simply providing background for understanding loss of habitat. One insight is very similar to the law of diminishing returns. When you already have large areas, there will not be many more species if you increase the area, even if that increase is substantial. If you have very small areas, the loss of even a little more area will lead to significant declines in the number of species. This led us to the conclusion that relatively large protected areas will have many species but significantly larger protected areas will have little benefit. However, if you just have small protected areas, losing even more area will lead to profoundly lower number of species. Thus, large parks are relatively cost effective, but only to a point. The other insight began with an assumption: conservation reserves or parks were like islands of green in a sea of humans. This a logical assumption. Very few species tolerate human activities well (Rosenzweig, 2003a, 2003b). Most species will try to avoid humans and their activities as much as possible, particularly in the long term. Thus, settled areas were analogous to an ocean that some species could cross but few could remain for long. Therefore, our conservation policies have focused on creating islands of green. The species-area relationship for islands showed slopes of .3 to .55, suggesting small to medium-sized parks were sufficient to protect most species. Making very large parks or islands of green was not cost effective: the medium-sized parks would protect almost as many species as large parks. Unfortunately, our assumptions, and the conservation policies upon which they were based, were wrong. As far as the species-area relationship was concerned, parks did not behave like islands of green. They behave like geographic provinces with a slope of almost 1.0 (100%) (Rosenzweig, 2003a, 2003b): our species-area equation is effectively S = A. Our parks which once seemed like cost-efficient islands of habitat are now recognized as terribly inadequate biogeographic provinces. As Rosenzweig (2003a) notes: “The world of nature reserves is not an island but a shrunken province. Its source pool is the past. Species that become extinct in it cannot immigrate from the past to recolonize the world of the future … Lose 10% of the natural world’s surface and save 95% of its species. Lose 95% and save only 5% of the species” (p. 200). Estimates of how much natural land cover vary somewhat, but none are encouraging. For example, Plumptre et al. (2021) suggests that “only 11% of the functionally intact areas that were identified are included within existing protected areas” (p. 1). The implications of habitat loss and the species-area relationship will only be realized in the long-term. However, the process is occurring now. Many protected areas support only sink populations of many species. Consequently, many ecologists and biologists believe that the resulting mass extinction, only the sixth known mass extinction in Earth’s history, is currently underway (see, for example, Ceballos & Ehrlich, 2018; Cowie et al., 2022). Ecotourism can make important contributions in the efforts to overcome the bleak future predicted by the species-area relationship. Rosenzweig (2003a, 2003b) suggests that the solution to the tyranny of space lies in protecting the natural areas that remain, rehabilitating natural habitat and reconciling the habitat needs of many species in areas outside of the conservation reserves and parks. As we have seen, there are few intact natural areas remaining. However, ecotourism and a growing conservation ethic can provide a financial and ethical incentive to protect what is left. Similar motivations can promote the restoration and rehabilitation of degraded habitat. Finally, the diversity of different categories of protected areas allow for a variety of opportunities to reconcile human activities with the habitat needs of at least some more species than is currently possible, leaving the conservation reserves explicitly for the protection of those species with significant intolerance of humans. Conclusion In this lesson and in the textbook readings, we have examined the roots of Western views of nature and the current conflict between competing perspectives on the West’s relationship with nature: the dominant Western paradigm and the green paradigm. We have also examined the roots of the conservation movements in North America. This emphasis on the West and North America is partially a reflection of the emphasis of the textbook. However, it is also a reflection of the historical influence of people from Western countries on the ecotourism market. Through colonization and their historical global influence on popular culture, the countries and cultures of the West have had some impacts on other peoples’ relationships with nature. Despite this, many cultures have very different relationships with nature than the ones discussed in this lesson. Indeed, the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island traditionally have much more intimate relationships with nature than the one reflected in the dominant Western environmental paradigm. Although ecotourism, as defined in your textbook, is distinct from cultural tourism, ecotourism allows visitors to learn about and experience the results of different cultures’ history and relationships with nature. In this lesson, we also examined the different types of protected areas, as classified by the IUCN. They vary considerably in their degree of protection for nature and also vary in their suitability for ecotourism. We also examined the challenges and issues facing the conservation of biodiversity. While your textbook provides a broader discussion of these challenges, the lesson focused primarily on the greatest challenge: loss of habitat. In the discussion of this challenge, we examined the insights provided by the species-area relationship. This discussion highlighted the tyranny of space and proposed ways to overcome this challenge. Despite the magnitude and extent of this problem, we examined how ecotourism can contribute to attempts to resolve the challenge. Lesson 6 Lesson 6 Introduction In this lesson, we will begin with an examination of sustainability and its relationship with ecotourism. To some extent, this may provoke feelings of déjà vu for you. As you remember, a definition of sustainability was offered in lesson one: this definition has been repeated in this lesson’s key terms list for your convenience. For many, if not most or all of you, the topic of sustainability has already been part of your education. Indeed, the topic of sustainability is part of many curriculums around the world (Berglund et al., 2020). For example, the topic of sustainability appears many times in Ontario’s curriculum for grades 1 to 8 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2017a) as well as for grades 9 to 12 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2017b). In this lesson, though, we will not simply examine the importance of sustainability within a broad socio-ecological context; we will examine the links between sustainable development and tourism. This lesson, like this lesson’s readings in the text, will also examine the role of local participation in the creation, operation and success of ecotourism operations. To some extent, local participation may seem like an unexpected topic to discuss with an examination of sustainability. However, within the definition of ecotourism used in this course, local participation and the creation of socio-economic benefits for local residents and communities is not only a defining quality of ecotourism, it is an essential part of sustainability. Sustainable Development and Tourism Sustainable Development Sustainable development has become a central concept in efforts to facilitate and/or mandate the emergence of environmentally responsible economies and public policies. The term sustainable development rose to prominence in 1987 with the publication of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (WCED, 1987). It is often simply called the Brundtland Report. The mandate of the Commission was to formulate “a global agenda for change [and] … to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development” (WCED, 1987, p.11). In order to achieve this mandate, the WCED was to consider not only environmental concerns but was also to include social, economic and political consideration as well. Given this mandate, it was necessary to define sustainable development. The most obvious definition of sustainable development would simply have been the maintenance of development over time. However, such a simple definition does not define “development.” Thus, it was inadequate given the mandate of the commission. The definition that they offered in the report has been widely quoted within academia, business and government. It has also been embraced by environmental activist groups and is part of everyday language (McNeill, 2004). According to the WECD (1987): Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 54) Even though this definition seems almost as simple as the prior definition, it embodies complexity that deserves to be examined. A key word in the WECD definition of sustainable development is “needs.” The Commission did address this word, at least in part: needs refers to” … the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given” (WECD, 1987, p. 54). Thus, there is stated intent for this definition to be used to achieve some social justice goals. As Redclift (2005) notes, the context of the term “needs” recognizes that needs will change, between generations, between societies, and between locations. The processes of development will inevitably create these changing needs. Because of this variation, it is quite possible that the need of societies seeking more material wealth to promote economic develop and ease poverty may feel compelled to increase pollution in order to achieve this goal. Therefore, one may criticize this definition for the ambiguity of “needs.” Does “needs” refer to basic needs? Is it synonymous with wants? Consequently, the contest of the different “needs” within this definition suggests intra-generational inequalities and/or conflicts. It also suggests inter-generation inequalities or conflicts (Martinez-Alier, 1995). An example of such a conflict would be valuing the present over the future. Thus, we may undertake unsustainable activity in the hope that the needs of the future will not have the same needs. Another key word in the definition of sustainable development is “development.” WECD (1987) provides its own definition of development “Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society (WECD, 1987, p. 54). This is very similar to the definition of development offered in your textbook: “a nation’s stage of social-economic development” (Fennell, 2020, p. 75). As Fennell points out, though, the term “development” can be controversial. For example, although both the WECD (1987) and Fennell (2020) definitions of development include both economic and societal considerations. In practice, though, the measures of development are typically just economic. Based on these measures, a country may be considered to be developed or developing (Fennell, 2020). However, these two terms have been widely criticized, For example, Khan et al. (2022) suggests that “developed” and “developing” are worrisome because “developed” suggests that the country being labelled has reached its full potential. It also suggests that there is only one path to being considered “developed,” a path set by the currently rich countries. Finally, in your textbook, Fennell (2020) suggests that “developed” is often conflated with “civilized.” This conflation, it is suggested, reflects an almost social Darwinist view of societies, with the developed countries being more socially advanced and the developing countries in the process of becoming civilized, becoming more enlightened and less barbaric. Given the definition used by Fennell, this is a very worrisome problem. However, Fennell’s suggestion is unconvincing if one applies an environmental studies/geography definition of civilization: the development of a civil society marked by food surpluses, increasing labour specialization and diversification and increasing social stratification (Norton & Mercier, 2016). It is apparent that “development,” like “needs,” is word that may be open to diverse interpretations. Despite the widespread use of the WECD (1987) definition of sustainable development, numerous competing definitions have emerged: Gibson et al. (2005) suggested that hundreds of definitions had emerged since the publication of the Brundtland report. They also suggested that, given the diversity of applications and the diversity of academics, organizations, agencies and governments using the term, the emergence of many competing definitions for sustainable development was likely inevitable. Indeed, Mawhinney (2002) suggested that “the definitions quickly moved on to cover ever-wider issues, raising the possibility of conflicting principles, compromise and doubts on whether anything can ever be agreed” (p. 1). Others, such as McNeill (2004) and O’Riordan (1995), suggest that the debate over competing definitions is desirable, and perhaps even necessary, to address the diverse interests of researchers, policy-makers, businesses and activist groups. Figure 6.01. Alternative frameworks for conceptualizing sustainable development. Adapted from Elliot (2013). Fair dealing. Finally, before we apply the concept of sustainable development to tourism, consider these three frameworks (see figure 6.01) for thinking about sustainable development. All of these frameworks highlight the importance of economic, social (including political) and environmental factors when defining sustainable development (Elliott, 2013). However, each framework illustrates different ways to think about the concept. Framework “a”: The first framework (see framework “a”) is also the one most commonly used to depict sustainable development (Elliott, 2013). It emphasizes the equal importance of economic, social and environmental considerations in sustainable development and how each plays a foundational role in sustainable development. This framework, though, does not adequately illustrate the many and complex interactions between the social, economic and environmental factors. It also fails to illustrate the multi-disciplinary approaches that are needed for effective policies and actions. Instead, it suggests hard disciplinary boundaries. Framework “b”: The second framework (see framework “b”) uses a Venn diagram to illustrate the interconnectedness and the equal importance of economic, social, and natural or environmental factors. When these factors find mutually supportive common ground, the desired goal of sustainability may be achieved. At the same time, the relative small area of sustainability highlights the unsustainability of many activities. Framework “c”: Finally, the framework with nested concentric circles (see framework “c”) illustrates the economy embedded within and constrained or bounded by society. Both of these are ultimately embedded within the natural world whose ecology sets limits on society and the economy. When considering these frameworks, keep in mind that they are simply alternative ways of conceptualizing sustainable development: there is still considerable debate over which framework best depicts this concept. Defining and Conceptualizing Sustainable Tourism There are continuing efforts to apply the concepts underlying sustainable development to tourism. Indeed, there is considerable research examining the links between sustainable development and tourism, the competiveness of sustainable tourism and the nature of sustainable tourism (for example, see Streimikiene et al., 2021). In this examination of sustainable tourism, the first step is to define the term. However, as with many relatively new concepts, including sustainable development, there have been many attempts to find a suitable definition (see, for example, Butler, 1999; Page & Dowling, 2002). Perhaps the most useful definition, though, and one that makes implicit links to the WCED definition of sustainable development, was provided by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Tourism Organization. According to the UNEP/WTO (2005), sustainable tourism is: “… tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (p. 12). This definition includes the same three pillars of sustainable development: economic factors, social factors and environmental factors. Indeed, the frameworks discussed for sustainable development (see figure 6.01) could be applied to sustainable tourism (see figure 6.02) Figure 6.02. A framework for sustainable tourism, including values and principles. Adapted from Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley (1997). Fair dealing. As you read through the textbook chapter that accompanies this lesson (Fennell, 2020, pp. 75-100), you will undoubtedly notice discussions or lists of the goals, indicators and principles of sustainable tourism. The framework for sustainable tourism introduces values of sustainable tourism and other literature, such as Gebhard et al. (2009), that discuss the criteria for sustainable tourism. This can be rather confusing for anyone studying sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, as well as those who have been studying ecotourism for quite a long time. There are a number of reasons for this confusion. One reason is that there simply is a great deal of overlap between these terms. For example, an indicator sometimes simply indicates if a goal has been achieved. Another has to do with the intended audience. The early discussions about sustainable tourism, particularly those in the early 1990s, were dominated by academics methodically examining the concept of sustainable tourism, beginning with the goals. After the initial academic examination, the focus increasingly changed to practitioners, although academics increasingly focused on whether or not the practitioners were achieving the goals. As you read your textbook chapter, you will undoubtedly notice that Fennell (2020) has emphasized the development of the study of sustainable tourism. Understanding this development is very useful. However, in the following discussion, the focus was increasing on implementing the concepts using the products of the early academic discussions. As we explore the criteria for sustainable tourism, remember that the criteria are all founded on the three pillars of sustainable development. The Criteria for Sustainable Tourism This discussion about the criteria for sustainable tourism was produced using criteria and indicators for tourism published by United Nations Environment programme and the World Tourism Organization UNEP/UN-WTO), Viabono GmbH, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). While this document was developed specifically for three bioreserves in Eastern Europe, the criteria are widely applicable. Any indicators used to monitor the criteria are generally widely applicable although some may be site specific. In this examination, the focus of any discussion of indicators will focus on those with wide application. The purpose of the project to synthesize criteria for sustainable tourism stated, in part: “The numerous activities which take place in the course of the project deal with tourism management and the development of sound tourism products. They seek to integrate regional development and conservation of biodiversity by following the principles of sustainability in the field of tourism. In order to monitor and evaluate these activities and their success, the elaboration of a set of criteria which is commonly accepted by the project partners is of particular importance” (Gebhard et al., 2009, p.9) The criteria used in Gebhard et al. (2009) consists of four clusters of criteria. The first three clusters are synonymous with the three pillars of sustainable development. The fourth cluster reflects this document’s emphasis on the application of sustainable tourism rather than simply studying it: the fourth cluster focuses on monitoring and evaluating the success of the three other clusters. Discussion of all of these criteria will generally be attributable to Gebhard et al. (2009). However, supporting studies may be discussed and cited within each cluster. While the clusters are numbered, the numbering is arbitrary and is not an indication of the relative importance of each cluster. Criteria Cluster 1: Community Well-being The first cluster of criteria is equivalent to the social pillar of sustainable tourism. However, some of the criteria within this cluster demonstrate overlap with both the economic pillar of sustainable tourism and the environment pillar of social tourism. This overlap is illustrated in the Venn diagram (see figure 6.02) illustrating an overall framework for sustainable tourism. The purpose of these criteria is to promote and protect the social, cultural and economic well-being of the communities within which the tourism occurs. These criteria are: 1. Income and revenues This criterion focuses on ensuring that tourism within a community or region will provide income for individuals, families and communities. This income may be direct or indirect, through employment, the establishment of private business, through tax contributions, or through local and regional investment. These various sources of income and revenue may play an important role in helping to alleviate poverty, reducing urban/rural income disparities (see, for example, Elliott, 2013), or enhancing economic stability within households and entire communities (see, for example, Buckley, 2009). Some indicators of this income may be reflected in the percentage of the community, families or individuals receiving income directly or indirectly from tourism, and well as the relative proportion of tourism within the national or subnational GDP. 2. Employment This criterion is distinct from the “income and revenues” criterion. In this case, employment addresses the social problems that are often impacting marginalized groups and communities. For example, the rise in employment opportunities may provide education and/or vocation education. Increasing employment opportunities and the possible reduction in precarious employment may also encourage workers to demand improved working conditions and the implementation of social equity policies, as well as the enforcement of workplace regulations. Since tourism-based businesses and communities are often characterized by seasonable employment, this risk must be assessed and, whenever possible, mitigated. Other indicators would include evaluations of the percentage of a population within a community or region involved in the tourism industry, and an analysis of the ratio of fulltime to part-time jobs, a survey of the percentage of properly trained and qualified employees as well as training opportunities for those with the community to qualify for employment within the local tourism industry. 3. Potential of long term economic viability and strengthening the local economy Revenue leakage from the host community to non-local or offshore investors, owners or suppliers is a significant issue in tourism (Chaitanya & Swain, 2024). This results in the reduction in the multiplier effect within the community or region, thus reducing or eliminating income for local suppliers as well as the loss of the benefits from income or revenue. The reliance on external suppliers and its impact on local suppliers may cause increased local or regional inflation. Reducing or preventing revenue leakage can stimulate local multiplier effects, increase tax revenue, and encourage the creation of small and medium enterprises (SME) within the community. A variety of indicators may be used to monitor for revenue leakage, such the evaluation of local efforts to address revenue leakage, measure the proportion of local suppliers used by a tourism venture, and measure the number of SMEs within the community. 4. Improvement of living conditions Sustainable tourism may promote good governance locally, either by contributing to public funds or the direct investment in social programs within the community. This contribution may be made by the tourism operators or through the subsidy of funds and projects that mitigate the impacts of tourism. Indicators of such investment may be from the determination of the number and quality of infrastructure development within the community, a determination of the percentage of local residents using this infrastructure and a measure of the number and quality of programs created to improve living conditions. 5. Participation and local control Within any tourism operation, the local residents may be excluded from the planning, development and managing of local tourist operations (Cazes, 1989; Weaver, 2008). Thus, a tourism operation may be imposed on a community without the consent of local residents. It is also common for local residents not to be consulted about the type and extent of tourism within the community. Consequently, sustainable tourism must encourage and facilitate the involvement of local residents in the planning and managing of tourism operations. The rights of local residents to determine how local natural and cultural resources are used and/or portrayed must be respected. Indicators include the presence and extent of use of information about a planned and/or operating tourism business within a community. 6. Satisfaction with tourism Local control and participation are closely linked with the level of satisfaction among local residents with a tourism operation in or close to their communities. Therefore, a determination of the level of satisfaction of local residents with a tourism operation can indicate the extent of participation in the planning and operation of the tourism operation. Maintaining satisfaction among local residents can also enhance the hospitality of local residents to visiting tourists which, in turn, can influence the long-term success of the operation. Indicators may simply be a survey measuring the level of satisfaction with a tourism operation among local residents. 7. Strengthening of social cultural patterns Sustainable tourist operations should encourage tourists to experience, and show interest in and appreciation of the local culture and traditions. The display of such interest and respect for local culture may strengthen local residents’ appreciation of their own cultures and promote the conservation of local traditions and cultural patterns (Bramwell, 2005). This criterion requires that such cultural and social patterns are not destroyed or intentionally modified to satisfy the tourists and/or the tourism operation. Indicators would be a measure of local pride in their culture and community, the relative increase or decrease in cultural activities or traditions, and a determination of visitors’ awareness of local values. Criteria Cluster 2: Environment he next cluster addresses criteria related to the environment. Recognizing the overlap between environmental factors and social or economic factors, Gebhard et al. (2009) classifies this cluster as “natural and cultural environment.” This is a very useful classification because we often consider the environment to be the natural elements in landscapes. However, for consistency with the earlier sustainable tourism framework, this criteria cluster will simply be labelled as “environment.” 1. Sustainable use of natural and cultural resources This criterion focuses on the sustainable management of resources, including the efficient use, proper disposal and appropriate recovery or reuse of resources. The sustainable use of natural resources has been discussed in previous lessons. Indeed, in lesson 4, a quotation from Zierer (1952) was used to highlight the recognition of the importance of sustainable use of natural resources: [tourism] does not – or should not – lead to the destruction of natural resources” (p. 463). However, we have not yet focused much attention on the importance of the careful management of cultural resources. This management of both natural and cultural resources is essential because, as several studies have emphasized (see, for example, Cucculelli & Goffi, 2016; Williams & Gill, 2005), a destination’s competitive advantage within the tourism marketplace is dependent on the sensitive management of both types of resources. The conservation of cultural resources requires a variety of approaches because it consists of both material and immaterial resources. The material cultural resources can be further divided into moveable and immoveable objects. The moveable objects may include ethnographic decorative or artistic objects, objects of technical or scientific interest, objects to which oral histories or living histories are attached, military objects, sacred objects or even historical records (Van Zyl, 2005). The immovable material culture may include culturally significant landscape or landscape features, graves sites, archeological sites, buildings or places attached to oral traditions or living heritage (Van Zyl, 2005). These material objects may require physical safeguards but there is a risk of both depreciating the attractiveness of the resource to the tourists and impacting the cultural importance to the residents (Feilden, 1993). Immaterial cultural resources, such as local customs and belief systems, must be respected and conserved with little to no modification by or for the tourists. Backstage spaces where local culture is retained for unselfconscious use within the community must be respected and protected (Goofman, 1959; MacCannell, 1975), often through education of the tourists. This may be a challenge as some tourists, such as hard ecotourists, preferentially seek out authentic experiences and may intrude into backstage spaces, causing social and cultural interference (Wearing, 2001). Frontstage spaces where adapted versions of immaterial local culture is presented for consumption by the tourist allows for the conscientious protection of cultural activities and beliefs. Indicators of the effectiveness of the sustainable use of resources include measures of the effectiveness of resource management, such as the amount of waste created or the amount of water consumed. Other measures, such as the extent of erosion along trails or the amount of land used for the tourism infrastructure, are also useful. 2. Protection of natural heritage In this context, the protection of natural resources refers to the direct contribution of tourists to the funding of conservation efforts and related research. These financial contributions may be in the form of monetary donations to fund specific conservation programs or through indirect contributions derived from fees and charges for site-specific products and services, such as parking fees (Brightsmith et al., 2008). The contributions may also be in the form of volunteer work performed by the tourist in conservation efforts (Brightsmith et al., 2008). Evaluation of the success of this criterion may simply be a measure of the amount of money collected for or donated to the conservation programs. It may also be a measure of the real effects of the funding on the conservation efforts or a measure of the volunteer labour undertaken on the conservation programs. Indicators may include the previously mentioned measures but may also include evaluations of the quality of the conservation efforts and the protected areas, the total expenditure on conservation measures and a measure of the level and intensity of use of the protected areas 3. Protection of cultural heritage Like the protection of natural heritage, this criterion reflects the direct contributions to conservation efforts for cultural heritage as well as the provision of money from fees and charges. Protection of cultural heritage may also include the promotion of cultural heritage. The key protection strategy for cultural heritage is the avoidance of any negative impacts that may result on the loss of cultural heritage in any of its forms. Unfortunately, cultural changes resulting from tourist visitation are generally unavoidable, at least to some extent. However, the establishment of visitor codes of conduct have been shown to be at least partially effective in protecting cultural heritage (Fennell & Malloy, 2007). Limitations on the number of visitors and the ongoing introduction of technological innovations may also be necessary. Indicators for the effectiveness of cultural heritage protection include the extent of traditional land use, the contribution by tourists to the preservation of cultural goods as well as the total expenditures on preserving cultural features. Even the continuing existence of traditional events can be a useful measure of success for this criterion. 4. Enhancement of environmental awareness Sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, should raise awareness among tourism about the issues facing natural and cultural resources as well as broader environmental issues. The education about environmental issues provided to tourists has been shown to not only enhance pro-environmental attitudes (Lee & Moscardo, 2005; Tisdell & Wilson, 2005), it has been shown to entice the tourists to become environmental watchdogs: individuals who are willing to intervene and/or take action when the environment is threatened (Weaver, 2008). The presence of sustainable tourism can also increase environmental awareness among the residents of the host communities (Lindberg et al., 1996). The indicators for effectiveness of raising environmental awareness include determining the number of local residents engaging in environmental protection activities and/or conservation activities, a determination of the number of tourism managers with environmental training, a determination of the percentage of local tourism operations with environmental policies or strategies, and a survey of the attitudes of both tourist and local residents towards environmental protection. Criteria Cluster 3: Tourism Product Quality and Tourist Satisfaction This criteria cluster is equivalent to the economic pillar of sustainable tourism. However, in keeping with the practice-oriented focus of this framework, this criteria cluster focuses more on customer satisfaction and product quality. Despite the increasing association of some aspects of sustainable tourism with the green paradigm, the overwhelming majority of sustainable tourism ventures, including ecotourism operations, are privately-owned businesses (Weaver, 2008). Therefore, for the benefits of a sustainable tourism operation to be realized, it must be both competitive in the tourism marketplace and profitable. Thus, concerns about the customer experience and their level of satisfaction with the business must be of paramount importance. 1. Quality of service and experience This criterion is a measure of the quality of tourism products within an entire region: it considers a wide variety of elements within the whole local or regional tourism chain. Thus, the criterion does not only consider the easily identified elements, such as transportation, accommodation and other types of visitor infrastructure. It also considers the broader range of local or regional recreation centres and activities, as well as the interpretation services and products, such as guides and brochures. Security measures as well as special services for families with children, elderly people and people with a variety of disabilities should also be considered. Some equally important but less objectively measured elements must also be considered, such as the ecological and aesthetic qualities of the environment. Possible indicators for assessing the quality of services and visitor experiences include expert evaluations of the number and quality of attractions, accommodations, transportation, safety, hospitality and food services. 2. Tourist satisfaction While the previous criterion relies on expert evaluations, tourist satisfaction reflects the subjective experiences of the tourist clients. Surveys or personal inquiries may be used to determine the level of tourist satisfaction with their visit and can be used to identify elements needing improvement. However, as Foster (1999) notes, measuring customer satisfaction in the tourism industry is qualitatively different from measuring customer satisfaction in retail transactions. Thus, while customer satisfaction using a transaction-specific measure typically reflects a relatively narrowly-defined experience, evaluation of satisfaction in the tourism industry typically reflects the customer’s cumulative satisfaction: it is a measure of the entire tourism experience from the transportation to socio-economic conditions in the destination country. Such measures of cumulative satisfaction may provide measures of factors beyond the tourism operator’s control. 3. Tourism product quality and economic viability This criterion is ultimately a measure of a tourism operation’s economic success. This is accomplished by motivating visitors to make return visits to the operation and by offering a broad range of tourism products and activities that increase profits and promote long-term economic viability. To achieve this, the tourism operation must continually comply with the quality standards desired by the customers. It must increase profitability by motivating visitors to spend more and/or by increasing the usual visitation season. Indictors for this criterion include a measure of the number of return visitors, measures of visitor spending, measures of product quality management, and measures of tourist season length. 4. Communication of sustainability to the tourists As discussed in this lesson and in the textbook readings, sustainable tourism provides social, environmental and economic benefits. However, to achieve these benefits, tourism operators must ensure that visitors are educated about the underlying issue and are motivated to act on this knowledge. Thus, sustainable tourism operations must integrate learning about the conservation and/or preservation of cultural and natural resources. Indicators of the success of this communication may include evaluations of tourists’ behaviour, evaluation of the tourists’ knowledge and attitudes about the issues and evaluation of the quality of the interpretation and educational resources. 5. Cultural exchange as a driving force for peace One of the underlying motivations of sustainable tourism is the promotion of mutual understanding through contact between people from different cultures. This criterion is closely related to the “Strengthening of Social and Cultural Patterns” criterion within the Community Well-Being criteria cluster. The success of this criterion is inevitably difficult to measure. However, indicators of the success of this criterion would be the evaluation of tourists’ experiences, the evaluation of local residents’ experiences and attitudes and evaluations of the behaviour of both guides and tourists towards local residents. Criteria Cluster 4: Managing and Monitoring As previously mentioned, this criteria cluster does not correspond to any of the three pillars of sustainable tourism. While the three pillars framework is useful for conceptualizing sustainable tourism, it is not entirely adequate for either the practical planning or management of a tourism operation to ensure that it does not exceed the area’s carrying capacity. Ongoing monitoring is also required to ensure that predetermined limits are not exceeded. 1. Planning and management In order to minimize and or mitigate the negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of a sustainable tourism operation, adequate destination planning is necessary to ensure that adequate impact control measures are implemented before the operation opens. There must be a formal tourism management plan which incorporates visitor regulations, promotes visitor codes of conduct and provides adequate protection of natural and cultural resources. Indicators for this criterion would simply be the determination of the existence of such management plans, and established measures of biodiversity and ecosystem health. While these indicators are useful, greater emphasis must be placed on ongoing monitoring of visitor impacts. 2. Carrying capacity The importance of successfully determining an area’s carrying capacity to the sustainability of a tourism operation demands that it be considered as a separate criterion. The definition of carrying capacity provided in lesson 4 is refers to “the maximum potential number of inhabitants which can be supported in a given area” (Mayhew, 2023). The determination of an area’s carrying capacity reflects not only the number of tourists but the distribution throughout the year, the intensity of use, the type of use and the presence of any site-hardening techniques. Indicators for carrying capacity include the existence of a defined carrying capacity, the existence of a visitor registration system, the percentage of area permitted for use and the enforcement of regulations to prevent or remedy occurrences where the carrying capacity is exceeded. Supporting Local Communities with Community-based Tourism In this lesson, as well in previous lessons, we have seen how sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, can provide a variety of benefits to local host communities. However, these host communities also face a variety of challenges and impacts. Although we have discussed the significant risk of revenue leakage of profits out of the community, there are many more risks and these will be discussed in more detail in lessons seven and eight. However, a variety of approaches to ecotourism have been suggested and, in some cases, implemented in order to maximize benefits for community development while minimizing impacts on that community. While the term “community” is widely used, it is also a problematic term. Some definitions define a community in geographical terms. For example, Dicks (1999) argues that colloquial definitions of community suggest that communities are “small, enclosed and knowable” (p. 351). Others, such as Jamal and Dredge (2014), argue that the notion of community must necessarily change in a globalized world and suggest that a community is characterized by membership within a variety of networks which vary across time and space. Such a broad definition creates substantial challenges when addressing community development issues, such as poverty, inequity, inadequate healthcare and lack of access to education (Tefler & Shapley, 2008). These differences in the definitions of community are significant because the later definition is often more typical in the global North while the former definition is still common throughout the global South (Jamal & Dredge, 2014). Within the context of tourism, “development” is also defined differently. Throughout much of the last century, development has been viewed within the context of global capitalism and has emphasized economic growth (Bianchi, 2002). More recent perspectives view development through tourism as a tool to promote social goals, such as the alleviation of poverty, the provision of education and training, equitable distribution of the costs and benefits from tourism, and the promotion of social and environment justice (Jamal & Dredge, 2014). Dyer et al. (2003) also suggest that community development within the context of tourism also promotes increasing self-reliance, self-determination and cultural survival. Consequently, as a way of achieving more-inclusive goals of community development while addressing the social, economic and environmental goals of sustainable tourism and the conservation goals of ecotourism, a model of community-based tourism or community-based ecotourism was widely embraced (see, for example, Beeton, 2006; Jones, 2005; Timothy & White, 1999). In your textbook, Fennell (2020) provides a useful summary of case studies which illustrate the effectiveness of community-based ecotourism. Fennell (2020) also provides a model by Drake (1991) outlining the phased development of a community-based ecotourism venture. However, a useful addition would be a listing of the characteristics of community-based ecotourism. Weaver (2008) synthesized a list of these characteristics and listed them roughly in the order in which they should be achieved. Below is a summary of the synthesis by Weaver (2008). 1. A clear definition of which individuals are part of the community. This may be complicated as some generally accepted members of the community may not reside within the geographical location as the rest of the community. Other members within the community may also wish to include non-resident family members or non-resident members of the extended cultural group. 2. Strong and widely-supported leadership has been widely recognized as important, particularly during the implementation phase of development. This leadership is critically important for defending the community’s access to resources, for the negotiation of partnerships and to encourage broad participation by the community. 3. Control over and access to land is necessary so that the community has access to the natural resources upon which they will base their ecotourism venture. 4. The broad-based participation of members of the community is a prerequisite for the establishment of a community-based tourism venture. It is needed in order to provide a wide range of skills and capabilities, to avoid internal conflicts and reduce disputes from inside and outside of the venture. 5. The establishment of partnerships with external government agencies and non-governmental organizations is needed, particularly if startup capital is limited. If the community-based ecotourism venture plans to access protected areas as part of their activities, partnerships with managers for the protected areas are also very beneficial. Finally, partnerships with private businesses can be helpful in securing investment and management expertise. 6. Operating an ecotourism venture demands the acquisition of skills and capacities when such skills are missing within the community. This may include both business skills, such as bookkeeping, or ecological expertise needed for natural resource inventories. Acquiring these skills and capacities will inevitably be dependent on acquiring early sources of funding. 7. Creating and sustaining demand is often viewed as unnecessary because ecotourism is a growing sector, success is assured. However, the majority of ecotourists are soft ecotourists who are unlikely to seek out small ecotourism operations in remote areas and generally prefer well-developed and comfortable accommodations. While hard ecotourist may be attracted to small, remote locations, establishing connections to this market may be challenging. Establishing connections with outside promotors can be very useful in “being discovered” by these hard ecotourists. Providing an initial positive experience is critical for repeat visitations and recommendations with other hard ecotourists. 8. Maintaining quality in any service sector business is essential. Hard ecotourists are typically seeking “authentic” experiences but quickly become intolerant of poor food quality, a lack of basic necessities, poor communication skills, unsanitary accommodations, and indifferent service. Unsatisfied customers providing unsupportive or negative word-of mouth publicity may suggest poor long-term prospects of success. 9. Reinvestment into the venture is required to build or enhance infrastructure in improving existing shortfalls in quality service. External funding also typically comes with term limits after which the venture is expected to be self-sustaining. Salafsky et al. (2001) found that failure to reinvest in community-based ecotourism ventures was a major contributor when such ventures failed. 10. Community-based ecotourism operations must be the right size. For most small communities in remote locations, there are insufficient funds to create anything but a small operation. Finding the right size can be challenging, though. The operation must be small enough so that it does not exceed the area’s carrying capacity yet large enough to justify funding and investment. Small operations often do not create sufficient income to provide an attractive investment for private businesses. Community-based tourism and community-based ecotourism have been widely promoted and continue to have many enthusiastic supporters, including Fennell (2020). Indeed, most non-governmental organizations and government agencies still generally promote community-based tourism/ecotourism when encouraging tourism development (Hitcher et al., 2009; Honey, 1999). However, there is a growing body of evidence that questions the long-term sustainability of community-based tourism and ecotourism. For example, most community-based tourist ventures are initially heavily dependent on non-governmental organizations for financial support and donations of other resources. As previously mentioned, such outside support is typically time-limited with the expectation that the community based operation will become self-sustaining. However, Zeppel (2006) found that most of these operations fail soon after the financial support ends. Medina (2005) also found that these communities frequently experience disputes over the membership of the community and who is eligible to reap the benefits of the operation, often leaving the community factionalized and divided. Indeed, these kinds of power imbalances based on differences in a wide variety of factors beyond simply the financial factors have been noticed in a significant number of failed community-based tourism/ecotourism operations (Blackstock, 2005; Kiss, 2004; Liu et al., 2012; Salazar, 2012). Weaver (2010) also found that many, if not most, of these communities were in relatively remote locations and lacked tourism-related business and management skills. Without these skills, the community-based ecotourism operation was at a disadvantage when negotiating with intermediaries who promote the destinations for ecotourism and other forms of tourism. Ultimately, Weaver (2010) argues: “It is unlikely that any tourism situation where a clearly defined community exercises real control takes the initiative, makes all decisions on the basis of consensus, promotes a sustainable local natural environment and indigenous economy, supports traditional culture, retains most economic benefits internally, allows these benefits to be distributed equitably, and is financially self-sustaining, actually exists anywhere or is likely to emerge” (p. 208). The criticisms of community-based tourism and ecotourism cannot be ignored. However, it continues to have advocates and some have suggested that there may be important regionally-specific factors that may facilitate or inhibit success (Zielinski et al., 2020). Despite Weaver’s (2010) pessimism, community-based tourism and ecotourism deserves further study. Indigenous Ecotourism Before we begin our examination of Indigenous ecotourism, it is useful to examine the use of the term “Indigenous.” As Peter and Mika (2017) point out, the use of collective nouns to identify diverse groups of people can be problematic, especially when those terms “have often been derogatory, historically inaccurate and contaminated by a colonial past” (p. 1229). Indeed, the term “indigenous” is not indigenous: it is derived from the late Latin terms indigenus and indigena. (Peter & Mika, 2017). While recognizing the problems with collective nouns, they continue to be used within the academe as well as by sub-national, national and supranational organizations and governments. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) has used the term “Aboriginal.” However, at the time when this lesson was written, “Indigenous” is generally considered the preferred term in Canada (Government of BC, 2024; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2024). Thus, in this lesson, the term “Indigenous” will be used to describe “those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means” (United Nations, 2015). Another equally foundational issue with indigenous ecotourism is the challenge of identifying who is Indigenous. As Weaver (2016) points out, this is a problem with potentially significant implications for ecotourism and, indeed, many other types of tourism, including cultural tourism as well as other forms of niche tourism. Determining who is an Indigenous person varies between jurisdictions. At a global scale, various supranational organizations have recognized self-identification as the standard for determining who is considered to be Indigenous (Corntassel, 2003). However, in national jurisdictions, the determination of who is Indigenous is often based on colonial classifications (Weaver, 2016). Both Weaver (2016) and Bauer (2010) also note, though, that relatively recent attempts to decolonize relationships between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people and to redress historic injustices has been viewed by some as an “appellation of privilege” (Weaver, 2016, p.29), leading to an increase in the number of people claiming Indigenous status. Thus, despite the paradox of perceived privilege superimposed upon historical social and economic marginalization, these “nonconventional Indigenous people” (Weaver, 2016, p. 30) sometimes opportunistically claim Indigenous status for themselves. This in turn creates complexity and confusion in the tourism marketplace for tourists seeking authentic experiences as well as within Indigenous communities hoping to benefit from ecotourism. The United Nations (2015) sees great promise in the ability of ecotourism to help address some of the challenges facing Indigenous societies around the world. For example, a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly (2014) recognizes that ecotourism “can provide new employment opportunities and help to alleviate poverty while nurturing a sense of pride among [Indigenous] community members” (p. 8). Furthermore, this UN resolution calls on member states to facilitate Indigenous ecotourism ventures through supportive financing, including microcredit initiatives. It is widely recognized that Indigenous people are much more likely to be poor than non-Indigenous people living in the same country (Eversole et al., 2005). Poverty among Indigenous individuals and within Indigenous communities is a complex problem rooted in a wide variety of structural inequalities, including but not limited to issues of identity, land rights, restricted access to natural resources, physical and social marginalization, and historical oppression (Leonard et al., 2020; McCaskell, & Rutherford, 2005). Thus, while ecotourism is viewed as a way of reducing economic inequalities by supporting local businesses and employment (Coria & Calfucura, 2012), it is also seen as providing social-cultural opportunities, such as the preservation and/or revitalization of cultural traditions (McCaskell, & Rutherford, 2005), the reinforcement of cultural identities (Colton & Harris, 2007), and helping communities to reinforce self-determination and self-reliance (Yang & Wall, 2009). However, the complex and multi-faceted nature of poverty within many indigenous communities, external support for non-governmental organizations and government agencies is frequently needed to develop Indigenous ecotourism ventures. Unfortunately, this dependency on outside funding has been criticized for excluding members of the Indigenous communities from decision-making (Kline & Slocum, 2015), for promoting dependency on financing and resources from outside of the community (Scheyvens & Hughes, 2021), for the absence of important exit strategies for funding and technical support (Manyara & Jones, 2007), and for the provision of Western-focused technical advice that is often inconsistent with the Indigenous communities’ needs or context (Laudati, 2010). During the operation of these Indigenous ecotourism ventures, there have also been problems with the tourists invading the privacy of community members (Fuller et al., 2005) as well as conflict over tourists’ perceptions of traditional practices, such as hunting (Lawrence et al., 1997). Because of these issues, such projects have typically proved to be short-lived (Novelli, 2016). Concerns have also been raised about the cultural impact of the commodification of Indigenous cultures within a commercial marketplace. For example, Maccarrone-Eaglen (2009) suggests that transforming culture into saleable items raises the risk that the meaning associated with cultural expressions may be lost or transformed. Desmond (1999) also suggests that even more cultural context is lost when Indigenous ecotourism is marketed: images and videos completely removed from the Indigenous cultural and environmental context are sometimes used to appeal to non-indigenous sensibilities and cultural interpretations. There are also concerns about the ownership of culture. Who decides which items are sacred and, thus, may be inappropriate for sale, and which cultural items are simply decorative, and, therefore, potentially acceptable to sell? While these are all important questions, they are ultimately questions whose answers must be sought with Indigenous communities and not imposed by community outsiders. There are often many similarities between the foundational beliefs of ecotourism and the traditional beliefs and worldviews of many Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, many systematic obstacles exist to the successful implementation of ecotourism ventures in Indigenous communities, particularly when they are in remote locations. Some of the challenges faced by Indigenous ecotourism ventures are similar to those faced by community-based tourism. However, these problems are undoubtedly exacerbated by incompatibilities between many traditional worldviews and an ecotourism industry that is still dominated by the Western environmental paradigm. Conclusion Local participation and the sharing of benefits with local residents in host communities are defining qualities of ecotourism. These qualities are rooted in the fundamental concepts underlying sustainable development and, ultimately, in sustainable tourism. In this lesson, we examined the history and defining characteristics of sustainable development. We also discussed the three pillars of sustainable development and how these were reflected in the concept of sustainable tourism. By continuing to apply the concepts of sustainable development, we saw how community-based tourism/ecotourism emerged as a practical application of these principles. In examining the defining criteria for community-based tourism/ecotourism, it was apparent that they provided a useful business model for ecotourism. We also discussed how community-based ecotourism has been widely-embraced by scholars, governments and non-governmental organizations. Despite this enthusiastic support, it is apparent that community-based ecotourism has not yet lived up to it lofty ideals. Finally, we examined Indigenous ecotourism. While many Indigenous communities face some similar challenges faced by other remote communities, the historic injustices and oppression create even more barriers for the successful implementation of ecotourism. While this lesson highlights the recent and current shortcomings of sustainable tourism and community-based ecotourism, this may have more to do with growing pains in the industry rather than structural faults with the underlying principles. Lesson 7 Lesson 7 Introduction In the previous lessons, we have examined the potential of ecotourism to conserve natural resources while also contributing to the economic, social and cultural well-being of local communities. In an effort to realize the potential of ecotourism, the United Nations has called on its member states to promote ecotourism because of its focus on conservation and its “positive impact on income generation, job creation and education, and thus on the fight against poverty and hunger” (UN Tourism, 2013, para. 3). While Weaver (2008) suggests that such a resolution may be based solely on ethical concerns, maximizing socio-economic benefits while minimizing socio-economic impacts also has a pragmatic purpose: to build local support for ecotourism. Despite these goals, it is quite likely and perhaps inevitable that even the most carefully planned ecotourism ventures will result in socio-economic impacts. In this lesson, we will examine the potential sociocultural impacts of ecotourism on host communities. In the next lesson we will focus on the economic impacts of ecotourism. While sociocultural and economic impacts will be examined in separate lessons, it is useful to realize that there will inevitably be overlap between the two categories of impacts. It is because of this overlap that your second assignment for this course will include a discussion of socio-economic impacts. A Framework for Understanding Host Community Attitudes In your textbook, Fennell (2020) begins the discussion about the social impacts of ecotourism with an examination of Doxey’s (1975) index to measure residents’ attitudes towards tourists, an index that is frequently abbreviated to “irritation index” or “Irridex.” Like Butler’s (1980) concept of a tourist area’s cycle of evolution (see lesson 4), Doxey’s Irridex is a foundational framework for understanding fundamental changes in a tourism host community over time. As suggested by the unabbreviated name for the index, Doxey described the changing attitudes towards tourists by the local residents in a tourism host destination. Doxey suggested that the number of tourists visiting a host community elicited a predictable series of stages reflecting the local residents’ changing emotions and their reactions to the number of visitors. These four stages ranged from initial enthusiasm with the benefits of an emerging local tourism market to eventual disenchantment with the industry and the presence of tourists in their community. Below is a list of the four stages (also see figure 7.01). 1. Euphoria Euphoria – In this first stage of Doxey’s irritation index, the emerging tourism industry in the host community is very small. Given the small numbers, there is little or no formal planning to accommodate the tourists and no need for regulating their numbers or access to attractions within the community. Residents of the host community welcome the tourists and contact between the residents and the tourists is generally sporadic and informal. Residents of the host community may be excited in anticipation of the potentially increased economic activity. 2. Apathy – As the number of tourists visiting the host community increases, the initial euphoria among residents of the host community diminishes. The residents become increasing indifferent to the presence of tourists within their community. Formal planning processes begin to assess the practical aspects of a tourism industry, such as accommodating a need for more infrastructure and services. There is also increased focus on marketing in order to encourage continued growth of the local tourism industry and to encourage increased investment in the local tourism industry. Interactions between the residents and the tourists become more formal and are typically based on commercial relationships. 3. Annoyance – As the number of tourists continue to grow, some parts of the community will sometimes reach their capacity thresholds. Residents of the host community become increasingly irritated by problems resulting from an increasing number of tourists, such as increasing traffic congestion, increased noise and pollution, and higher costs of living. Continuing external investment and expanding infrastructure physically transforms the host community. Although local residents have more misgivings about the growing number of tourists in their community, local planners continue to plan for and encourage continued growth in the tourism industry. 4. Antagonism – As the carrying capacity of tourists in the host community is regularly exceeded, the initial politeness of the local residents towards to the tourists becomes more confrontational. The irritation felt by the residents is increasingly expressed verbally and may cause physical altercations and/or acts of violence. Within the host community, tourists are also seen as the cause of a wide variety of problems, such as environmental degradation, loss of local cultural identities and social disruption. Although the residents increasingly support a variety of controls and regulations aimed at reducing or mitigating the overtourism, local authorities and municipal planners focus more attention on improving the host community’s falling reputation among potential and current tourists. Although Doxey’s irritation index provides a foundational model for understanding tourism host communities’ changing attitudes towards the evolution of their communities as tourist destinations, it has often been criticized for its underlying assumptions and its applicability in real world conditions. One of the most common criticisms is that the index assumes significant homogeneity and does not adequately recognize variations in attitudes within a host community (see, for example, Wall & Mathieson, 2006; Zhang et al., 2006). This variability may be the result of a variety of different factors, such as differing individual tolerances, variations in socio-economic interests and the influence of socio-cultural peer pressure (Zhang et al., 2006). Criticism of the irritation index has also been raised about the linear or unidirectional nature of the model (Cheung & Li, 2019; Wall & Matheson, 2006): the index fails to accommodate instances where tourism management practices and careful planning may reduce or reverse tourist pressures at an earlier stage. It also does not recognize instances where residents are more involved in the development of the local tourism industry (Shaw & Williams, 2002). Despite these criticisms, Doxey’s irritation index remains a useful tool for understanding host community attitudes as well as a warning for host community planners to foresee possible problems with a growing local tourism industry. Although Doxey’s irritation index was developed before the rise of ecotourism, it still provides useful insights for ecotourism planners and developers. For example, in the index, carrying capacity typically becomes a concern when it is occasionally exceeded during the annoyance stage. However, as discussed in lesson 4, carry capacity must be an ongoing concern throughout the planning and operational phases of an ecotourism operation. There may also be differences between the actual carrying capacity and the perceived carrying capacity (Cordero, 2008) with rural residents frequently having a lower perceived carrying capacity (Zhang et al., 2006). Since ecotourism operations are typically located in rural and remote areas, this may be an important concern for local planners and ecotourism operators. Direct Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism It is common to categorize the impacts of ecotourism in terms of direct impacts (those impacts resulting from the presence of the ecotourists) and indirect impacts (those impacts resulting from the ecotourism infrastructure or the activities provided for the ecotourists). In this part of the lesson, we will discuss some of the direct socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism. Cultural and Social Intrusion In lesson 2, we introduced the terms “backstage space” and “frontstage space.” Backstage space refers to an area or several areas within a community where the local residents can express their culture or practice cultural activities out of sight of the ecotourists. Frontstage space refers to an area or several areas where the local residents may present their culture or practice their cultural activities to the ecotourists, often in a modified or adapted form which excludes those elements which the residents are unwilling to share. As was later mentioned, though, some ecotourists seeking authentic and complete experience of the local culture may try to violate the backstage space. This is particularly common among hard ecotourists. Unfortunately, this intrusion into all cultural spaces of a community may have a variety of impacts. In the cases of traditional and insular cultures, the intrusion of ecotourists whose cultures strongly contrast with the local culture may result in the injection of outside cultural influences and practices into the local culture (King & Stewart, 1996). The amount of influence will inevitably vary with the length of time within which the cultural intrusion occurs: Wearing (2001) notes that ecotourism involving long-term volunteer activities may have significant impacts on the nature and practices of local culture. Weaver (2008) suggests that this influence is also particularly pronounced when backstage and frontstage spaces are intentionally integrated by the community or ecotourism operators in order to market a more authentic experience to potential customers. In either instance, the backstage space is completely eliminated so that all that remains is a frontstage space where all cultural activities and practices are presented in a modified form that reflects the ecotourists expectations rather than actual cultural practices. For example, Diamantis (1999) described an example where an entire village in Northern Thailand was relocated to a non-authentic village to cater to the expectations of the ecotourists and to perform cultural expressions that reflected and reinforced the ecotourists’ misperceptions about local culture. Direct Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism The Imposition of an Elitist Western Value System So far in this course, we have examined considerable research supporting the idea that ecotourism is an important improvement over mass tourism. We have also discussed the dominant Western environmental paradigm and the green paradigm: ecotourism was intended to promote a green paradigm shift. However, as Weaver (1998; 2008) and Cater (2007) note, ecotourism is ultimately based on an elitist Western value system which is reflective of the dominant Western environmental paradigm: it is a Western solution to a problem largely defined and created by Western societies, yet it is often imposed on non-Western societies on the assumption that it is the best form of tourism for their socio-economic development. Indeed, Hall (1994) and Carter (2007) suggest that ecotourism is simply a new form of Imperialism based on Western cultural hegemony. Like many neocolonialist ventures, ecotourism operations are usually very dependent on wealthy countries for sources of funding, skills and expertise, knowledge and markets (Weaver, 2008). Because these wealthy market or source countries value the perceived unspoiled or even primitive nature of the host countries or societies, this dependency is ultimately limited to maintain the authenticity of the ecotourism and to prevent Western-style development. A few particularly cynical observers, such as Wheeller (1994), suggest that ecotourists are little more than egotourists: “urbane culture vultures … selecting, picking out and devouring what they consider to be the best bits of culture” (p. 6). While Wheeller’s view of predatory or scavenging ecotourists is not well-represented among ecotourism researchers, there are many who are concerned about the lopsided socio-economic relationships between host communities and ecotourists and ecotourism operators. Direct Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism Loss of Local Control In our discussion in lesson 6 about the criteria for sustainable tourism and community-based ecotourism, we recognized the importance of local control and local participation. However, dependence on outside expertise, skills and funding means that even community-based ecotourism ventures become increasingly embedded within the broader global economy (Weaver, 2008). Thus, despite ecotourism’s promise of being both small-scale and locally controlled, a number of critics have suggested that ecotourism bears some strong similarities to mass tourism in the dominance of market-driven corporate control over the industry (Duffy, 2002; Mowforth & Munt, 2004; Wheeler, 1994). Although the involvement of large corporations has resulted in some improvements in material prosperity for local residents (Horton, 2009), it also has some impacts, such as increasing out-migration by those wishing to escape corporate control or to seek even greater material prosperity, as well as an increasing number of health problems associated with non-traditional lifestyle (Weaver, 2008). Duffy (2002), as well as Mowforth and Munt (2004) also suggest that embedding ecotourism host communities into capitalism either introduces or exacerbates competitiveness, focus on individualism, increased material accumulation, increased consumption and commodification. These processes may then lead to increased fragmentation of the community which, in turn, limits the community’s abilities for collective action as well as their ability to imagine and/or promote qualitatively different approaches to development (Duffy, 2002; Mowforth & Munt, 2004). Despite the impact of global corporate culture on even remote ecotourism host communities, it is an insufficient explanation for the erosion of local control in ecotourism communities: even governments and non-governmental organizations have created problems by eroding local control. Despite the image of environmentalism as a grassroots movements, Horton (2009) notes that environmentalism has, since the 1970s, largely been shaped by increasingly top-down regulation. In a study of the impact of top-down environmental policies on local communities in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica where international corporations still had little influence, Horton (2009) found that governmental regulations and policies meant to promote conservation and ecotourism had eroded local residents’ control of and access to land and natural resources. Controlled and unequal access to natural resources created increasing social stratification within the community: these were diverse types of hierarchies based on nationality, social class and gender. Thus, despite the relative lack of influence of corporations in the peninsula, government policies, accentuated through the involvement of non-governmental organizations, replicated many of the social impacts that had been seen with corporate involvement in ecotourism. Direct Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism Social Inequalities Local inequalities within tourism host communities have been well-studied: these studies have found that these social inequalities emerge out of economic inequalities resulting from participation in, and income from, tourism facilities and accommodations (see, for example, Gosh & Gosh, 2019; Lo et al., 2019). Weaver (2008) suggests that similar inequalities are inevitable in all forms of tourism, including ecotourism, and that costs and benefits are “never equally distributed” (p. 132). For example, there are many examples of conflicts over inequalities in opportunities and benefits, even in ecotourism host communities with traditions of egalitarianism and little intra-community competition (Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Steinberg, 1994; Timothy & White, 1999). However, ecotourism does not always create social inequalities within local host communities: sometimes ecotourism merely reinforces existing inequalities by allowing existing local elites to exploit their influence and power for personal gains in wealth and prestige (Scheyvens, 1999). Indeed, even the prospect of ecotourism may allow the local elites to acquire even more power and wealth (Weaver, 2008). Unfortunately, the existing and increasing inequalities within the community may not be noticed by outside observers because they may simply view it as the part of community dynamics to be expected with local control. Social inequalities resulting from ecotourism may also threaten intracommunity social cohesion. For example, in a study of ecotourism host communities in Thailand, Kontogeorgopoulos (2005) found that the economic opportunities provided to some local residents enhanced both their income and their social mobility. Since these employees of the ecotourism operation were typically young adults, the added income allowed them to buy houses, get married and start families at younger ages than was typical in the community. While this is undoubtedly an economic benefit, it had the effect of challenging the communities’ social cohesion enforced by typically rigid social norms and hierarchies. Indirect Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism In our examination of the direct socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism, we discussed impacts that are directly the result of the presence of ecotourists and often resulted in local antagonism towards these ecotourists. In this examination of indirect socio-cultural impacts, we will examine the problems resulting from the presence of the ecotourism infrastructure and/or the activities offered for the ecotourists. Local Resentment or Antagonism Resentment or antagonism by host community members towards ecotourists and the ecotourism venture may result when the residents feel that they have been treated unfairly, inadequately consulted, and/or inadequately compensated for personal or community losses. This resentment may begin very early in the ecotourism planning process. For example, access to an established protected area or the establishment of a protected area is frequently a prerequisite for the creation of an ecotourism business. However, as Southgate (2006) points out, such protected areas often restrict communities’ access to traditional natural resources, change the conditions for using the protected areas, or created hazards for communities adjoined the protected area. For example, Southgate (2006) notes that while the growth of ecotourism businesses in and around Amboseli National Park in Kenya has benefitted many non-Maasai Kenyans, it has created significant problems for the Maasai communities surrounding the park. Since the ecotourists tend to place a great deal of value in seeing the big five species (see lesson 4), the park management has been adapted to increase the numbers of these species. Since the species are not confined to the park, wandering elephants and other species have caused increasing damage to the Maasai communities’ crops and infrastructure. As Southgate (2006) notes, the Maasai community members feel that they are paying the price for the increasing ecotourism business yet they are not being adequately compensated by the central government, the local authorities or the private ecotourism operators. Thus, there is strong resentment towards all three of these groups, as well as the ecotourists. Resentment within the tourism host communities may also result from the social inequalities previously discussed in the discussion of direct socio-cultural impacts. This resentment often results when inequalities create an uneven burden of the costs of ecotourism and uneven access to its benefits. In a study of community-based ecotourism ventures in Gambia, Jones (2005) noted that some groups appeared to resent the disproportionate benefits gained by other, more influential members of the community. Despite this resentment, the members of the disadvantaged group did not express their complaints within the community or challenge the elites. This conflict was avoided out of fear of suggesting a lack of solidarity within the community or potentially threatening the reputation of the ecotourism operation and threatening the economic benefits for the entire community. It did, however, foment resentment towards the ecotourists and the local ecotourism industry. Indirect Socio-cultural Impacts of Ecotourism Conflict over Local Culture and Lifestylem Ecotourism has always had to find a balance between authenticity and addressing the safety and sensibilities of the ecotourists. For example, ecotourists often desire up-close experiences with wildlife and other potentially hazardous elements of nature yet the ecotourism operation must ensure the safety of their guests. Similar conflicts may arise from the traditional practices of the local residents. While the definition of ecotourism used in this course explicitly excludes cultural elements of the destination as part of ecotourism, interactions between the ecotourists and local residents are common and, indeed, often expected. However, many protected areas, including those in Ontario and in Canada, respect the rights of local Indigenous peoples to practice traditional activities, including hunting and fishing, in these areas (Environment and Natural Resources Canada, 2024; Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006). Recognition of the Indigenous right to hunt and fish is not only important for historical and subsistence reasons: it is often considered an essential cultural ritual (Gunnarsdotter, 2006). Unfortunately, traditional hunting and fishing practices create the potential for conflict between the idealistic Eurocentric values of many ecotourists (Weaver, 2008). Potential conflicts between local residents and ecotourists are not limited to differing views on hunting and fishing: there may also be fundamental differences about fundamental notions of conservation (Boonzaier, 1996; Meletis & Campbell, 2004; Rosenzweig, 2003). As Coria and Calfucura (2012) note, while indigenous peoples are generally effective at managing forest lands, “the presumption that indigenous groups are inherently environmentalist is flawed” (p. 47). Indeed, for most Indigenous groups, their entire sociocultural environment is strongly focused on consumptive activities (Meletis & Campbell, 2007; West & Carrier, 2004). Since ecotourists in general and hard ecotourists specifically typically reflect a conservation ethic verging on preservationist beliefs, the consumptive use of protected areas by local Indigenous groups may create friction that may harm both residents’ support and clients’ support for the local ecotourism venture (Coria & Calfucura, 2012). Conclusion As defined in this course, ecotourism’s primary focus is on the natural history of a destination. Thus, ecotourism typically focuses on the appreciation of and education about a destination’s distinctive natural resources and landscapes. Through this appreciation of the destination’s ecosystems, it is hoped that the conservation of these ecosystems will be facilitated and any existing environmental damage will be rehabilitated. However, as we have previous seen, ecotourism operations and activities may have ecological impacts that must be mitigated. Although our definition of ecotourism excludes cultural tourism from ecotourism, the socio-cultural implications of ecotourism cannot be ignored. For an ecotourism venture to succeed, it must not only have the support of ecotourist clients, it must have the support of the host community who had traditionally relied on the local natural resources. In this lesson, we first examined Doxey’s Irritation Index, a fundamental framework for understanding the changing attitudes of a tourism host community to the presence of tourists. While the framework has been criticized for its simplified assumptions, it provides tourism community planners with warnings about the potential results of unmanaged tourism industry growth. This lesson also discussed the direct and indirect socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism on a host community. While these impacts may be mitigated or even avoided by careful planning and local input in the development and operation of the local tourism venture, any of these impacts may cause social disruption in the host community and loss of support for the ecotourism venture. Unfortunately, many ecotourism ventures have focused on the natural attractions and paid little attention to the wishes of the host community (Weaver, 2008). Lesson 8 Lesson 8 Introduction Given our definition of ecotourism, one may legitimately consider ecological concerns as the primary consideration for ecotourism operators and planners; economic considerations would seem to be less important than profit motives. If ecotourism is truly supporting a transition from the dominant Western environmental paradigm to a green environmental paradigm (see lesson 5), one might expect ecotourism to embrace a rejection of capitalistic profit motives. This is not generally the case, though. While such a paradigm shift may indeed be under way, such paradigms shifts are rarely experienced as complete transformations of existing belief and value systems. Even when a paradigm shift is occurring, the supporters of the older paradigm generally continue to embrace many of the earlier values and will only accept those new elements which do not contradict their old paradigm (Kuhn, 1996). Therefore, economic concerns and maintaining profitability for ecotourism operators and, indeed, the entire industry, will continue to be one of the most important concerns (Fionasari, 2024). Indeed, some ecotourism researchers have suggested that economic concerns are more important for decision-makers than ecological concerns (see, for example, Falabi, 2024; Weaver, 2008). While such a claim may be unexpected given the core values of ecotourism, Zacarias and Loyola (2017) point out that the many goals and potential socio-cultural and environmental benefits cannot be realized if the ecotourism operation is not financially sustainable and profitable. As an industry, ecotourism may certainly be described as a “big business.” In 2023, the international value of the ecotourism industry was US$196.2 billion (IMARC Group, 2024). The industry is expected to have a growth rate of 12.5% per year between 2023 and 2032, reaching US$ 561.9 billion by 2032 (IMARC, 2024). Despite its current economic importance and its expected revenue on a global scale, the profitably of individual ecotourism operations may be considerably lower: Weaver (2008) notes that the failure of ecotourism ventures often result from inadequate funding, inadequate financial skills, and too little attention paid to the ecotourism operation’s profitability. In this lesson, we will examine the direct and indirect economic impacts of ecotourism. In this lesson, we will also examine the approaches to marketing ecotourism. While the marketing of ecotourism operations may seem little different from the marketing of any other product or activity, ecotourism faces a number of unique challenges. We will also examine these challenges in this lesson. Economic Impacts of Ecotourism Establishing the global value of the ecotourism industry can be challenging. In the introduction to this lesson, the 2023 value of the global ecotourism industry was said to be US$196.2 billion (IMARC Group, 2024). This estimate is relatively reliable but may still be incorrect, perhaps by a very wide margin. Like many challenges in the study of ecotourism, the root of the problem of estimating the value of the ecotourism industry is the lack of a consistent definition for ecotourism (Blamey, 1997; Weaver, 2008). For example, Weaver and Lawton (2002) suggest that more flexible definitions of ecotourism tend to capture much more of the mass tourism market within the umbrella category of soft ecotourism, thus boosting the overall numbers and revenue for ecotourism. The complexity is further complicated by the numerous small ecotourism operations in peripheral locations as well as the complications of quantifying the ecosystem services of the conservation measures facilitated by ecotourism operations (Coria & Calfucura, 2012). In your textbook, Fennell (2020) also states that there are sceptics who suggest that the growth in revenue is quite variable and that growth in the industry reflects site-specific growth rather than a generalized pattern of growth. However, this claim should be examined critically. Like all tourism sectors, there may be considerable variation in ecotourism between destinations: there are site-specific variations in growth. However, there is currently no research supporting that the claim has greater site-specificity than in other tourism sectors and Fennel’s claim is only supported by one very dated and unconvincing reference. Still, recognizing that each ecotourism destination may face unique direct and/or indirect economic impacts is critical for every ecotourism operator and planner. Categorizing and delineating direct economic impacts from indirect economic impacts is not always simple. * Direct economic impacts are typically classified as those costs that can be directly attributed to the presence of the ecotourists in the host community and the operational costs of the ecotourist business. * Indirect economic impacts are, as the category’s name suggests, those impacts that indirectly arise due to the involvement of the community in ecotourism but do not include those costs that are directly attributable to the actual presence of the ecotourists. Direct Economic Impacts There are relatively few direct economic impacts or costs, although they may be significant and substantial. When discussing direct economic costs, Weaver (2008) cautions that we should not simply think of these impacts as negative consequences as we would typically do for something that is identified as an impact. This is because most of these direct economic impacts may be considered as investments which will, hopefully, provide benefits in the immediate or long-term future. Such outlays or investments must be considered a normal part of business development and operation. Weaver also argues that these direct economic impacts may also be benefits to residents of the host community. Start-up Costs Start-up costs represent a somewhat broad and diverse set of impacts. The first expense is a critical investment but one that is frequently omitted from the academic literature: the creation of a business plan. Like business plans for other types of businesses, a business plan for proposed ecotourism ventures defines and outlines in fine detail the nature of the business, identifies the steps that are necessary for its establishment, and tests how it will operate as if the business was already operating (McKercher, 2001). The business plan should also outline the expected growth paths and establish benchmarks to evaluate performance (Lindberg, 2001). Lindberg (2001) also notes that the creation of a clear and thorough business plan can reduce the failure rate among ecotourism business by 60% or more. Any reasonable step that can reduce the failure rate within the ecotourism sector is essential. While there are few recent studies about the failure rate among ecotourism businesses, McKercher (2001) suggests that the failure rate within this sector is likely similar to that for other types of small businesses: approximately 90%. The creation of a detailed business plan is also important for imposing economic discipline on potential ecotourism owners, particularly potential owners of small ecotourism ventures. While such potential owners typically have considerable enthusiasm about operating a sustainable and ecologically beneficial business (Weaver, 2008), one of the main reasons for the failure of such businesses is a lack of business management skills (McKercher, 2001). If an ecotourism operation is not a successful business, its potential social, economic and ecological benefits can never be realized. Once a business plan has been established and tested, and a potential host community has been selected and consulted, the next start-up expenses are land acquisition (purchase or lease) as well as the establishment of facilities, accommodations and infrastructure. These costs may be quite variable, depending on a variety of factors, such as the intended location; the nature and extent of transportation infrastructure; the local, regional and national building codes, expenses, fees and taxes; the likely focus of the facility (hard or soft ecotourists); and even international currency exchange rates. Since the ecotourism facility will focus on natural features of the destination, ecological inventories, environmental impact assessments as well as agreements with nearby protected areas will likely need to be funded. Once construction begins, expenses will depend on the luxuriousness of the accommodations and facilities, which will depend on whether the business intends to attract soft or hard ecotourists: soft ecotourists typically require more extensive, more expensive and more luxurious accommodations than hard ecotourists (McKercher, 2001; Weaver, 2008). Construction costs will also depend on local resources, local labour and vernacular architecture (Weaver, 2008). Start-up costs will also include any ecological rehabilitation and restoration as well as the construction of recreational amenities. With careful management, focused marketing and, perhaps, some good luck, these start-up costs may form the foundation of a prosperous and meaningful ecotourism business. Direct Economic Impacts Operating Costs While start-up costs should reflect a one-time, but substantial economic impact, operating costs will be ongoing economic impacts on an ecotourism venture. As with start-up costs, operating costs can reflect a wide variety of expenses which, in turn, may be influenced by a variety of factors. For example, operating expenses may include but are not necessarily limited to maintenance costs; ongoing capital investments and improvements; labour costs and the cost of employee benefits; fuel and/or electricity costs; food costs; the cost of supplies; business support service costs, such as accounting; lease payments; taxes; and insurance. These costs are very similar if not almost identical to the costs incurred by other tourism businesses and even other types of businesses. Like the start-up costs, these operating costs will vary substantially between ecotourism businesses that focus on soft ecotourism or hard ecotourism: soft ecotourists generally expect more comfort and amenities than hard ecotourists, so the operating costs of soft ecotourism businesses is often significantly higher than the operating costs of business that focus on hard ecotourism (McKercher, 2001; Weaver, 2008). There are also some operating costs that are not typically experienced by other forms of tourism: these reflect the costs that are related to ecotourism’s socio-economic and ecological benefits and impacts. For example, ongoing visitor impact monitoring is necessary for early identification of ecological impacts caused by visitors (Drumm et al., 2004). Similarly, ongoing ecological monitoring is also needed to identify threats, such as the appearance of invasive species, which are not necessarily the result of visitor impacts. Monitoring is also required to evaluate the benefits of any mitigation efforts. If ecological threats are identified, extra costs may also be required for ecological remediation, restoration and/or rehabilitation efforts (Drumm et al., 2004). If an ecotourism operation is dependent on a protected area that is managed by an outside agency, operating costs in the form of profit sharing or cost per service payments may also be incurred. Responsible ecotourism operations are also expected to provide social and economic benefits to the local community. Thus, profit sharing or flat-rate payments to the community and/or individuals within the community may be necessary (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). To ensure that individuals within the host community have opportunities to benefit from employment opportunities at the ecotourism business, technical and skills training may have to be provided (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). Ongoing feedback opportunities between the ecotourism venture and the community will be needed to identify any socio-economic impacts and to ensure that socio-economic benefits are realized. All of these factors will add to the operating costs of the business. Indirect Economic Impacts Economic Uncertainties To understand the impact of economic uncertainties on ecotourism, it is useful to first examine the impact of economic uncertainties on the broader tourism industry. This is important because these impacts have a profound influence on the success of the industry at global, regional and local scales. Furthermore, economic uncertainties are so common in tourism that they could, as a group, almost be considered a defining quality of tourism. The revenue and profitability of a tourism operation or a tourism destination is generally very sensitive to a variety of economic uncertainties resulting from financial crises (Eugenio-Martin & Campas-Soria, 2014), natural disasters (Rittichainuwat, 2006), epidemic diseases (Sigala, 2020), terrorist events (Enders et al., 1992) and various political crises (Cohen, 2010). Some of these uncertainties arise in the source markets where demand for tourism originates. Some of these uncertainties impact the supply of tourism destinations by making these destinations unattractive or even dangerous for tourists to visit. For example, the 2008 global recession reduced the demand for tourism: Spencer (2012) found that visitor spending in Hawai’i decreased by 26% compared to visitor spending in 2006. Supply side impacts may also reduce a destinations ability to attract or host tourists. For example, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami not only caused catastrophic numbers of fatalities and injuries, as well as profound damage to property, it resulted in a reduction in the number of tourist visits in the region by almost 40% in 2005 compared to 2004 (Blažin et al., 2014). This reduction in the number of tourists was not simply due to the damage and destruction of tourism infrastructure, it was also a result of potential tourists’ association of the destinations with death rather than recreation (Cohen, 2008; Huang et al. 2008). It is noteworthy, however, this widespread regional reduction in tourist visits was partially offset in the most damaged areas by the emergence of a new type of niche tourism: tsunami tourism (Nazaruddin & Sulaiman, 2013). Thus, given the many possible causes of economic uncertainties in the tourism industry as well as the reliance of the industry on the discretionary spending of tourists, it is apparent that the industry is vulnerable to these uncertainties. Many, if not most, of the economic uncertainties that impact the tourism industry in general will also impact the ecotourism sector. For example, while the ecotourism sector was much smaller than the mass tourism market in the affected areas, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami also impacted ecotourism operators (D’Angelo et al., 2010). The tsunami damage to the regional tourism industry was so widespread that an immense reconstruction effort was required. Cater (2006) notes that many residents and tourism operators in the affected areas hoped that the reconstruction would focus on community-based tourism and ecotourism. However, while constructed tourism facilities may be rebuilt relatively quickly, the natural resources and amenities that are required for ecotourism may require considerable time to be rehabilitated or restored. Indeed, because of the lengthy recovery time, threats to natural resources, such as forest fires, create even greater economic uncertainty for many ecotourism ventures than one might expect from mass tourism destinations (see, for example, Sitabuana et al., 2018). Thus, while some economic uncertainties impact both the tourism industry in general and the ecotourism sector in particular, there are some qualitative differences that sometimes make the ecotourism more vulnerable to their impacts. There are some economic uncertainties that are either unique to ecotourism or disproportionately impact ecotourism. One example of an economic uncertainty that may influence the demand from ecotourism is the possibility of ecotourism is simply the current fashion in tourism (Higham, 2007; Wearing & Neil, 1999; Weaver, 2008). If ecotourism is simply a fashion in an ever-changing tourism market, operators who have built their businesses around the principles of ecotourism may find that the demand for their attraction has disappeared. The concern that ecotourism might be a temporary fashion was taken so seriously that the World Tourism Organization Secretary General Francesco Frangialli addressed the concern directly: “Ecotourism, is far from being a fringe activity. It should not be regarded as a passing fad or a gimmick, or even as a secondary market niche, but rather as one of the trump cards of this industry of the future, i.e. tourism. And for a simple reason: it is crucial to the problem of developing a balanced, sustainable and responsible tourism sector” (CABI News, 2002, para. 5). Are there any signs that ecotourism is simply a passing fad? At the beginning of this lesson, we highlighted the significant current and expected growth in ecotourism. This would suggest that even if ecotourism is simply a fad, it does not yet show any indication of going out of fashion. Indeed, even though the COVID-19 pandemic had complex impacts on ecotourist destinations, with some protected areas being closed to visitors (see, for example, Ciesielski et al., 2023; Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2023; Seifert, 2023), many protected areas in the United States saw significant increases in visitation (Beery et al., 2021; Ferguson et al., 2022; Perren et al., 2023). The increase in visitation was not the only notable feature during COVID-19: the visitors to US National Parks during the COVID-19 lockdowns were much more ethnically diverse and had lower educational levels and lower income levels that had previously been observed among ecotourist visitors to US protected areas (Perren et al., 2023). This may not indicate a fundamental change in the nature of ecotourism, though, as post-COVID-19 ecotourist demographics are returning to those that were typical before the pandemic (Perren et al., 2023). This suggests that ecotourism should not yet be considered to be a passing fashion although it does not preclude future uncertainties. Indirect Economic Impacts Revenue Leakages In the discussion about the criteria for sustainable tourism in lesson 6, we introduced the concept of revenue leakage. As a reminder, we defined revenue leakage as the loss of revenue from a business, typically through the repatriation of profits to investors, owners or suppliers outside of the community or country within which the venture operates. A common cause of these revenue leakages is the importation of non-local supplies and reliance on services from outside the host community or even the host country (Weaver, 2008). Hussain (2021) suggests that the amount of revenue leakage is dependent of the self-sufficiency of the host community as well as the strength and capabilities of its economy. However, this suggestion assumes that ecotourism operators will preferentially choose to rely on local resources, skills and expertise, even when the importation of goods and services is more cost effective or of higher quality. Revenue leakage is also not simply the result of a reliance on the imported goods and services. As Boo (1990) points out, revenue leakage may also result from the repatriation of profits to non-local owners and/or investors; the export of wages paid non-local employees; the payment of fees to foreign tour operators; and the investment in non-local and/or foreign marketing campaigns. Revenue leakage may also be scale dependent. For example, there may be profound revenue leakage from a host community yet little revenue leakage, or even an economic benefit, at a regional, sub-national or national scale (Choudhury & Goswami, 2013; Weaver, 2008). This can occur when locally scarce goods and services are more plentiful elsewhere within the country, and when tax revenues leave the host community. Conversely, when many tourism services, such as holiday planning, airfare payments, travel taxes and commissions for travel and tour agents, are collected in the tourist source countries, revenue leakage from the host country may be significant, even when local host communities receive substantial revenues (Mitchell & Ashley, 2007). While revenue leakages at the national or subnational level may be moderated by a diversified economy, revenue leakages may create a significant impact for an ecotourism host community. For example, Lindberg (2001) estimated that at least 90% of ecotourism revenue within most ecotourism host communities is lost through leakage. However, the revenue leakage can vary substantially between host communities. Goodwin (2002) found that revenue leakage from ecotourists visiting Komodo National Park in Indonesia was 50%. In other locations, such as Tortuguero National Park in Costa Rica, local revenue retention is only about 6%, or a revenue leakage of approximately 94% (Lindberg, 2001). Many locally specific conditions or even operation specific conditions may impact the leakage rate. Some useful generalizations are possible, though. Soft ecotourism ventures where the ecotourists prefer familiar goods and services and expect relatively luxurious accommodations tend to have non-local and/or corporate owners and have much higher rates of revenue leakage from the host communities (Akama & Kieti, 2007; Honey, 2008; Weaver & Lawton, 2006). Conversely, hard ecotourism operations tend to be involved in low-cost activities, such as backpacking, and tend to have much lower rates of revenue leakage (Scheyvens, 2002). Ultimately, even though the guidelines for sustainable tourism (Gebhard et al., 2009) recommend that local revenue leakages should be minimized, distinguishing the “winners” from “losers” can be challenging. Indirect Economic Impacts Opportunity Costs A key goal of ecotourism is to provide communities, particularly communities in remote areas and within a country’s hinterland, with economic alternatives to primary industries, such as mining, logging and farming. However, once a community embraces ecotourism, such commercial extractive industries must be suspended because they may threaten the “pristine” wilderness image which ecotourists seek. The hope for the community and its residents is that ecotourism will provide a viable and sustainable economic substitute for extractive primary industries while promoting the conservation of their natural resources (Stronza & Pêgas, 2008). By switching to ecotourism and ending any current extractive primary industries, except, perhaps as subsistence activities, and/or by eliminating the possibility of future primary industries, the host community may be incurring significant opportunity costs. Unfortunately, the benefits of ecotourism to host communities have sometimes been insufficient to offset the opportunity costs. For example, in a study of the economic impacts on an ecotourism host community near Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal, Bookbinder et al. (1998) found that only 6% of surveyed residents earned income either directly or indirectly from the ecotourism operation. Thus, the majority of residents saw little reason to support conservation efforts over other economic opportunities to exploit local biological resources. Similarly, in a study of ecotourism in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in west-central Mexico, Barkin (2003) found that the short four-month ecotourism season did not provide enough economic benefits for the local community to offset the opportunity costs created by stopping farming and logging operations in the area. In many other areas, such as Belize (Belsky, 1999; Lindberg et al., 1996), Baja California in Mexico (Young et al., 1999), and Peru (Stronza, 2007), the host communities experienced greater opportunity costs from abandoning primary industries than they gained in revenue from ecotourism. Like revenue leakage, the opportunity costs resulting from ecotourism present a significant challenge for those promoting ecotourism ventures to potential host communities. The definition of ecotourism used in this course highlights the importance of providing benefits to local communities. Similarly, in an exploration of many competing definitions of ecotourism, Diamantis (1999) shows that providing benefits to the host communities is a common theme. In the definition used in this course and, indeed, in most of the competing definitions examined by Diamantis (1999), the benefits are not specifically identified as economic benefits. However, local economic benefits and equitable distribution of these economic benefits is the priority for many if not most host communities (see, for example, Lindberg, 2001; Wunder, 2000). Even the conservation goals of ecotourism are dependent on the support of the host community which, in turn, is dependent on the community residents economically benefitting from ecotourism (Troëng & Drews, 2009). Indirect Economic Impacts Inflation The local development of a tourism industry, including an ecotourism industry, often creates competition for resources, such as food, as well for labour and land (Wunder, 2000). Inflationary pressures on the price of land and/or housing may also be created when the ecotourists’ attraction to the host community expands beyond the desire to simply visit there to a desire to live there either full or part-time (Duffield, 1982; Fortin & Gagnon, 2002; Lindberg & Enrıquez, 1994; Mathews, 2002). Increased property values and increased rents may also result by the in-migration of workers to support the ecotourism business (Fortin & Gagnon, 2002). These increasing prices on land, housing and rent, as well as the need for increased municipal services to support the increasing local population, can also drive increasing property taxes for everyone within the community (Butler, 1989; Fortin & Gagnon, 2002). Increasing prices for many supplies, including food, may also result from the growing demand and competition for local resources (Wunder, 2000). These increasing prices for food and other supplies are often compounded by reduced access to local resources and reduced agricultural production (Price, 1994). The impact of local inflation may be so significant that it reduces local support for ecotourism. Indeed, in a study of ecotourism in a village in Belize, Lindberg and Enrıquez (1994) found that residents of the community were content with many of the economic benefits. However, despite these benefits, local inflation resulting from the ecotourism operation had eroded support for the attraction. Indirect Economic Impacts Agricultural Losses Promoting the conservation of biodiversity with an emphasis on the charismatic megafauna most prized by ecotourists can be problematic when the wildlife threatens the crops and livestock of the residents surrounding the protected area and/or the ecotourism facility. In lesson 7, we discussed the problem of elephants travelling outside of the Amboseli National Park in Kenya and damaging the crops and infrastructure of members of the surrounding Maassai communities (Southgate, 2006). While the policies of the park managers favoured efforts to increase the number of elephants, thus benefiting the park by attracting more ecotourists, the Maasai communities felt that they were inadequately compensated for the damage that these policies indirectly caused (Southgate, 2006). This problem is not simply limited to Kenya, though. Conservation efforts focused on increasing populations of megafauna species have had similar impacts on farms in Sri Lanka: Fernando et al. (2005) found that 93% of farmers in villages adjoining Yala National Park had lost crops to elephants foraging outside of the park. In a related study, Bandara and Tisdell (2004) found that compensation by park and/or Sri Lankan authorities for crop damage by elephants was typically worth less than 10% of the total losses. Losses to farmers who are adjacent to ecotourism operations and their associated protected areas are not limited to lost crops: livestock losses can also be significant. For example, Kothari et al. (1989) found that agricultural operations, including the raising of crops, the keeping of livestock and the harvesting of trees, occurred in a majority of India’s protected areas. This created substantial risks that conservation efforts would impact in-park agriculture. Indeed, Madhusudan (2003) found that villagers surrounding the Bhadra Tiger Reserve not only lost 11% of their crops to elephants each year, they also lost 5% of their livestock animals each year to tigers and other large predatory cats. While these losses may not always be particularly large in overall value, they do threaten community support for ecotourism operations and conservation efforts. By threatening local support, they are also inconsistent with the goals of ecotourism and may threaten the support of potential ecotourists. Marketing Ecotourism When discussing marketing, it has become almost a cliché to repeat the common misquotation from The Field of Dreams: even if you provide a much desired product, you cannot assume that if you build it, they will come. Thus, despite the increasing popularity of ecotourism, an ecotourism operator cannot simply assume that potential ecotourists will find them. There will inevitably need to be some kind of marketing. However, marketing is a complex sub-discipline of the study of business and a detailed examination of marketing, even if it is limited to ecotourism, is beyond the scope of this lesson. Instead, this lesson will first provide a brief introduction to marketing, with particular emphasis on marketing service industries, like tourism. We will then examine the challenges and approaches to marketing tourism and ecotourism. An Introduction to Marketing in Service Industries Despite the ubiquitousness of the term, it can be challenging to define marketing (Grönroos, 2006): it is fundamentally a simple concept that can be much more complex in practice. The central concept underlying marketing is exchange, whether that exchange is direct or indirect (see Figure 8.06) (Bagozzi, 1975). Traditionally, marketing plays an intermediate role between a business and its customers: a relationship in which a business’ marketing department are the only people in the business who influence the customers’ view of the business (Grönroos, 1990). This arrangement generally worked well for pre-packaged products. It is also the arrangement in which the marketing specialist acted as the “mixer of ingredients” (Culliton, 1948) for the marketing mix of the 4 P’s (product, price, place promotion) (Bordon, 1965; McCarthy, 1960). Figure 8.06 – An Example of a Marketing Exchange: This is an example of a complex circular exchange, an interconnecting web of relationships involving at least three parties, with each party in at least one direct relationship with another party. Adapted from Bagozzi (1975). Marketing in service industries, like tourism, can be qualitatively different from the traditional marketing approach. Part of this difference is in the relevance of the marketing mix in service industries. While the application of the marketing mix concept may be problematic in industrial marketing, its application in service industries is particularly problematic: it fails to cover all resources and activities at many stages of the business’ customer relationships (see, for example, Gummesson, 1987). Furthermore, marketing in service industries allows for many more opportunities for contacts between the business and the customers, and managing these contacts is often the responsibility of non-marketing departments (Grönroos, 1990). Grönroos (1990) also suggested service industry marketing is not simply different because of the diversity of contacts but in the nature of the relationships with customers. All industries depend on the establishment of long-term relationships with the customers; while transaction marketing based on short-term sales may be profitable, profitability in the long run is dependent on establishing long-term relationships with customers. In traditional marketing approaches, establishing and maintaining these relationships are the responsibility of marketing specialists and marketing managers. In service industries, the responsibility for establishing and maintaining these relationships belongs to non-specialists or specialists in other departments. Thus, in service industries, these non-specialist “part-time marketers” (Gummesson, 1987) create interactive marketing with the customers at every stage of service production and service delivery. Marketing in service industries in general, and in tourism in particular, are distinct because they are emphasizing intangible, dynamic resources rather than tangible static resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). The value of these intangible products may simply demonstrated by the marketer, as might be done for a tangible product. Rather, the value of the service-based product is co-created by the marketers and the customers: the marketer creates the value of the service in the minds of the customers and the customer creates the value of the service through use of the product (Grönroos, 2006, 2009; Calatone & Mazanec, 1991; Zeithaml et al., 1985). The concept of the co-creation of value is particularly relevant in tourism, where production and consumption of the product are inseparable (Dolnicar & Ring, 2014). Given these insights into marketing services in general and tourism in particular, we can now examine Grönroos’ (2006) definition of marketing more closely: “Marketing is a customer focus that permeates organizational functions and processes and is geared towards making promises through value proposition, enabling the fulfilment of individual expectations created by such promises and fulfilling such expectations through support to customers’ value-generating processes, thereby supporting value creation in the firm’s as well as its customers’ and other stakeholders’ processes” (p. 407). This definition is particularly relevant to tourism and incorporates the elements which we have already discussed: 1. the value of the service is co-created by the customer and the business/marketer 2. marketing of the service is not concentrated with a specialized marketing department but is the responsibility of the entire business 3. the customer may not always wish to engage in such relationships, so non-relationship marketing is important 4. marketing involves making promises to customers, fulfilling these promises and fulfilling the customer’s expectations that the promises created. Within the context of tourism, a vacation is the promise fulfilling the promise in delivering the vacation that was offered, and delivering the vacation that the customer expected and/or imagined. Marketing Ecotourism Marketing Tourism and Ecotourism Marketing is essential in tourism: it is the central strategic consideration for tourism operations to distinguish itself and try to establish a competitive advantage over its competitors (Evans, 2009). There are also a variety of other reasons that explain the core function of marketing in tourism. For example, Mahoney and Warnell (1988) pointed out that tourists must be attracted to the tourism product and must be motivated sufficiently to travel to experience the product. Most tourism also involves meticulous and prolonged planning, either by the customer or in consultation with a tourism agency (see, for example, Correia, 2002; Crompton, 1992; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989); impulse purchases for tourism are not typical, although Laesser & Dolnicar (2012) did find that they sometimes occur, but typically on shorter trips with few companions. This prolonged planning period allows more time for marketing efforts to be effective. Evans (2009) also points out two interconnected explanations for the importance of marketing to tourism: perishability and seasonality. Tourism may not be the type of product one thinks of when thinking about perishability, but unsold airline tickets, unoccupied accommodations, and unbooked tours are, effectively, lost products: while there may be opportunities to sell these products in the future, those products, as defined by the date that they were offered but not sold, are lost revenue opportunities or perished goods. Similarity, the seasonal nature of tourism enhances the impact of perishability. Indeed, Bull (1995) suggested that “Tourism has one of the most highly seasonal patterns of demand for any product, having less variation than the demand for Christmas cards or air conditioners but more than nearly all high value individual purchases” (p. 44). Thus, losses that occur from unsold seats or accommodations may represent a significant portion of the seasonal local tourism market. Marketing can also be useful in persuading potential customers to use their discretionary income on tourism. For most potential customers, tourism represents discretionary spending (Dolnicar et al., 2008). Given the entertainment and recreational products and activities that compete for this income, tourism marketers’ co-creation of value can be persuasive in attracting this spending. However, we are not simply interested in marketing tourism. As we have seen throughout this course, the tourism industry is a diverse industry, resulting in considerable market segmentation. Indeed, the ecotourism market is also segmented. As Evans (2009) point out, there is no single criterion to use to segment a market: every organization or business will choose suitable segmentation bases or variables to use and the choice of these bases will depend on its customers. There is also no best way to categorize these bases. One approach proposed by Middleton et al. (2009) distinguishes seven bases: purpose of travel; buyers’ needs, motivations and expected benefits; buyers’ behaviour/characteristics of product usage; demographic, economic and geographic characteristics; psychographic profile; geodemographic profile; and price. It is important to note that these seven bases are not alternative criteria for segmenting markets. Rather they are overlapping and complementary variables that may be, and typically are, combined to delineate market segments. Middleton et al. (2009) suggest that most businesses within the tourism industry will use at least three of these bases to define their particular market segment. Bieger and Laesser (2002) suggest that the single most common segmentation base used in studies of market segmentation in ecotourism is motivations (i.e. buyers’ needs, motivations and expected benefits in the taxonomy by Middleton et al.). Studies of market segmentation in ecotourism have been based on a variety of bases. For example, in a study of ecotourism sites in Sri Lanka, Perera et al. (2012) used motivational and behavioural bases to identify market segments. The segments that they identified were ecotourists, picnickers, egoistic tourists and adventure tourists. Of these segments, “ecotourists” scored highest in the motivational dimensions of “nature” and “education,” two critical defining characteristics of ecotourism. Despite the study location, a forest-based ecotourism operation, “ecotourists” only represented 28% of the sample of visitors. Thus, a marketing campaign for the operation in the study that focused solely on the values embraced by ecotourism would exclude almost three-quarters of the visitors. A similar study of visitors to Serranía de Cuenca Natural Park in Spain undertaken by Cordente-Rodríguez et al. (2014) examined a wider array of bases. In this study, they identified only two segments: “nature,” a segment focused solely on enjoying nature and its resources, and “multiple motive,” a segment of visitors who were motivated by the enjoyment of nature, gastronomic tourism and cultural tourism. In this study, the “nature” segment most closely approximates ecotourists and represent about 57% of the visitors. Thus, while Cordente-Rodriguez et al. suggests that the nature market segment represents the best “fit” with the destination, they also suggest that economic considerations and priorities preclude marketing approaches that focus only on the interests of the “nature” segment. Although economic concerns are unquestionably important in ecotourism in general and to the host communities in particular, it is not the sole consideration in marketing ecotourism. Our definition of ecotourism explicitly states that it is a form of tourism which must also promote sustainable conservation and sustainable social benefits for the host community. Therefore, some studies have examined the marketing of ecotourism that focuses on promoting these goals. For example, Choi et al. (2020) examined ecotourism market segmentation in Bali, Indonesia, and suggested how these market segments could be managed to promote forest conservation in the area. Like many other studies on market segmentation in ecotourism, Choi et al. (2020) used a motivational base to segment the tourists (n=756) visiting two forest reserves in Bali. Using these bases, they identified four market segments: general tourists (31.5%), nature-seeking responsible tourists (14%), nature-cohesion seeking tourists (22.4%) and wellness-seeking responsible tourists (32.1%). These segments extended along the soft ecotourist/hard ecotourist spectrum from the general tourists, who shared may characteristics with soft ecotourists, to nature-seeking responsible tourists, who shared a number of characteristics which are consistent with harder ecotourists. The researchers chose to focus on the two segment clusters with the higher motivational scores because they believed that these tourists would be more highly-motivated to support and promote conservation efforts. However, the characteristics of the two groups were quite different. Nature-seeking responsible tourists were typically highly-educated, high-income European woman travelling alone. Wellness-seeking responsible tourists had lower educational attainments (bachelor’s degree or lower) with lower incomes and were generally Asian people travelling in groups of families, relatives, friends and children. Marketing that focuses on attracting these two segments was seen as most likely to support and promote forest conservation. While these two groups represent less than 50% of the sample, the authors’ suggestion was that focused marketing combined with a growing ecotourism sector is the best marketing strategy for promoting conservation while providing adequate economic income. Marketing Ecotourism Misrepresenting Ecotourism in Marketing Although it has been claimed that “it's not easy being green" (The Frog, 1970), many businesses have found that it is not only easy to appear to be green, it can also be quite profitable. In lesson 3, we defined greenwashing as “the practice and process of presenting an environmentally unsustainable or environmentally damaging product as one that is sustainable or environmentally beneficial” (ES295 lesson 3). For example, Chen et al. (2018) noted that hotels that embraced environmentally responsible policies and practices had improved reputations and higher rates of customer retention than more conventionally run hotels. These hotels were generally also able to charge higher rates than competing conventional hotels. Similarly, Preziosi et al. (2019) found that hotels that had obtained green “eco-labels” had a competitive advantage in attracting guests and were able to charge premium prices, although the benefits were primarily with guests from countries with high levels of environmental awareness, such as countries in Europe and North America. However, as Gunawan et al. 2023) noted, some hotels will greenwash their reputations, claiming that they embraced green policies and charged higher rates to reflect these preferred practices. However, Gunawan et al. (2023) also noted that potential guests are increasingly aware of greenwashing and have become much more skeptical of businesses’ claims of environmentally responsible practices and policies. Thus, while embracing green policies may provide marketing advantages for hotels, the prevalence of greenwashing and potential customers’ increasing skepticism about businesses’ claims of environmental responsibility may convince all hotels that such practices and such claims may soon offer little benefit. This would undoubtedly impact the soft ecotourism sector. Misuse of the term “ecotourism” and the misrepresentation of tourist businesses as green is sufficiently widespread that concerns have been raised about the reputation of the entire industry and increased skepticism among ecotourists. By 2005, greenwashing within the tourism industry had become so widespread that Baker (2005) suggested that “it seems that any company offering an experience in the great outdoors can simply add the word eco-tourism to its advert or brochure; whether the holidays live up to the name is another matter” (para. 2). The problem was still evident five years later: Self et al. (2010) found that 47% of tourism operators in the Galapagos Islands had greenwashed their environmental policies in online marketing in order to appear to be ecotourism operations. In an attempt to limit the damage to ecotourism’s reputation caused by misleading marketing, a number of eco-labelling and certification programs have been created to try to curtail misrepresentative marketing in the ecotourism sector (Samal & Dash, 2023). However, Mgonja et al. (2015) found that certification of ecotourism operations has minimal influence on decisions made by tourists. Thus, despite the increasing popularity of ecotourism or, perhaps, because of it, greenwashing of tourism operations continues to be a persistent issue. Marketing Ecotourism Online Marketing of Ecotourism While the foundations of the Internet predate the emergence of ecotourism, much of the early development of ecotourism occurred before the widespread availability of the Internet. However, in the 1990s, as Internet connectivity increased and the World Wide Web proliferated, it was recognized that tourism was the most likely industry to gain benefit from online marketing (Weber & Roehl, 1999). The Internet also offered the potential to promote growth in the ecotourism sector. There were a number of challenges facing the successful use of the Internet for promoting and marketing ecotourism. For example, Sangpikul (2010) noted that throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the use of the Internet by ecotourism operations was generally limited to companies in Western countries. Although ecotourism was being promoted as a way to promote sustainable development, particularly in remote or peripheral areas, non-Western countries, and/or the Global South, many of the ecotourism ventures in these areas lacked the appropriate technical and business skills to make use of on-line marketing (McKercher & Robins; Sangpikul, 2010; Weaver et al., 1996). Despite these regional and global disparities, the ecotourism industry generally benefitted from online marketing: WTO (2002) suggested that online marketing had quickly become ecotourism’s most important marketing tool. As a distinct group, ecotourists were particularly well-informed consumers and were shown to be more likely than other tourists to rigorously search for and critically evaluate online promotional information (Susskind et al., 2003; Weber & Roehl, 1999). Ultimately, the growth in Internet use, online marketing and ecotourism were complementary and mutually beneficial. While online marketing has generally worked well for ecotourism, there have been concerns beyond those about the underrepresentation of non-Western ventures. For instance, Gretzel et al. (2000) expressed concern about the slow pace at which businesses in the ecotourism sector adapted to changing conditions. They suggested that success in marketing reflects an organization’s ability to quickly adjust to changes in demand, supply and technology. They also suggested that ecotourism has been far too slow to modify their marketing approaches in response to changes in demand, supply and technology. Furthermore, both Burton (1997) and McKercher (2001) suggest that many ecotourism providers possessed only a limited understanding of the broader ecotourism market. While some of these concerns persist, greater understanding of market demands appears to have resulted from increased interaction between ecotourism operators and potential customers as a result of increased use of social media (Singh, 2018). The increasing dominance of soft ecotourism and its connections to mass-market tourism has also improved some ecotourism marketing by allowing greater access in marketing expertise and information (Wearing & Schweinsberg, 2019). The influence of social media in marketing ecotourism remains a poorly studied yet potentially transformative factor. Clark et al. (2019) has provided some insights with an exploratory study of the relationship between ecotourism, social media and Millennials. In this study, they found that Millennials who were interested in ecotourism used social media to gather information about destinations and to learn about ecotourism experiences from friends and others in their social media communities. They also used social media to explore more budget-friendly ecotourism options. Much more research needs to be undertaken to further explore potential ecotourists’ use of social media and ecotourism operators’ response to social media marketing. Conclusion In this lesson, we examined two topics related to the business of ecotourism: the economic impacts of ecotourism and marketing ecotourism. Both of these topics address vital concerns for any ecotourism business. However, far too many ecotourism ventures have failed because their owners lacked the business management skills needed to recognize and mitigate the economic impacts of their businesses (Weaver, 2008). Similarly, too many of these owners also failed to recognize the importance of developing a thoughtful and targeted marketing plan. These failures not only imperil the long-term sustainability of an ecotourism venture, they jeopardize the support and cooperation of the host communities. These risks are greater for small ecotourism operations because they often begin with much more enthusiasm than funding (Weaver, 2008). While large corporations specializing in soft ecotourism have access to better funding and more diverse business skills, their similarity to mass tourism may reduce ecotourism’s socio-cultural and ecological benefits. The solutions to these concerns may emerge from technological advancements. However, embracing technological solutions to these problems may ultimately impact the image of ecotourism as a respite from the pervasive and invasive impacts of advanced technologies. Lesson 9 Lesson 9 Introduction At the beginning of this lesson’s readings in your textbook, Fennell (2020) recounts a story from a 1992 ecotourism conference in which an unnamed colleague suggested that learning was the characteristic which made ecotourism distinct from other forms of tourism. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest this is a widely held belief among scholars of ecotourism although only a few researchers (see, for example, Newsome et al., 2002) openly claimed that learning was the distinguishing characteristic of ecotourism. This is, perhaps, understandable since such a claim risks downplaying the other essential qualities that define ecotourism. Therefore, for a long time, there was no empirical evidence to support this claim. However, in a study of attitudes toward eco-certification among managers and owners of ecotourism operations in Jamaica, Brown et al. (2021) found that there was “strong evidence for the role of education as the defining characteristic of ecotourism” (p. 120). Whether learning is the defining characteristic of ecotourism or just one of three characteristics is, perhaps, less important than the recognition of its centrality to the goals of ecotourism. In this lesson, we will first examine the structure of the ecotourism to identify potential opportunities for learning. We will also explore the interrelated concepts of learning, education and interpretation. We will also examine the roles of ecotourism operators, outfitters and ecotourism guides and discuss their relevance to learning for ecotourists. Finally, we will consider the nature and relevance of ecolodges and volunteer ecotourism. Learning, Education and Interpretation Beginning a lesson about a central feature of ecotourism with a discussion about semantics may seem like an inauspicious start. However, even though some authors consider these terms to be synonymous (see, for example, Hales, 1993), there is some disagreement about the application of these terms within an ecotourism and, given that in your textbook, Fennell (2020) uses the chapter title of “Learning,” these disagreements can be informative. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) makes a distinction between education and learning. For example, Fennell offers a rather simple definition of education: the passing of knowledge from one person to another. It can, therefore, be considered to be an activity (Garavan, 1997). In comparison, Blamey (2002) quotes a more detailed definition of education from Kalinowski and Weiler (1992), a definition which highlights the structured nature of education: “…education involves a conscious, planned, sequential and systematic process, based on defining learning objectives and using specific learning procedure” (p. 8). Learning, on the other hand, is a continual process and may be thought of as a concept rather than activity (Garavan, 1997). Given these definitions, Fennell (2020) suggests that learning is a more appropriate term within the context of ecotourism because it is a more general term: it may apply to education from a guide or interpreter or it may involve a variety of other knowledge acquisition approaches, such as word of mouth from other ecotourists or simply from personal observation. Blamey (2002) disagrees with Fennell, instead suggesting that learning is involved to some degree in most forms of nature-based tourism. Instead, Blamey (2002) suggests that education, which would include interpretation, is a defining characteristic of ecotourism. As academics, these distinctions may be important. In practice, the semantics are less important than the practices. Before we continue on to a more substantive discussion of learning in ecotourism, it is useful to also define interpretation. The most influential definition of interpretation came from the 1957 first edition of Tilden: “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by first-hand experience, or by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information” (Tilden, 2007, p. 17). As previously mentioned, interpretation may be classified as a type of education (Blamey, 2002). It is important to note, though, that many authors make critical distinctions between the two: education is typically involves a formal approach and is presented to those who might be considered to be a captive audience, while interpretation typically involves an informal approach before voluntary students (see, for example, Hammill, 1984; Moscardo, 2008). If we incorporate this distinction and apply interpretation to ecotourism, we may now define interpretation as not being “… education in the traditional or formal sense, but rather engagement with visitors in ways that provoke them to think about and connect with natural and cultural heritage, including places, sites, people, artefacts, and natural and historical events” (p. 115). The Structure of the Ecotourism Industry In your textbook, Fennell (2020) begins the section entitled “Operators and Guides” with what many may consider an unexpected topic for a chapter about learning is ecotourism: a discussion of the structure of the ecotourism sector or industry. This short discussion serves at least two important purposes, though. 1. It provides context for the position of the operator within the broader ecotourism industry. Many of the learning opportunities at the destination and, to some extent, in the ecotourists’ origin regions, reflect the decisions made by the operators. 2. Outlining the structure of the ecotourism highlights the point that learning opportunities within ecotourism are not limited to activities at the destination: they may happen at many stages of an ecotourist’s trip. The following basic structure of the ecotourism industry is based on Higgins (1996), with refinements suggested by Weaver (2008). They are divided between those operations which operate mainly or exclusively in the tourists’ origin regions and those operations which operate mainly in the destination regions. A brief overview of the traditional learning involved with each region is also included. Click each for more information. Origin Regions: * Travel agents are businesses that provide retail travel services to customers on behalf of other sectors within the tourism industry, such as airlines, accommodations and cruise lines. Travel agents’ income is typically based on commission. * Tour Wholesalers, also known as outdoor nature tour operators, are typically located within major urban centres in the origin region. They provide a variety of products and services, selling ecotourism package tours, making arrangements with airlines, arranging travel schedules, and organizing groups for tours. At a broader level, they play an important role as global linkages between ecotourists in the origin regions with tour wholesalers and local tour operators in the destination regions. Learning for potential or repeat ecotourists is traditionally through a variety of off-site interpretation materials, such as guidebooks, brochures, promotional videos, as well as word-of-mouth testimonies, presentations and storytelling (Weaver, 2008). The increasing availability of academic ecotourism literature has also made this an important source of off-site interpretation (Weaver, 2008). This role is increasingly dominated by Internet sources and virtual experiences (Shahwat, 2024; Singh, 2018). While off-site interpretation frequently focuses on information about the attractions, it also frequently includes guidelines intended to influence visitor behaviour once the ecotourists arrive at their destination. Destination Regions: * Inbound tour operators are typically located in gateway cities or other key urban areas within the destination region. Their primary focus is usually on the marketing of their services to tour wholesalers. However, they also prepare client itineraries, plan activity programs and pay applicable fees, including park entrance fees. * Local tour operators include a wide variety of ecotourism businesses which mediate between the ecotourists and the environmental attractions. They tend to be small, privately-owned businesses. They may focus primarily on providing accommodations, as in an ecolodges, but may include tours within protected areas. Additionally, some of their services may be subcontracted through other local businesses. Learning in the destination regions is somewhat more complex and varied than in the origin regions. Off-site interpretation dominates until the ecotourist arrives at the ecotourism operation, where on-site interpretation is available. If Internet services are available at the ecotourist operation, off-site interpretations may also be available. The ecotourism operation will often also have nearby learning centres which are associated with host communities or protected areas. In these areas, off-site interpretation will dominate. We will discuss on-site interpretation in greater depth later in this lesson. Operators, Outfitters and Guides Operators Ecotourism operators, also known as local tour operators (Higgins, 1996); Weaver, 2008), are not generally considered to be the primary educators in an ecotourism operation except, perhaps, in very small ecotourism operations. However, they may be considered to be the key facilitators of the learning experiences. They are often responsible for the location of the operation. The operators also determine the focus and itineraries of the ecotourism operations’ learning and education programs, often in association the protected area managers (Weiler & Ham, 2001). In determining these itineraries, the operator must consider the needs, interests and motivations of the visitors. In their considerations, Falk and Staus (2013) suggest that the operator must consider four fundamental questions: * Why would members of the public want to visit our operation? * Why would visitors want to participate in our learning opportunities and what would they expect to gain from these opportunities? * Are the visitors likely to feel that they have benefitted from engaging in these opportunities? * How can our ecotourism operation best start and build upon a learning and educational program given the assets, such as existing knowledge, experience and values, all of which the visitors bring to the program? Ecotourism operators do not simply provide the context and facilities for learning and education in their operations, they are also responsible for recruiting and hiring the guides who will directly provide these services to clients. A fundamental consideration for operators is the number of guides that must or can be hired. In your textbook, Fennell (2020) discusses the guide-to-participant ratio, also known as the guide-to-client ratio. Fennell cites Ford and Blanchford (1993) for the recommended guide-to-participant ratio: 1:12 for relatively safe activities, such as hiking. The guide-to-participant ratio was a relatively common quantitative measure of the educational standard of ecotourism operations during the early years of ecotourism’s growth. However, given the diversity within ecotourism, the utility of this measure has diminished. For example, in a study of a ecotourism operation focused on river rafting, Powell et al. (2009), found that the guide to participant ratio was 1:6.2, far lower that the 1:12 standard yet appropriate for this activity. The guide to participant ratio may also vary considerably depending on the luxuriousness of the ecotourism venture and its standard of service delivery. Patterson (2007) found that while some ecotourism operations may have one guide for every 12 clients, high-end operations often have a much lower guide to participant ratio, such as 1:3 or 1:4. These lower ratios allow more flexibility in the types of ecotourism activities and offer more opportunities for interaction between the guides and the clients. Access to protected areas is often an essential part of an ecotourism operation and its learning and educational goals. Thus, ecotourism operators and the managers of protected areas must have a close working relationship. In a study of ecotourism operators and protected area managers in Australia, Moore and Carter (1993) found that conflicts arose from between the two groups due to conflicting goals. The protected area managers must impose some limits on ecotourism activities in order to avoid compromising the quality and ecological integrity of the area. Ecotourism operators require a minimum number of clients to remain economically viable. “Simply put, resource managers tend to approach the question of numbers from a ‘fewer the better perspective’ whilst the tourism industry tends to favour ‘the more the merrier’” (Moore & Carter, 1993, p. 127). When the operators were asked for their opinion of the protected areas mangers, the operators said that the protected areas’ managers did not understand: * the need to make a profit * the time and effort required to develop a target market * the cost of developing and servicing this market * cost of managing the ecotourism operation * the cost of building and maintainig their infrastructure in remote locations * the motivations and needs of the ecotourists * the long lead time needed to acquire and repay financing for the operation Moore and Carter also found that the protected area managers had concerns that they felt were not being addressed by the ecotourism operators. The concerns of the managers were that the operators: * did not understand the conservation ethic * did not provide the visitors with the right information * did not understand the need to control or limit the visitors’ activities in the protected areas * did not understand the vulnerability of the natural resources to damage * were not sympathetic to the cultural significance of Indigenous sites and their importance in the management of the protected areas * overemphasized the drive for profit You may have noticed that your textbook erroneously describes the concerns of the managers as those of the operators. Fennell (2020) states that “On the other hand, operators were concerned over the fact that managers did not …” (p. 129). This sentence should state “On the other hand, [protected area managers] were concerned over the fact that [ecotourism operators] did not …” (p. 129). Operators, Outfitters and Guides Outfitters Outfitters have a very long history of providing services to nature-based tourists (Jones, 2010; Lovelock, 2008; Lowrey, 1986). In the past, outfitters have served in many roles, making the task of defining the term challenging (McKercher, 1992). In your textbook, Fennell (2020) focuses on the role of outfitters as suppliers of equipment for nature-based activities. This role is reflected in Dahles’ (2002) definition of outfitters: outfitters as those “commercial businesses that provide a person with the equipment necessary for an activity or experience” (p. 111). The Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (1984, as cited in McKercher, 1992) used an even more restrictive definition of an outfitter: they defined an outfitter as “any business that rents permanent or itinerant accommodations and boats and/or motors for recreational purposes” (p. 469). These definitions are quite limiting, though, and do not adequately recognize the diversity of services provided by outfitters. For example, Dickenson (2010) recognizes that the term outfitter may apply to a business offering services to nature-based tourists but it may also apply to the owner or manager of the business providing these services. In this role as an owner or manager, the outfitter may facilitate learning by employing guides (Dickenson, 2010). In some cases, the outfitter may also assume the role of guide (Dickenson, 2010). Indeed, it is so common for outfitters to act as guides that Eliason (2011) uses the terms “guide” and “outfitter” interchangeably. Finally, McKercher (1992) adds spatial limitations on the definition of an outfitter. To qualify as an outfitter, McKercher suggests, “… a tourist operation must be located in a rural or isolated area and generate a significant proportion of its annual revenues from fishing, hunting, or backcountry recreation” (p. 469). Operators, Outfitters and Guides Ecotourism Guides Earlier in this lesson, it was claimed that learning or education are some of the defining characteristics of ecotourism. It was even suggested that education and learning are the defining characteristics of ecotourism. The facilitator of much of this learning is undoubtedly the ecotourism guide or ecoguide (Black & Walker, 2013). Given the centrality of education and learning to ecotourism and the central role that guides play in this learning, it is not surprising that many have claimed that guides play a pivotal role in the success of ecotourism operations as well as the success of the ecotourism industry (Black & Walker, 2013; Buckley, 2009; Page & Dowling, 2002; Weiler & Ham, 2002). This pivotal role was succinctly explained by Buckley (2009): “guides are key to client satisfaction” (p. 210). Figure 9.03 – A guide in Gamboa Rainforest Reserve, Colón, Panama. Image by Billtacular. Retrieved from flickr. CC BY-SA 2.0. Given the important role of guides within ecotourism, is not surprising that they may work within many venues or contexts that make up ecotourism: national or subnational parks; ecolodges and other ecotourism accommodations; governmental and non-governmental agencies; and may even be self-employed (Black & Weiler, 2013). Given the diverse contexts within which ecotourism guides work, it is not surprising that they are expected to fulfill a wide variety of roles. These roles include, but are not necessarily limited to: * Educator, interpreter and communicator about the significance of the environment and separate elements of the environment (Black & Weiler, 2005) * Promoter of and advocate for minimal impact and sustainable practices and behaviours (Black & Walker, 2005) * Entertainer and storyteller with the ability to maintain the clients’ interest while providing the context for the natural and cultural elements of the destination in personally meaning ways (Bryon, 2012; Jennings & Weiler, 2005; Weiler & Davis, 1993) * Role model for environmentally sustainable behaviours and attitudes (Black & Weir, 2005) * Interpreter of the underlying meanings and relationships between places and environments (Weiler and Ham, 2001) * Cultural mediator between the ecotourists and the local community and community members (Black & Weiler, 2005) * Crisis manager for problems arising from ecotourism incidents (Aloudat et al., 2020; Weiler & Black, 2014) * Leader of groups of ecotourists with the ability to ensure that policies, rules and regulations are followed, particularly in protected areas where visitors must be accompanied by a guide (Randall & Rollins, 2009; Weiler and Davis, 1993) * Guardian, when the ecotourism activities include potentially hazardous activities (Ababneh, 2017) or when the client’s personal or social well-being in imperiled (Zhang & Chow, 2004) It is interesting to note that in a review of 22 studies about the role of ecotourism guides, Black and Weiler (2005) found that the educator/interpreter role was widely considered to be the most important role for ecotourism guides. Thus, an ecotourism guide’s skills in education and interpretation would generally be considered to be their most important skills. It is important to note that this finding conflicts with the findings of two studies cited in Fennell (2020) (i.e. your ES295 textbook): Priest (1990) as well as Weiler and Davis (1993). Both of these studies suggested that leadership skills were the most important skills for guides. Neither of these studies would generally be considered to be recent publications. Priest’s publication date also occurred rather early in the growth of ecotourism and was primarily focused on guides for adventure tours rather than ecotourism. The findings of the exploratory study by Weiler and Davis (1993) is also somewhat dated but has been updated by one of the authors in Black and Weiler (2005). Furthermore, the findings of Black and Weiler (2005) are supported by their more recent studies, such as Black and Weiler (2013). Thus, Black and Weiler’s (2005) findings should considered to be more convincing. Leadership and education are not the only skills needed by ecotourism guides. A variety of researchers (Black, 2007; Black & Ham, 2005; Carvalho, 2021; Miettinen, 2006; Weiler & Ham, 2001) have identified the skills which ecotourism guides must have: * the ability to meet the ecotourists’ needs and expectations for their trip * the ability to adhere to the relevant legal, ethical and safety requirements * general knowledge about the destination * the ability to provide accurate and detailed commentary and interpretation about the local environment * cultural sensitivities * the ability to provide entertaining yet educational messages * sufficient language skills to be clearly understood * sufficient interpersonal skills to manage a group * a variety of skills and qualifications, such as the ability to drive a vehicle and the qualifications needed to carry groups of passengers, first aid training and, increasingly, the ability to manage digital communication technologies The necessary skills for ecotourism guides’ various roles are needed because the guides must meet the expectations of a wide variety of stakeholders. These stakeholders include the ecotourism operator, the ecotourists, the members of the host communities, local land managers and even the broader ecotourism industry (Weiler & Ham, 2001). These expectations can be very high. For example, Weiler and Crabtree (1998) found that ecotourist clients were very perceptive about the skills and knowledge of their guides and would quickly provide details about their likes and dislikes about their ecotourists. Their most common complaint about their guides was a lack of ecological knowledge and the conservation practices and challenges of their destinations. The ecotourism operators also have very detailed expectations of guides. For example, Weiler and Ham (2001) identified the following expectations of their guides: * They must be able to ensure the safety health and comfort of the visiting ecotourist clients * They must be able to provide quality customer service in a highly courteous manner * They must be able to meet the needs of all the clients, including those from different cultures, clients with special interests and those with physical limitations imposed by age or infirmity * They must be able to manage the emergent group dynamics, particularly those which create conflicts between clients * They must be cost-efficient * They must provide informative, effective and entertaining presentations and commentaries * They must also satisfy all of the legal and moral obligations of the clients, the host communities and the protected area managers Given these diverse roles, the variety of necessary skills and the detailed expectations of various ecotourism, various stakeholders may create significant challenges for the ecotourism guides and the ecotourism operators who hire or recruit the guides. Unfortunately, the demand for qualified ecotourism guides has not kept pace with an increasing supply (Black & Weiler, 2013; Li et al., 2024; Weiler & Ham, 2001). There are many reasons for this shortage. As we have seem, the multiplicity of roles, necessary skills and stakeholder expectations undoubtedly limits the number of qualified guides. Even among well-trained guides, the required knowledge and necessary skills often varies substantially between different ecotourism attractions and destinations: a guide’s training may not be adequate for a particular destination (Black & Weiler, 2013). The pay is often not commensurate the guide’s level of education and, indeed, less than a living wage (Alrawadieh et al., 2020; Kabii et al., 2017). As Black and Weiler (2013) note about the underpayment of guides, “… when earning a living is a priority, there may be less attention to delivering conservation messages and monitoring visitor behaviour” (p. 339). There are also other hardships that are commonly experienced by ecotourism guides. Alrawadieh et al. (2020) found that many ecotourism guides face significant hardships resulting from irregular work schedules, seasonal availability of work, unethical or competitive work environments and job anxiety. Other challenges for guides include high job pressures and intense job demands; demanding physical requirements and resulting injuries; persistent vulnerability of their job status; and frequent job burnout (Alrawadieh et al., 2020; Alrawadieh & Dİnçer, 2021; Li et al., 2024; MacKenzie & Kerr, 2013; Yetgin & Benligiray, 2019). All of these hardships moderate the supply of ecotourism guides at a time when demand is increasing. Guides working in what has often been broadly described as the Global South face a number of benefits but also some rather worrisome challenges. For example, Black et al. (2001) notes that foreign ecotourism operators who are committed to the principles of ecotourism recognize the importance of hiring local guides. Some non-governmental organizations also view the hiring of local guides as part of their goals for community development. Similarly, many local and/or indigenous ecotourism operators are also committed to hiring local guides. However, many ecotourism operators consider “national” to be synonymous with “local,” so that local residents from the host community many not benefit from this commitment to hiring local guides. Black et al. also notes that, while the preferential hiring of local guides may be justified by operators’ stated commitments to the principles of ecotourism, many ecotourism operators appear to prefer to hire local or national guides simply because they typically receive lower wages than foreign guides. Furthermore, while the level of training for ecotourism is a global concern within ecotourism, local ecotourism guides in the Global South often have lower standards of training than other ecotourism guides (Black & Weiler, 2001; Kabii et al., 2017). As Karst (2017) found in a study of ecotourism in Bhutan, operators may be unwilling or unable to fund the training of local guides and will, instead, rely on trained foreign guides. Additionally, Karst (2017) found that the operators were “unable to rely on local people for consistent and professional services” (p. 86). This reliance on trained foreign guides, however, has sometimes become so entrenched that local guides who were trained by the national tourism council were overlooked. In doing this, the operators are failing to live up to defining principles of ecotourism by limiting socio-economic benefits for the local residents and, ultimately, creating local resentment towards to operators and the guides. Ecotourism Guides: Training To fulfill their many roles and to acquire the necessary skills, guides need to be appropriately trained. As previously discussed in this lesson, there is general agreement within academia and the ecotourism industry that more ecotourism guides are needed and better training methods and standards must be developed. There has some progress since the need was first recognized. Indeed, Weiler and Black (2015) found that many of the ecotourism guide training materials that have been developed are very good: these include textbooks, workbooks, and training videos. There has also been a variety of regional, national, and industry-wide certification programs, such as the Ecoguide Certification Program described in your textbook. Unfortunately, many of these training programs face a number of challenges. In many Western countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, there are module-based guide training programs and advancement is through demonstrated competency in these modules (Christie & Mason, 2003; Weiler & Black 2015). These competency-based assessments have been criticized, though, because of their over-emphasis on skills and their lack of philosophical and theoretical foundations (Christie & Mason, 2003; Foley, 1995; Weiler & Black, 2015). Hillman (2003) also suggested that some of these training programs embrace elitist philosophies and organizational identities and exclude potential guides who do not conform to these philosophies and organizational standards. Training programs in the Global South tend to face different challenges than their Western counterparts, such as the reliance on Western-based conservation models with limited applicability to many non-Western social and ecological contexts, as well as the exclusion of recent research findings and theoretical insights (Black & King, 2002; Weiler & Ham, 2002). While many, if not most, ecotourism guide training programs continue to experience challenges, this is one of the most researched aspect of ecotourism. Much of this research has investigated regionally or nationally specific issues in the hope of developing training programs which meet their specific needs. Other research has focused on broader theoretical and conceptual topics. This research aims to provide guides with a better understanding of ecotourists’ learning processes in order to promote long-lasting pro-environmental knowledge, behaviours and attitudes. Walker and Weiler (2017) highlighted some of this research which focusses on the role of guides in creating “transformative” (p. 273) experiences for tourists. Through these transformative experiences, the goal is to raise awareness of environmental issues and, thereby, becoming mindful advocates for change (Christie & Mason, 2003). In attempting to achieve this goal, the guide should never use either coercion or indoctrination. Rather, the guide must learn to provide opportunities for the clients to see the world differently in the hope that the clients (i.e. the ecotourists) will gain new insights and act on these insights, thus transforming themselves (Christie & Mason, 2003, Knudson et al., 1995; Pond, 1993). It is through this transformation process that the client will reflect on their aims for the tour as well as challenge their own assumptions, values and objectives. To allow guides to learn to be able to facilitate this transformation, Walker and Weiler (2017) offered a guiding model, graphically represented in the pyramid in figure 9.04. 1 Level 1: Attributes The first level reflects the attributes of those who facilitate the transformation of the ecotourists’ values, particularly the ecotourism guides. These attributes are necessary to allow the guides and other staff to be able to establish the foundational trust and respect in the minds of the clients. 2 Level 2: Benefits Once the foundational (level 1) attributes of the guides are established in practice, they facilitate benefits. The realization of these benefits allows the ecotourist to safely and enjoyably embrace the experiences offered by the ecotourism venture. This, in turn, allows them to become more receptive to pro-environmental messages and, ultimately, greater environmental awareness. 3 Level 3: Personal Significance / Values At this level, the guide must be trained to encourage discussions with the clients through a series of simple questions in an effort to facilitate deeper reflection of the clients’ personal values. These personal values drive an individual’s behaviour and it is through reflection and consideration of these existing values that they may be challenged, permitting the emergence of new personal insights (level 4). 4 Level 4: Personal Insight Once again, the guide must be trained to facilitate this reflection through group interactions and through the open exchange of ideas between the guide and the clients. 5 Level 5: Now and Future Behaviours It is through this exchange, facilitated by the guide through provocative and transformative questions, that insights about environmental appreciation, responsibility and concern are formed and new pro-environmental behaviours emerge (level 5). Figure 9.04 – The Guiding Model. Adapted from Walker and Weiler (2017 ). Before we leave this discussion of the guiding model, it is useful to examine the emergence of pro-environmental behaviours in level 5 of the model. As discussed in your textbook, Ballantyne and Parker (2011) noted that the ecotourists’ transformed values and behaviours which have hopefully emerged as a result of their transformative experiences, may not be retained in the long-term. As a result of this drop-off effect, many ecotourists who initially expressed an intention to take tangible conservation actions did not continue to express these intentions over time. In their study of ecotourists in who had gone through a transformative interpretive experience, it was found that 33% of respondents initially expressed intentions to take tangible conservation actions. However, four months after this experience, only 7% expressed this intention. There is no indication that this drop-off effect is due to inadequacies in the guides’ training. Rather, it was suggested that the drop-off effect was a result of inadequate post-visit reinforcements of the emergent behaviours and attitudes: post-visit discussions, mass media and Internet-based messaging and even individual reflections tended to be “haphazard and idiosyncratic” (p. 209). Ballantyne and Parker suggested that post-visit reinforcements of the conservation and pro-environmental messages using social media or other Internet-based applications may be useful in delaying or reducing the drop-off effect. Ecotourism Guides: Interpretation Interpretation is unquestionably a key role for ecotourism guides and it is one of the most researched topics in ecotourism. The importance of interpretation to the goals of ecotourism actually predates the emergence of ecotourism as a distinct sector within tourism. It was offered in an April, 1953, memorandum written by Conrad L. Wirth, who was then the Director of the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior. Wirth stated that “… the objective is: protection through appreciation, appreciation through understanding, and understanding through interpretation (cited in Mackintosh, 1986, para. 3). While this phrase was inspirational, the memorandum offered few insights into the definition or principles of interpretation. Thus, much of the early ecotourism literature paid a great deal of attention to defining interpretation within an ecotourism context (for a review, see Masberg, 1992). In this early literature, nearly all activities undertaken by ecotourist guides were incorporated within the practice of interpretation (Black & Weiler, 2013). Black and Weiler (2013) also noted that other early ecotourism literature described the principles and practices of interpretation without ever using the term. Much of this early literature relied on the definition of interpretation first proposed in 1957 by Tilden: “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by first-hand experience, or by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information” (Tilden, 2007, p. 17). Tilden’s definition highlighted the important distinction between interpretation and education: while education typically focuses on formally presenting factual information, interpretation highlights meanings and relationships within concepts. Tilden’s definition also emphasizes the personal nature of the experience for the visitor and represents a holistic experience (Walker & Moscardo, 2014). In a later definition, Weiler and Kim (2011) retained the central ideas of Tilden’s definition but applied them specifically to an ecotourism context: “interpretation is not education in the traditional or formal sense, but rather engagement with visitors in ways that provoke them to think about and connect with natural and cultural heritage, including places, sites, people, artefacts, and natural and historical events” (p. 115). This definition provides us the foundation upon which we can establish principles to use in practice by ecotourism guides. Figure 9.05 – College students learning about ecotourism and interpretation on Earth Day in 2016. Image by Ferrum College. Retrieved from flickr. CC BY-SA 2.0. A number of ecotourism scholars have offered lists of principles of ecotourism interpretation. They are all generally similar to one another. In this lesson, though, we will examine the principles of interpretation offered by Weiler and Ham (2001). All of the claims in this list of principles should be assumed to be from this source, unless otherwise indicated within the discussion of each principle. 1. Interpretation is not teaching or formal academic instruction Ecotourists are not students in the formal captive audience sense and are not required to demonstrate their comprehension of the information: there is unlikely to be a formal evaluation at the end of their trip. Rather, they are a non-captive audience who are voluntarily participating in free-choice learning (Ballantyne & Packer, 2011; Falk, Heimlich & Foutz, 2009). Thus, ecotourist clients will only pay attention if they perceive that the information is sufficiently interesting and presented in an approachable manner. Even if the visitors are interested and engaged with the topics of the interpretation, it has been shown that although ecotourists are likely to forget much of the factual information in a presentation, they are more likely to retain concepts which have been presented in provocative and emotive manner (Beck & Cable, 2011; Buchholz et al., 2015). Guides need to be aware of this because the interest of bored or inattentive ecotourists can be quickly lost. 2. Interpretation must be enjoyable for the visitors Just as the information presented through interpretation must be offered in an approachable, non-academic style, it must also be presented in a manner which is enjoyable and fun to the clients. Given that the clients are on vacation, keeping the interpretations fun may seem obvious. To some extent, many ecotourists do not seek out learning opportunities simply for its instrumental value but because they find learning to be intrinsically enjoyable (Packer, 2006). At the same, there is a stereotype within the industry that ecotourists are serious students of ecology and fun for them would be defined by presenting as much material in as short a time as possible in order to maximize their “fun.” While ecotourists do tend to have higher levels of educational attainment than the average population (Diamantis, 1999), they also share other tourists’ pleasure-seeking qualities. Thus, they enjoy playful competitions as well as colloquial, informal and spirited interactions. For the guide and, ultimately the ecotourism operator, making the interpretation enjoyable advances the learning goals of ecotourism and increases the satisfaction of the ecotourist clients. There has been considerable ecotourism research to demonstrate that education and entertainment are not merely compatible: they are synergistic, with their combined results being greater than if each was undertaken separately (Falk et al., 1998; Packer & Ballantype, 2004; Schänzel, 2004). The desire for fun should be a universal goal in ecotourism: research in a variety of ecotourism attractions in both Western and non-Western countries has shown the importance of fun in ecotourism interpretation (Cini & Passafaro, 2019; Ham & Sutherland, 1992; Ham et al., 1993; Sweeting et al., 1999). 3. Interpretation must be relevant to the visitors While it may seem self-evident, research has shown that people pay closer attention to topics which interest them, topics that they already understand, things that they already care about and/or topics that are relevant to their interests (see, for example, Ham, 1992: Renninger & Hidi, 2015; Schiefele, 1991; Shirey & Reynolds, 1988). When the focus of the guide’s presentation is of interest to the clients and, as a result, they pay closer attention to the presentation, the message becomes more meaningful to them. The relevance about a topic can also be enhanced if the guide relies on everyday or colloquial language, bridges less relevant or more complicated concepts with metaphors or analogies, and/or frames discussions about less familiar topics within the context of something that is more familiar (Sweeting, et al., 1992). Ham (1992) suggests that “personal” commentaries which focus on themes or topics that the clients already care deeply about will significantly improve the audience’s interest and, ultimately, their retention. Therefore, for successful interpretation, guides should try to make their commentaries both meaningful and personally relatable. 4. Interpretation must be well organized and easy to follow As a non-captive audience of pleasure-seeking vacationers, ecotourists will switch their attention to something or someone other than the ecotourism guide if a presentation is either not entertaining or difficult to follow. Therefore, guides must make every effort to make their presentations easy to follow. This is not merely because a guide may lose the attention of the ecotourist audience but because well-organized presentations have been shown to much more effective and require less effort to follow than less well organized presentations (Beck & Cable, 1998; Svartor, 2017). It has also been well-established that effective and easy to follow presentation should be limited to 5-9 categories or units (Miller, 1956). This limitation is not impacted by levels of education or even the intelligence quotients (i.e. IQ) of the audience members (Lee, 1979; Miller, 1956; Solso, 1979). However, since any sufficiently large group is likely to represent a broad cross-section of interests and prior experiences, Ham (1992) suggests that five or fewer categories would likely be most effective. 5. Interpretation should be organized around themes The primary goals of ecotourism interpretation are promotion of conservation efforts and the encouragement of pro-environmental values and behaviours. However, these goals are unlikely to be achieved with interpretation that focuses on isolated facts or topics because most of these are only retained for a short time (Ham, 1992). To achieve longer term changes in values and attitudes, it is preferable to focus on themes (see, for example, Beck & Cable, 1998; Ham, 1992; Sweeting et al., 1999). Unlike topics, which simply reflect the subjects of a presentation, such as geology, plants or wildlife, themes are broader messages that are based on factual information and/or compelling messages. Strong themes which are skillfully presented have the ability to create bonding between the members of the audience in a way that lists of isolated facts cannot (Ham & Krumpe, 1996). By focusing on themes, guides are better able to achieve the goals of ecotourism by encouraging long-term changes in values and behaviours than could be accomplished by presentations centred on facts and topics. These five principles have been shown to be important considerations in effective ecotourism interpretation. There is also evidence that interpretation can be, and often is, effective in promoting increased visitor satisfaction within ecotourism (Ballantyne et al., 2009; Moscardo 2014). However, Moscardo (2017) has identified a set of factors which help to further promote these positive outcomes for ecotourists. While these factors are not as broadly applicable as the five principles of interpretation, they are optional elements that may be used to further improve interpretation success. These factors are: * the inclusion of unique, endemic, rare, novel or surprising elements * the use of various types of media for presentations and the use of differing presentation styles * the use of a range of activities focusing on multiple senses * allowing visitors to directly interact with the subjects of the interpretation as well as with each other While interpretation is a key activity for ecotourism guides, there are challenges in effectively communicating transformative environmental messages while simultaneously satisfying the recreational expectations of ecotourism. While the principles of effective interpretation provide useful guidelines for ecotourism guides, achieving the goals of interpretation is still dependent on the interpersonal and presentation skills of the guide. Ecolodges A great deal of research and academic discussion has gone into defining ecotourism, understanding its ecological and socio-economic impacts, ensuring local participation and benefits, and effectively communicating pro-environmental messages and values. However, relatively little research has focused on the design and construction of environmentally sustainably ecotourism infrastructure. Key components of this infrastructure are ecolodges. As with the term “ecotourism,” the definition of the term “ecolodge” has been the subject of considerable debate. A typical definition was offered by Russell et al. (1995), who defined an ecolodge as “‘a nature-dependent lodge that meets the philosophy and principles of ecotourism” (p. x). Russell et al. differentiates ecolodges from more traditional resorts in a number of ways: ecolodges are designs which are more integrated with the natural environment, provide good and hearty meals rather than more gourmet menus, and offer activities which are focused on environmental education. Osland and Mackoy (2004) offer a rather more precise definition of an ecolodge: “the accommodation facilities and services established in, or very near, natural areas visited by ecotourists” (p.110). They also offer a taxonomy for types of ecolodges, including: * dedicated ecolodges (limited infrastructure focused on hard ecotourists) * casual ecolodges (cozy and luxurious accommodations in well-serviced areas) * scientific ecolodges (dedicated to the needs of research and education) * agri-ecolodges (based in farming households) A variety of authors have also developed defining criteria for ecolodges. For example, Blake et al. (1996) proposed criteria based on an ecolodge’s sustainability: the impact on its physical environment, its local economic benefits and its local socio-cultural benefits. Mehta et al. (1999) proposed criteria which an ecolodge must satisfy. These are: * It must protect both the natural and cultural elements of the local environment * It must have minimal impact on the local environment during construction * It must be aesthetically harmonious with the local surroundings * It may only utilize sustainable water resources * It must have environmentally responsible management of waste and waste water * It must be economically beneficial and socially compatible with the host community * It must provide ecological education for its guests and employees * It must support research activities which contribute to the sustainability of the local community A large number of ecolodges have now been built worldwide and most of these have been built to strictly enforced guidelines which are generally similar to those proposed by Mehta (Bulatović, 2017). Most of these ecolodges have also incorporated a variety of “green” practices and technologies, such as solar and/or wind-powered electricity generation systems; water conservation technologies, including bio-toilets, grey water recovery and rainwater storage and purification; ecologically acceptable sewage systems which protect ground water and surface water sources; landscaping with autochthonous (i.e. native) flora; and the use of ecologically acceptable building and interior materials and, such as non-toxic paints, recovered wood products and organic cotton upholstery and drapes (Bulatović, 2017). Osland and Mackay (2004) found that most ecolodges had met a list of 84 performance goals. The most numerous of these performance goals were those related to environmental sustainability. However, financial success was a little more varied. They found that 71% of the ecolodges that they studied were at least breaking even financially. This is very similar to the findings of Sanders and Halpenny (2001): they found that 69% of the ecolodges that were studied were at least breaking even. Furthermore, Osland and Mackoy (2004) found that slightly more than half (57%) of the ecolodges that they studied were profitable (i.e. their revenue was greater than their expenses). While this rate of profitability is not particularly promising, they noted that not all of the ecolodges were motivated by profit. Some of these were community-based ecotourism ventures and others were developed as lifestyle-driven motivations. Still, as de Grosbois and Fennell (2022) note, the inability of an ecolodge to generate sufficient income, even in the short-term and even if the ecolodge generates considerable socio-cultural capital, is likely to lead to business failure. They also note that without sufficient profitability, an ecolodge will be unlikely to achieve its other organizational goals, such as support for the local community, conserving biodiversity and promoting education. Volunteer Ecotourism There are many similarities between volunteer tourism and ecotourism. For example, Wearing (2001) describes volunteer tourism as tourism involving individuals who “…are seeking a tourist experience that is mutually beneficial, that will contribute to their personal development but also positively and directly to the social, natural and/or economic environments in which they participate” (p.1). It should not be confused with work tourism, in which the tourist is paid for work undertaken while travelling (Tomazos & Butler, 2009). As suggested by its name, volunteer tourists do not receive any remuneration for the work and must cover all of their own expenses, including travel costs. Like ecotourism and other forms of alternative tourism, volunteer tourism grew out of criticisms of mass tourism. It has also been cynically suggested that both ecotourism and volunteer tourism both, on the one hand, “… provide the customer with a feeling of having the moral 'high ground' while being sensitive, exclusive and 'fashionable', and on the other hand, give the operators a 'licence' to print money” (Tomazos & Butler, 2009, p. 197). As Fennell (2020) notes, volunteer tourism may exist as an important sector within the broader ecotourism industry. However, not all volunteer tourism can be classified within ecotourism, especially when the volunteer activities focus almost exclusively of socio-economic volunteer work. Volunteer ecotourists, also known as research ecotourists or deep green ecotourists, typically volunteer their efforts assisting research scientists (Fennell, 2020). Brightsmith et al. (2008) note that volunteer ecotourism has a particularly strong synergistic relationship with conservation biology. Conservation biology provides scientific expertise to the relationship; ecotourism provides local and international support for conservation and protected areas (Fennell & Weaver, 2005) and builds support for conservation efforts among residents of the local communities; and volunteer tourism provides the funding and labour (Campbell & Smith, 2006). This relationship is particularly beneficial for conservation biology, whose work often focuses on ecological monitoring and basic biological studies. Unfortunately these kinds of studies often have significant difficulties in competing for research funding (Brightsmith et al., 2008). Much of the research of conservation biologists is also located in the Global South, where funding for any research is often difficult or impossible to obtain. Ecotourists also gain by making direct contributions to the conservation of biodiversity while learning from experts in the field. Finally, the volunteer tourists gain by the cultural immersion in local communities, the desire to aid conservation efforts and the camaraderie of working within a team of dedicated individuals (Campbell & Smith, 2006). This whole process becomes even more efficient when the volunteer tourists are also ecotourists. Not all volunteer tourists are the same, though. As in ecotourism, volunteer tourists may be classified on a continuum, although their continuum ranges from purely altruistic motivations to a quest for hedonistic pursuits (Tomazos & Butler, 2009). In between these end-points of the continuum, the volunteer tourists try to find a satisfying balance between altruism and hedonism. ”Now organisations can offer much more than a simple opportunity to volunteer, they can and do offer holidays, and the balance is clearly shifting from altruism and commitment to hedonism and profit, in the same way that ecotourism has become a synonym to 'ego-tourism' and a form of mass conventional tourism (Tomazos & Butler, 2009, p. 210). Despite these criticisms, volunteer ecotourists may make important contributions to scientific research while finding enjoyment. Conclusion Although this lesson and the accompanying textbook chapter are both called “Learning,” they encompass more diverse topics than one might expect usually expect from a lesson and chapter with this title. At the beginning of the lesson, we outlined the structure of the ecotourism industry, including elements within the tourist origin regions, where off-site interpretation dominates the ecotourists’ learning opportunities, and elements within the destination regions, where both on-site and off-site interpretation approaches are may be available. We also discussed the different occupations of the people who contribute to on-site interpretation in an ecotourism operation: ecotourism operators, outfitters and ecotourism guides. Of these three roles, guides are likely make the most significant contribution to clients’ learning opportunities. Ecotourism guides can also make essential contributions to the success of an ecotourism operation and the prosperity of the broader ecotourism industry. Because of this, we closely examined the roles of ecotourism guides, discussed a model for effective guiding and reviewed the principles for effective interpretation by guides. Finally, we discussed the role of ecolodges in ecotourism and explored the nature and benefits of volunteer ecotourism. Learning plays a central role in the success and growth of ecotourism. Thus, it is useful to repeat the quotation offered in the introduction of this lesson: there is “… strong evidence for the role of education as the defining characteristic of ecotourism” (Brown et al., p. 120). Lesson 10 Lesson 10 Introduction The historical relationship between ethics and tourism could probably be best described as complex. This is because, as Hall (1994) noted, tourism has usually, perhaps even universally, prioritized the drive for profit over ecological and socio-cultural concerns. This single-minded priority has frequently been attributed largely to capitalism (see, for example, Burrai et al., 2019). Without entirely dismissing the influence of capitalism, Wheeller (2004) offers an even more fundamental explanation for the amoral or even immoral drive for profit: human nature. Wheeler (2004) suggests that human nature will prioritize self-interest irrespective of the socio-political system or context. Indeed, Wheeler makes no distinction between supposedly conflicting socio-economic systems: “Capitalism is a ‘dog eat dog’ world. And communism? Well, it’s the other way round”(p. 473). While one may not share Wheeller’s somewhat cynical view of human nature, it does highlight the need to explore the relationship between ethics, tourism or ecotourism, and human nature. Ethical considerations unquestionably played a critical role in the emergence of ecotourism: as we have already discussed, ecotourism began as a response to criticisms of mass tourism and to the disillusionment of tourists to the homogeneity and hedonism of mass tourism, as well as its socio-economic and environmental impacts. The many definitions for ecotourism, including the one used in this course, reflect these ethical considerations. Even the marketing of ecotourism has exploited ethical concerns about mass tourism to attract new ecotourists. However, framing ecotourism as simply a solution to these ethical concerns would likely ignore the ethical concerns about ecotourism. In this course and in your two assignments, we have identified a variety of ecological and socio-economic impacts of ecotourism, all of which raise ethical concerns about the policies and practices within ecotourism. Still, the belief that ecotourism is part of a solution and not part of the problem pervades ecotourism. This belief in the unsullied virtue of ecotourism is compounded by ecotourists’ feeling of superiority, a feeling which may be produced by assuming that one occupies the moral high ground (Tomazos & Butler, 2009). This virtue is at least partially an illusion, though: near the end of the Lesson 9 – Education, Learning and Interpretation, a quotation was offered that stated that “ecotourism has become a synonym to ‘ego-tourism’ and a form of mass conventional tourism” (Tomazos & Butler, 2009, p. 210). The extent to which ecotourism has betrayed or, perhaps, outgrown its ethical foundations is a worthwhile discussion. In this lesson, we will begin with a brief examination of the claim that ethical behaviour in humans is fundamentally a reflection of our self-centeredness. We will then examine the relevance of ethical considerations in the study of tourism and ecotourism. This will be followed by discussions of the value and limitations of ethical codes of conduct in ecotourism and the role of certification in ecotourism as an exercise to try to ensure ethical behaviour in the industry. We will end with an examination of the ethics of using wildlife as an attraction for ecotourists. Ethical by Nature In this part of the lesson, we will examine Fennell’s (2020) use of Trivers’ (1971) sociobiological model of reciprocal altruism as an explanation for human ethical behaviour. This explanation will then be used to explain cooperation in tourism. Fennell’s (2006; 2020) interest emerged out of a general lack of research examining or explaining tourist-host interactions that resulted in positive cooperation. As Fennell (2006) notes, tourists typically leave their primary social networks at home (such as those in their neighbourhoods and workplaces) and travel to short-term communities at their destinations. Within these short-term vacation communities, they establish new, temporary relationships which may be positive or may lead to conflict. As you have seen in earlier lessons and textbook readings, there has been considerable research that examined conflicted relationships which lead to socio-cultural or ecological impacts. Fennell (2006) suggests that this focus on negative tourist interactions simply reflects a historical bias within tourism research and, to some extent, other social sciences. However, Fennell also suggests that it has been challenging to study positive interactions leading to cooperation between hosts and guests because of the limited opportunities for interactions between tourists and hosts during short vacations. As Trivers (1971) noted, cooperation can only emerge from stable relations which developed over time. Short vacations were believed to be too brief for cooperative interactions to develop. However, positive cooperative interactions have been well-documented in ecotourism, such as those resulting in socio-cultural benefits (see, for example, Scheyvens, 1999) and/or economic and ecological benefits (see, for example Lindberg & Enrıquez, 1994). Since long-term, nurtured relationships are generally impossible in these short-term tourist communities, Triver’s (1971) suggests a sociobiological trait which has evolved over long periods of time has the ability to produce long-term benefits from short-term interactions. Trivers (1971) describes this sociobiological trait as reciprocal altruism. It is readily apparent that Trivers’ scholarly article is rather dated. However, it provides such critical insights that it is considered to be a pivotal document which continues to be widely cited and has influenced a wide variety of disciplines. You will also note that Trivers’ insights are described variously as a theory, a concept and a model. Since Trivers (1971) described reciprocal altruism as a model, this is the term which we will use. To understand this term, we must step back from tourism for a moment to explore the concept of reciprocal altruism. To begin this examination, it is useful to divide the term into its two constituent words: reciprocal and altruism. Reciprocal, of course, simply means something that is experienced by both sides. Altruism can be defined as “a behavior that benefits another organism, not closely related, while being apparently detrimental to the organism performing the behavior, benefit and detriment being defined in terms of contribution to inclusive fitness” (Trivers, 1971, p. 35).There is some disagreement about whether or not altruism may occur within kinship groups. Trivers excludes kin from acts of altruism because apparent altruistic acts for a family member may benefit the person who provided the act. For example, a parent who takes a personal risk to save their drowning child benefits not only the child who has been saved but also the parent who, in saving their child, has preserved their genetic legacy; the parent cannot be described as altruistic in this case because, in benefitting themselves by favouring their own genes, they have taken “the altruism out of altruism” (Trivers, 1971, p. 35). If, however, a drowning person is saved by an unrelated or distantly related individual, the benefit would be entirely for the person who was saved: the person who saved the drowning person received no tangible benefit for taking a risk. If we were to examine the act from the perspective of a cost-benefit analysis, there was a great benefit to the drowning person at considerable cost to the person saving them. In this case, only the drowning person will benefit by regaining their ability to pass on their genes: there appears to be no biological or evolutionary benefit for the person performing the altruistic act. However, out of this rescue, an expectation of reciprocity is created: if the person who previously saved the drowning person is now at risk of drowning, there is an expectation that the person who was previously saved will now try to save their former rescuer. In this instance of reciprocal altruism, both individuals have undertaken risky actions but also created a situation where both individuals have won. It is also possible, though that the first person to be saved cheats, and does not provide a reciprocal altruist act to save the person who had previously saved them. Such cheaters may ultimately experience a significant impact because the others within their broader social group would likely be less willing to take a risk for someone who is unlikely to reciprocate. Thus, reciprocal altruism offers individuals a sociobiological advantage by establishing “a form of symbiosis” (Fennell, 2006, p. 106) in which both individuals will ultimately benefit, even if one of them will inevitably experience a lag time before their reciprocal benefit is realized. The key points about reciprocal altruism are that it is an innate dynamic of human interactions and it has been suggested that it is this innate feature which forms the basis for ethical behaviours (Fennell, 2006, 2020; Mayr, 1988; Trivers, 1971; von Hayek, 1994). This sociobiological feature of humans remains true even in an age where technology has often splintered social groups and made their interactions indirect and fleeting. As Stille (2002) observes, “while technologies have changed dramatically, human nature is relatively constant” (p. 339). But how does this possible explanation and argument for a sociobiological foundation of ethics provide specific insights into the ethics of ecotourism? In answering this question, we must reinforce a point that has hopefully been evident in this course: tourism is a socially interactive activity and industry. There are numerous kinds of interactions between different actors within tourism, including tourists, different levels of service providers, regulatory administrators, and residents of the host communities. Even the solitary back-packing hard ecotourist will experience innumerable interactions with other individuals and be influenced by the interactions between others within the industry. Fennell (2006) notes that researchers have a relatively well-developed understanding of these interactions at the macro level, such as tourist impacts and the political and economic context. Less well understood are the interactions at the micro level between individual stakeholders in the industry (Fennell, 2006). Understanding these short-term interactions demands that we gain a better understanding of reciprocal altruism. Applying the model of reciprocal altruism to short-term tourism interactions can be problematic. This is because one party or actor may cheat the system with little consequence. Fennell (2006) uses the example of a disagreement between an operator and a client tourist. Given the “one-shot nature” (Fennell, 2006, p.114) of this interaction and the unlikelihood of later interactions, interpersonal cheating involving taking the client’s money but providing fewer resources would be a rational decision for the operator. The same can be true for the tourist. While leaving a tip for some service providers is often customary, cheating by leaving no tip will have little or no consequence. Even interactions between souvenir sellers and tourists may involve cheating, where an inexperienced tourist fails to barter and overpays for a souvenir or a tourists aggressively barters with the seller and threatens to go to a competitor. When this cheating is widespread and compounded through many interactions and between many individuals in a destination, the result of this pervasive cheating is the development of a cheating norm leading to annoyance and antagonism (Fennell, 2006). Thus, in the world of tourism where co-operative relationships are difficult to establish and cheating is widespread, Wheeller’s claim about the world’s tourism industry becomes poignant:” …we should remember that the [tourism industry] is a world driven largely by avarice, greed, self-interest” (p. 471). To attain the goals of ecotourism, ways must be found to prioritize ethical altruism over self-interest. Ethics and Tourism As Fennell (2020) notes, ethics has been a central focus of scholarly thought, debate and writing since antiquity. Despite its long history, it is all too often a term that is difficult to define. One definition simply refers to ethics as the branch of philosophy focusing on moral principles (Dennis, 2020). However, ethics is more than just a sub-discipline of philosophy; it is also the focus of study. As Velasquez et al. (1987) note, many people associate ethics with feelings. However, a person being led by their feelings could potentially do something that was profoundly unethical. They also note that ethics is not the same as religion: if ethics was synonymous with religion, only religious people could be ethical. They also suggest that ethics is not the same as the law, even though laws are often based on ethical principles. One need only to examine the long history of unethical slavery laws to highlight this distinction. Finally, ethics are not socially-defined or reflective of “whatever society accepts” (Velasquez et al. 1987, p. 623). Defining common misconceptions about the nature of ethics can be informative but it still does not provide an informative definition. Your textbook offers a useable definition, although it is also an infrequently-used definition. In this lesson, a more frequently-used definition of ethics is offered: “Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues” (Velasquez et al. 1987, p. 623). While this is the first lesson which exclusively focuses on the ethics and ecotourism, many of the previous lessons have focused on ethical concerns. For example, the criticisms of the dominant Western environmental paradigm and the promotion of the green paradigm are founded on ethical principles. While many of the socio-economic impacts are issues which demand attention for the successful management and profitability of ecotourism operations, most, if not all are based on ethical concerns. The same can be said for ecological impacts. Even the emergence of ecotourism is based on ethical concerns about mass tourism. As Jamal (2019) observes, “it is a chimera, this thing called tourism. It can offer fun, joy, rich existential experiences [...] Yet, there are also possibilities to wreak thoughtless harm on the destination, the environment, and those who inhabit them” (p. 1). In the following sections of this lesson, we will dissect this chimera to examine some the “possibilities to wreak thoughtless harm.” Justice and Equity Another ethical concern for ecotourism should be one of the most obvious ones: justice. In this part of the lesson, we will focus specifically on concerns about equity and justice, including inter-generational equity and intra-generational equity. This form of justice has been referred to using different terms, such as the expansive term of social justice or the more narrowly-defined term, procedural justice. Within this context, we will focus primarily on the fair, equitable and just treatment of traditionally disadvantaged and marginalized populations: these were concerns which were prioritized in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). Despite this early recognition of the fundamental concerns about ethical issues of justice in tourism and ecotourism, there has been little progress in researching this concern (see, for example, Fennel, 2006; D’Sa, 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 2009) and many scholars have called for closer examination of this issue (see, for example, Britton, 1982; Fennell, 2006). The concern was particularly well-framed by a question by Jamal and Camargo (2014): “How well do sustainability-oriented discourses address justice for minority, diverse and lower-income populations in tourism destinations – disadvantaged and marginalized populations excluded from decision-making in the commodification and marketing of their cultural goods and identities?” (p. 12). There is little doubt that ecotourism planners and policy-makers have often intended to follow ethical principles in attempts to promote sustainable actions and behaviours. However, as Jamal and Camargo (2014) point out, these attempts at facilitating sustainable behaviour generally fail to address, or simply disguise, critical questions, such as: upon which ethical approaches are these sustainability-oriented principles based? Another critical question would be how do these sustainability-related activities behaviours and/or programs address concerns about justice? There are certainly sustainability programs which have been implemented in many ecotourism programs in some ecotourism destinations. However, sustainability goals and ethical considerations are often so entangled that it is often difficult to clearly identify which ethical principle is being addressed (Jamal & Camargo, 2014). This is particularly true “…with respect to fairness and justice for local residents and their ecological and cultural resources, relationships and heritage” (Jamal & Camargo, 2014), p.16). Wood (2009) suggests that concerns about justice for local residents in host ecotourism communities are becoming even more important as ecotourism operations become increasing influenced of globalization, global free trade policies, and expanding neoliberal agendas. Distributive Justice A significant ethical concern about tourism in general but particularly in ecotourism is the relative distribution of benefits and costs. The equitable distribution of benefits and costs was described by Rawls (1971) as distributive justice. D’Sa (1999) suggested that concerns about distributive justice were widespread: there are profound imbalances in wealth and power between the Western origin centres for tourists and their destinations in the Global South. These imbalances are rooted in historical immoral practices and events, such as the slave trade, colonial conquest and plunder, and military interventions. The former colonies in the Global South were inevitably left indebted and dependent on their former colonialist nations and supra-national organizations, like the World Bank. Tourism development seemed like an ideal solution to these problems. Unfortunately, investors and developers from the Global North dictated the conditions and standards of the attractions and reinforced the power of local elites, such as government officials, community leaders and prominent business interests. The majority of residents often had little or no opportunities to influence the decision-making processes but were often the ones who experience the greatest socio-economic and environmental impacts. Indeed, these imbalances were noted quite early in the rise of ecotourism: Karwacki and Boyd (1995) argued that ecotourism was inherently unethical because it profited local political elites and service providers while offering few benefits but may impacts to the poverty-stricken residents of host communities. This was demonstrated by Honey (1999) with the example of the KwaZulu-Natal park co-management agreement: the host community residents were to receive 25% of the parks’ profits and these monies were to be used for social infrastructure projects. After more than a decade, it was discovered that all of the money had been taken by the tribal leaders. Thus, despite efforts to create policies and agreements which will address distributive justice concerns, ethical problems remain as persistent concerns. Figure 10.02. Southern white rhinoceros at Hluhluwe–Imfolozi Park, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Image by N2e. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0. Racism D’Sa (1999) also highlights a particularly pernicious and persistent immoral practice: racism. D’Sa equates Global North/Western societies with commodified culture, a “tyranny of technology” (p.66), material comfort and presumed sophistication. Despite these apparent benefits and relative luxuriousness, D’Sa suggests that boredom and alienated lives will inevitability set in. To resolve this boredom, the residents of the Global North may try to find respite in the supposedly unspoiled nature of countries in the Global South. As they travel, they may intentionally or inadvertently flaunt their relative wealth in front of the host communities’ residents. Because of their apparent privileged status, they may also feel justified in violating local customs and trespassing into sacred spaces. The ultimate result is that tourists may sometimes act as if they are superior to the local population and treat the local residents as inferiors. Individual and Community Rights D’Sa (1999) notes that within tourism and ecotourism, respect for the autonomy of the individual and the rights of communities are core ethical values. Within ecotourism and other forms of sustainable tourism, visitors are required to respect the rights of the local residents of the host communities. However, the tourists, including pleasure-seeking ecotourists, often have predetermined expectations about the nature and quality of their destinations. To satisfy these expectations, local elites often use their influence and power to redesign the host community and other tourist attractions to satisfy the visitors’ expectations. To achieve this goal, the rights of local residents must be compromised: people are evicted from their homes, private residents and public or communal buildings and facilities may be destroyed and rebuilt or are modernized, often using master plans developed in the wealthy Global North (D’Sa, 1999) . Finally, local resources, including food and water, which have long been used by the local residents may suddenly become unavailable as the foreign tourists are given priority access to these resources. Ultimately, the entertainment and quality of life expectations of wealthy foreign tourists are often prioritized over the traditional rights of the local residents. Indigenous Rights Ethical concerns about the relationships between Indigenous peoples and ecotourism could be subsumed into many of the other subsections within this discussion about ethics. However, Indigenous rights are distinct and in addition to other rights so a separate discussion is warranted. While the recognition of Indigenous rights varies with jurisdiction, the United Nations, through the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights, recognizes Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, their right to be recognized as distinct peoples, their right to free, prior and informed consent, and their right to be free from discrimination (United Nations, 2007). Other jurisdictions sometimes recognize additional Indigenous rights. For example, Canada recognizes generic rights which are held by all Indigenous peoples, such as the rights to Aboriginal title to land; the rights to subsistence resources and activities; the rights to self-determination and self-government; the rights to practice their own religions, speak their own languages and practice their own cultures; and the right to enter into treaties (Slattery, 2007). Canada also recognizes specific Indigenous rights which are founded on treaties or on court decisions, and are usually specific to particular Indigenous groups and/or First Nations (Slattery, 2007). Thus, although some scholars have suggested that the goals of ecotourism overlap with the values of many Indigenous peoples (see, for example, West & Carrier, 2004), there can be challenges in satisfying the legal and ethical obligations to respect Indigenous rights. One ethical challenge for ecotourism developers and operators can be Indigenous peoples’ rights to continue their traditional cultural practices and to harvest resources. For example, many hard ecotourists on a three-week Arctic expedition were dismayed when Indigenous guides shot five polar bears to supply meat to feed their dogs (Lawrence et al., 1992). The negative publicity harmed the operator’s reputation and caused rifts between the operator and the World Wildlife Fund. Similar ethical issues for ecotourism operators occurred in some Indigenous reserves in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. As we have previously discussed, ecotourists seek out “pristine” wilderness areas. However, many Indigenous communities in Amazonia are reliant on resource consumptive activities, including logging. Fearnside (2005) noted that the Indigenous people on a reserve in Amazonia had cleared 11.3% of their forest in just a two year period. Consequently, local ecotourist operators face challenges in attracting ecotourists to their region while respecting Indigenous rights to resource extraction, particularly on their own lands (West & Carrier, 2004). Indigenous rights often conflict with the goals of protected areas upon which ecotourism ventures depend. For example, 85% of national parks in South America and 70% of national parks in Central Africa are either inhabited by or used by local Indigenous peoples (Mombeshora & Le Bel, 2009). These Indigenous peoples have the right and necessity to harvest resources, including wildlife, from these parklands even though it may conflict with the reputations and marketability of local ecotourism operations. Some have argued that the cash income from ecotourism could more than replace traditional Indigenous reliance on resource consumption (see, for example, Lapeyre, 2010, Lepper & Goebel, 2010; Stronza, 2009). However, requiring these changes would violate the Indigenous rights of the local residents. Figure 10.03. Logging in the Amazon rainforest of Peru. Image by USDA Forest Service, photo by Diego Perez. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons. Public Doman Mark 1.0 - Universal Respecting the Indigenous rights of ecotourism host communities goes far beyond simply avoiding conflicts between these rights and ecotourist activities. Johnston (2000) noted that while some Indigenous peoples look forward to the economic potential of ecotourism, many Indigenous people are also weary of the threat that ecotourism may pose to their cultures and beliefs. The threat results from a fundamental difference between consumerism and many traditional Indigenous values. “Tourism is not only a pronounced form of consumerism, but also a flagship for the lifestyle of consumer society” (Johnston, 2000, p. 90). These are significant ethical concerns that many ecotourism operators and ecotourism planners must address. To accomplish this, Johnston (2000) suggests continuing dialogue and partnership building between Indigenous peoples, governments and the ecotourism industry. This dialogue should be based on the following principles: * The industry must establish informed prior consent from the Indigenous people as the industry standard, supported by relevant legislation and impact assessment frameworks. * The industry must always be prepared to negotiate and must ensure that the local communities have the resources and the information necessary for productive consultations and negotiations. * Protections to ensure that Indigenous peoples need only to share customary information which they agree to share and may do so entirely on their timelines. * Traditional Indigenous conservation expertise must play a central role in all joint management decisions concerning protected areas and/or traditional lands where ecotourists may visit. Traditional ways of documenting ecological knowledge, such as storytelling, must be respected and prioritized. * There must be respect for the intent and practices for customary Indigenous approaches for sustainability. Codes of Ethics and Codes of Conduct As Fennell (2020) notes, advocacy for codes of ethics and/or codes of conduct are widespread within publications about ecotourism. This advocacy was evident early in the development of ecotourism: calls for ecotourism had appeared in many scholarly articles by 1990. As one might expect, there are various relatively similar definitions of a code of ethics. In your textbook, Fennel (2020) offers a representative definition of a code of ethics attributed to the British Columbia Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism (1991): a code of ethics is “a set of guiding principles which govern the behaviour of the target group in pursuing their activity of interest” (p. 1-3). The goals of codes of ethics are to “create beliefs and moral activities in their recipients. The codes are supposed to make uniform and influence individual patterns of behaviour, contribute to the establishment of moral awareness, avoid controversies in the comprehension of right and wrong, and eliminate insinuations and inaccuracies resulting from moral relativism” (Kazimierczak, 2006, p.94). It is important to note that some definitions are rather more emphatic: “A code of ethics is a set of guidelines that dictates how they must do this. If an ecotourism company, external or local, strays from the accepted principles and its agreed code of ethics, the viability of the entire destination could be in jeopardy” (McGahey, 2012, p. 227). Thus, a code of ethics must be considered to be a pledge by an ecotourism operator to abide by explicitly-defined ethical commitments. Codes of ethics are not unique to the tourism industry: they have become widespread in many industries and companies as a response to stakeholder and customer demands for greater corporate responsibility (Kotzian et al., 2021). Codes of ethics are fundamental parts of a company’s ethic foundations and are typically supported by compliance programs (Kaptein & Bons, 2014). Their intent is to shape employees’ actions and decisions in all company-related activities and these codes inevitably require a trade-off between economic and ethical considerations. In tourism, codes of ethics typically have wider applications, and are intended to provide ethic frameworks for local residents, tourists and government, particularly when individuals from these groups are involved in collaborative decision-making processes or on the operator’s grounds or properties. As Fennell and Malloy (1999) note, while codes of ethics must outline ethical expectations and be founded on sound ethical principles, they must be sufficiently detailed to provide guidance and expectations for specific situations. A similar ethical framework for tourism and ecotourism operations is provided by a code of conduct. As noted in Fennell (2020), some consider a code of conduct to be a classification within codes of ethics. However, others, such as Nieweler (2017), consider a code of ethics and a code of conduct to be two unique types of documents. While the taxonomic distinctions have some academic interest, the practical distinctions are very important. A code of ethics is a statement of the ethical foundations upon which decisions are made and courses of action are determined. In comparison, a code of conduct defines which behaviours and actions by the company or its clients are acceptable and which actions and behaviours are unacceptable. It is shaped by the ethical standards defined in the code of ethics and applies these ethical standards to relevant situations. For example, codes of conduct may restrict access to some areas; prohibit or restrict interactions with wildlife and prescribe minimum approach distances to wildlife; prohibit or restrict the use of natural resources or the collection of souvenirs; control waste and other forms of pollution; define socially acceptable behaviours and/or prohibitions in the host community; define safety requirements; define the authority of guides; limit types and places for interactions with members of the host community; and protect historic and/or culturally significant sites (Hassanli, 2017; Weaver, 2008). Although codes of conduct have particular relevance to the ecotourist clients, there are particularly important challenges for the effective dissemination of the code. It is typical for ecotourism operations to use a combination of signage and education (Hassanli, 2017). While signs provide immediate notification of any restrictions defined by the code of conduct, their use has been criticized for lacking justifications and/or explanations for the posted restrictions (Cole, 2007; Mason & Mowforth, 1996). Education about codes of conduct require more effort for the ecotourism guides, although the necessary effort will often vary between hard ecotourists, who typically possess a high level of environmental knowledge and pro-environmental attitudes, and soft ecotourists, who may have very little experience in natural areas (Weaver, 2008). In either instance, prior knowledge of the relevant code of conduct cannot be assumed. Effective messaging of a code of conduct requires considerable persuasion. This persuasion is needed because there may be reluctance by the clients to surrender some of their freedoms. As Przeclawski (1996) noted, escaping from the restrictions of everyday life and experiencing greater freedom is often considered an essential aspect of tourism. When codes of ethics and codes of conduct are imposed, they inherently restrict of some of the clients’ freedoms and impose a variety of responsibilities and obligations (Fennell & Malloy, 2007). Thus, some ecotourists may be reluctant to accept these limitations and responsibilities. Fortunately, most ecotourists are seeking authentic experiences and are willing to accept some limitations to have that opportunity (McGahey, 2012). Unfortunately, even with effective persuasion, there is a high likelihood that the message will fade from memory before there is opportunity to act on the code of conduct. Petty et al. (1992) suggested a staged model of persuasion to maximize the possibility that the messaging is retained. These stages are: 1. Exposure: In order for the visitors to retain the messages, they must be exposed to the message as frequently and effectively as possible. Therefore, those offering the messages must use media which will effectively disseminate the message and ensure that the visitor receives the message. To maximize exposure, the message should be offered before the visit, during the visit and sometimes after the visit. 2. Absorption and Reception: Exposure to a message does not ensure that the message is received and retained. An important consideration to ensure this reception is the use of techniques to gain the visitors attention, such as the use of bright colours, provocative images, and loud noises. Reception of the message reflects whether the message makes more than a momentary impression and enters into their memory. 3. Interception and Integration: Interception refers to the process through which the visitor is able to discern meaning for the message and, ultimately, form an opinion about the message. Integration only occurs when the message has become memorable and is assimilated into long-term memory. 4. Action: Once the message is remembered, the visitor may choose to act on the message in the way in which was intended. Alternatively, they may choose to ignore the message. They may even choose to act in a way which contradicts the message. Examples of the third option would be a visitor who harmed wildlife, damaged vegetation or gathered souvenirs. Although persuasion can be an effective way to encourage visitors to follow a code of conduct, it is not the only way. As Weaver (2008) noted, rigorous enforcement by ecotourism staff, law enforcement officers, or government officials has also been shown to be very effective in promoting responsible and ethical behaviour among visitors. Accreditation and Certification In previous lessons, we have discussed the nature and goals of ecotourism; discussed the challenges for ecotourism operators living up to those goals while satisfying the demanding expectations of ecotourists; and examined the socio-economic and ecological impacts of ecotourism. In this lesson, we also examined many of the ethical challenges facing ecotourism operators and the ecotourism industry, and discussed the establishment of ecotourism codes of ethics and codes of conduct. There are so many challenges facing ecotourism operators that potential customers may have difficulty in determining if a destination is ultimately meeting the expectations for ecotourism. This problem was recognized quite early in the growth of the ecotourism continues to be a topic of much debate and considerable research. The general consensus of scholarly researchers has been that accreditation and certification programs should be developed to assure potential clients and others within the industry that an operation is consistent with the qualifications for ecotourism (Weaver, 2008). As Fennell (2020) notes, the terms accreditation and certification are often used interchangeably. However, there are important distinctions. Accreditation describes the evaluation process to see if an operation meets the expected standards for an ecotourism operation while certification is a formal assurance that the operation has met the standards. This certification is commonly referred to as an ecolabel. A number of benefits for accreditation and certification have been suggested. For example, in your textbook, Fennell (2020) cites potential advantages for accreditation proposed by Wearing (1995). There is little benefit from repeating Wearing’s proposed advantages here, particularly since the suggested advantages have generally not been demonstrated by later studies. The primary advantage of accreditation and certification that has been realized by ecotourism operators and supported by research is a reduction in some operating costs, particularly the costs for water and electricity (Brown et al., 2021; Geerts, 2014). These cost savings were attributed to the measures established by the operators in order to pass the accreditation process. In a competitive industry like ecotourism, in which potential clients now have a large number of options, applying for accreditation in the hope of earning an ecolabel would seem to be a prudent business decision. However, Baddley and Font (2011) note that the accreditation process is not always seen as desirable by ecotourism operators. This is partially because of the real or perceived financial costs of the accreditation and certification process: this is a significant concern for many smaller operations with limited access to financial capital (Baddley & Font, 2011; Geerts, 2014; Yokessa & Maretta, 2017). Another consideration is the dissonance or “green gap” between the standards which potential clients claim to want and their ultimate purchasing behaviour. Because of this, the investment in earning an ecolabel may not increase the number of actual clients. Hoevenagel et al. (2007) also noted that most ecotourism operations experience low external pressures to implement the more stringent sustainability practices typically required for certification. These external pressures originate largely from the operation’s business environment, including suppliers, competitors and even customers. Hoevenagel et al. (2007) also noted that most ecotourism operations also experience low internal pressure from the operations owners, managers and employees. Furthermore, Baddley and Font (2011) found that most operators prioritize health and safety, as well as quality assurance concerns over expensive environmental investments. They also noted that low cost environmental investments would generally satisfy the clients and allow the savings to be directed to the more valued concerns, like health and safety (Baddley & Font, 2011). Finally, operators are concerned by the variety of competing certification programs: Gössling and Buckley (2016) identified 128 tourism ecolabel certification organizations while a more recent study by Nakaishi and Chapman (2024) identified 51 ecolabel programs for the tourism industry. Piper and Yeo (2011) found that this proliferation of accreditation and certification programs made it difficult for potential clients to evaluate the relative importance of any one program. Thus, while accreditation and certification may seem like a logical and necessary decision, Brown et al. (2021) found that the benefits of receiving certification are generally not apparent to operators while the costs and amount of work are often prohibitive. Not all concerns about accreditation and certification are based on operators’ concerns: there is at least one substantive concern that addresses a primary goal of ecotourism: Buckley (2012) found that ecotourism certification failed to provide tangible environmental outcomes. Ultimately, while ecotourism scholars continue to promote and study ecolabels for ecotourism, the benefits of certification are generally more theoretical than observable. The Ethics of the Use of Animals in Ecotourism In previous lessons, we have discussed the importance of wildlife viewing to the history and current popularity of ecotourism. Indeed, animals play an important role in tourism in general: Moorehouse et al. (2017) estimated that non-consumptive wildlife tourism accounted for 20% to 40% of all international tourism. Despite the importance of wildlife and other animals to tourism and ecotourism, the topic of the ethics of the use of animals in ecotourism has received surprisingly little attention. Indeed, it has been largely ignored by tourism researchers until quite recently, although other disciplines have undertaken considerable research on the topic. Fennel (2020) also highlights the wide range of concerns related to the use of in ecotourism and other forms of tourism. In the introductory paragraph of the “Animal ethics” part of chapter 7, Fennell summarizes some of these concerns, such as the relevance of zoos in conservation efforts, concerns about hunting and fishing, potential abuses in dog-sledding and even the dangers of using wildlife in “selfies.” This topic of wildlife and “selfies” raises the need to highlight the story about a baby dolphin described in the introductory paragraph of your textbook. While this story provides an excellent illustration of the nature and importance of this topic, the link to the CBC news story contains images and descriptions which some may find very distressing. Animals are used in many ways in tourism. They are used in racing and fighting competitions with each other; they are used as carriers for tourists and their supplies during hiking, particularly in novel and rugged locations; they are hunted and fished; they are sometimes eaten; and they are used as attractions to be viewed (Fennell, 2013). Some, perhaps many, of these uses have been included as part of ecotourism operations. Thus, it is useful to examine if such uses of animals are compatible with the goals and intent of ecotourism. Since ecotourism is founded on conservation-minded ethics, if is also useful to examine if the use of animals as entertainment or attractions in ecotourism can be considered to be ethical. One of the oldest forms of the use of animals as attractions in tourism is the use of zoos. It has even been argued that zoos represent one of the most approachable forms of ecotourism. For example, Mason (2000) justified the importance of zoos to ecotourism: “With their focus on conservation and education, zoos, arguably, can be considered as significant ecotourism attractions (p. 338). Others have also noted that many zoos sponsor ecotourism trips, including volunteer ecotourism excursions (Duffy, 2008; Fascione, 1995). While these sponsored trips may certainly qualify as ecotourism, the role of the zoo in arranging these trips is little different from that of an outbound tour wholesaler and does not distract from their main activity of managing and showing captive animals. Therefore, many have argued that zoos are ultimately antithetical to the goals of ecotourism and the expectations of ecotourists: ecotourists expect natural experiences focusing on education and experiences which promote local conservation efforts (Blamey, 2001; Higham & Lück, 2002; Orams, 1996). This argument may at least be countered by the claim that zoos play an important role in global conservation efforts as well as in efforts to raise awareness about conservation efforts and challenges (Clayton et al., 2009; Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Zimmerman, 2010). This claim has been widely challenged, though. For example, Kellert (1979) found that a typical zoo visitor was much less educated about environmental issues than those who spent more time in direct contact with nature, such as hunters, anglers and bikers. Indeed, Mason (2007) found that most zoo visitors were only marginally more aware about environmental issues than people who had little or no interest in animals. The role of zoos in conservation has also been challenged. For example, most animals captured in the wild for ex-situ conservation programs in zoos do not survive long (see, for example, Lück & Jiang, 2007). Indeed, Domalain (1978) estimated that only one in ten animals captured in the wild survived long enough to make it to a zoo. Even the ex-situ breeding programs in zoos have little value: Catibog-Sinha (2011) argues that most animal breeding programs in zoos are undertaken to provide animals for trade with other zoos and not for re-introduction programs. Since zoos have little educational value and are ineffective or even damaging in their conservation roles, zoos are little more than entertainment venues and should generally be considered to be incompatible with the goals of ecotourism. Ecotourism involves more than just zoos if, indeed, zoos could be considered to be part of ecotourism. Much of ecotourism involves other forms of passively viewing wildlife. This typically often occurs on guided hikes or on wildlife safaris in vehicles. It is important to note that ethical abuses of wildlife during these activities are not always identified because research about the unethical treatment of animals may not satisfy the ethical requirements of academic journals (Hayward et al., 2012). However, in an editorial in the South African Journal of Wildlife Research, Hayward et al. (2012) drew attraction to the unethical treatment of animals recorded by ecotourism researchers and submitted in articles for publication. One of the worrisome practices was the tranquilizing and/or anaesthetizing of wildlife to allow closer contact between the animals and ecotourists or to immobilize the animals to fit them with radio tracking collars. The other unethical practice was the actual collaring of the animals to make them easier to track so that the clients would be able to see the animals up close in the wild. Sometimes these practices were undertaken under the guise of performing scientific research or as citizen science with ecotourists. Hayward et al. (2012) cautioned that the capture, sedation, handling and wearing of a transmitter will inevitably cause trauma to the animals. Even apparently ethical observation of wildlife can have significant impacts on the animals. There are numerous studies demonstrating the impacts of observation on wildlife so only a few will be reviewed here. Buckley (2001) noted that in a study in Alberta, Canada, the researchers found that Dall sheep (Ovis dalli) had significant physiological responses to being approached by hikers: their heart rates would typically increase by 20 beats per minute when a hiker came within 150 metres of the animals. In a study in the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve in Quebec, Duschesne et al. (2000) found that woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) spent more time standing and being vigilante when being observed by groups of ecotourists. This vigilance reduced their foraging and resting times during the stressful winter period. In a study of brown bears (Ursus arctos) at salmon runs in coastal British Columbia, Nevin and Gilbert (2005) found that female bears with cubs would proactively seek out groups of ecotourists and remain close to them. Since male brown bears were a threat to young cubs and avoided groups of people, the habituated female bears had increased feeding activity associated with pre-denning hyperphagia and, ultimately, had increased energy storage (i.e. increased calories leading to higher levels of fat), lower cub mortality and, ultimately, increased reproductive success. This led to an increasing local brown bear population, although the long-term implications of this population increase were not studied. While this is just a sample of the studies into the impacts of observation by ecotourists on wildlife, it does highlight the potentially significant and sometimes unexpected results. As Weaver (2008) notes, the distance between ecotourists and wildlife is the principle factor inducing a stress response in wildlife. Therefore, the ethical requirement for ecotourists and ecotourism operators is to maintain as great a distance from any wildlife as possible. However, this ethical requirement would inevitably impact ecotourist clients’ satisfaction since ecotourists value close observation of wildlife. This creates a management challenge for ecotourism operators who must balance ethical treatment of animals with the need for economic sustainability. Conclusion Criticisms of mass tourism, the rise of alternative tourism and, ultimately, the emergence of ecotourism were all founded, at least in part, on ethical concerns about the way the tourism industry, tourism operators and tourists treated host communities, Indigenous peoples, and wildlife. Addressing these ethical concerns has been, and continues to be, a challenge. As we have seen, some of these challenges appear to be rooted in our sociobiological responses to ethical dilemmas. Challenges also originate in the expectations of ecotourists and their desires for enjoyable, rewarding and satisfying vacations. The expectations of the ecotourists often conflict with the desire and need to make a profit while respecting the goals and defining qualities of ecotourism as well as the rights of the host community members. Attempts have been made to try to resolve these competing interests by explicitly stating a code of ethics which all parties are expected to understand and respect. Many ecotourism operations have also created codes of conduct which encourage positive behaviours while discouraging unethical and/or harmful behaviour. Other efforts to ensure that ecotourism operations are ethically and responsibly operated include the related processes of accreditation and certification. While much has been written about the need for accreditation and about its value to the ecotourism industry and individual operators, there is a great deal of reluctance among many ecotourism operators to submit to one of the many accreditation programs. The need for ethical behaviour in any field or industry should be readily apparent. However, it may be possible that there is even a greater responsibility for the ecotourism industry and ecotourism operators, as well as individual ecotourists and host community members, to act ethically and to be seen to act ethically.