Tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy (Campbell 1999) and an important component of this industry is ecotourism. The term ecotourism originated in the late 1980s in recognition of the number of people interested in tourism geared towards seeing natural areas (Orams 1995). Some have estimated that there were between 157 and 236 million ecotourists in 1988 alone (Campbell 1999). While these numbers seem impressive it is important to consider what is being defined as ecotourism and what the potential benefits of ecotourism are. Ecotourism is frequently either poorly defined or used a marketing ploy (Orams 1995). How ecotourism is defined directly affects the number of tourists that can be classified as ecotourists. The problem of defining the potential benefits of ecotourism is more subtle as it requires value judgments to be made concerning what the potential benefits of ecotourism are and who receives them. The impact of tourism on natural areas must also be considered in the definition.
The definitions of ecotourism are broad and wide ranging. Some consider all tourism to be ecotourism while others say that no tourism is ecotourism (Orams 1995). At one end all tourist are visiting areas because of the attractions there, generally natural areas. Others say that ecotourism must reduce the impact of the tourists upon natural areas. It is virtually impossible to nullify all impacts upon natural areas, therefore no tourism can be viewed as ecotourism. In between these two extremes lie many definitions. The valuation of ecotourism is dependant upon the model that is used.
Some models of ecotourism rely on a travel-cost model of valuation for ecotourism. Under this model any funds spent by tourist who have stated that they are attracted by natural areas can be defined as revenue generated by ecotourism. Travel-cost models have been used to estimate that ecotourism in Costa Rica generates an average of $1150 (US) per tourist (Menkhaus and Lober 1996) . However, using this model is dependant upon how ecotourism is defined and local communities do not necessarily receive any significant portion of these revenues. Consequently, these models do not translate ecotourism into value that can put food on the plate of local populations.
Ecotourism requires a model that creates value in natural areas for local populations. At one end of the spectrum ecotourism can be defined as any tourism which is based upon attracting tourist to a natural area. Under this definition, any visitor to south Florida who takes a ride on a glass bottom could be defined as an ecotourist. The opposite of this definition would consider ecotourists only those tourist who are attracted to a natural attraction, make no impact upon the native ecosystem, and use only locally owned tourism operators. Inherently, what these definitions hinge upon is whether ecotourism is defined by the ?product? that is being offered or the operating principle that is being used (Campbell 1999). The product based definition of ecotourism is simple enough and requires little further explanation, however the justification of a community based definition is not as clear and will require some explanation.
Community based definitions of ecotourism are based upon the assumption that when local communities are in control of natural areas and tourism operations they will be more inclined to protect and responsibly manage these natural attractions (Campbell 1999). In cases where non-local tourism operators are receiving all of the revenues from the tourism operation, there is no incentive for the operator to responsibly manage the attraction in a non-exploitive manner. Also, there is no benefit for local populations to prevent the degradation of natural areas. For example, in the hypothetical country Haysonia, an American tourist operator, Smiley Guy Tours, begins operations based upon the attraction of a local rainforest. It pays the local workers that it hires a small wage and ships most of the profits back to its investors. Smiley Guy Tours is interested only in its bottom line and does not responsibly manage its waste or prevent its patrons from damaging the rain forest. The local population sees no use in preventing these practices as it would only result in them losing their jobs with Smiley Guy Tours. Additionally, they even begin to start trapping the rare species, Cutus Monkiesis, and selling them to the tourist as pets as well as hand carved mahogany figurines. Eventually, the rain forest becomes degraded to the point that it is no longer an attraction and Smiley Guy Tours folds its operations and moves to the next rainforest. If local community based ownership of these operations had been developed, there would have been an economic incentive for the protection of the rain forest. Thus it is argued there is a need for a community based definition of ecotourism. These are in essence a bottom-up (community or grass roots development) or top-down control of the tourism product and operation.
Ostinal, Costa Rica is an appropriate area where a community based model of ecotourism is being used. The main attraction in this area is a wildlife resource, the olive ridley sea turtle and government involvement to this point has been minimal (Campbell 1999). Community involvement has been formalized through the Ostinal Development Association. Currently, the local population has a positive view of ecotourism although the economic benefits have been relatively minimal. The largest impediment to the development of ecotourism in Ostinal is the development of infrastructure. However, in Ostinal, development is still occurring slowly and impacts on the sea turtles have been minimal.
The case of Ostinall can be used to illustrate some of the factors that have been identified in successful ecotourism operations. These factors are: (1) an integrated approach, (2) planning and a slow start, (3) education and training, (4) maximize local benefits, and (5) evaluation and feedback (Masberg and Morales 1999). In Ostinall there was an integrated approach using local resources and infrastructure which are being developed slowly. Planning was accomplished at the local level with assistance from the University of Costa Rica. Local people were educated about the sea turtles, they received the majority of the revenue generated. Evaluation and feedback has been provided by Campbell (1999).
In conclusion, ecotourism requires a model which incorporates community based development. Impact upon natural areas must be minimized in order to protect these areas. The most plausible way of doing that is creating realized benefit for local populations. An integrations of economics and ecology are required to protect the natural areas which are the featured attraction of ecotourism.
References
Campbell, Lisa M. 1999. ?Ecotourism in rural communities.? Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 26. pp. 534-553.
Masberg, B. A. and Morales, N. 1999. ?A case analysis of strategies in ecotourism development.? Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management. Pp. 289-300.
Menkhaus, Susan and Lober, Douglas. 1996. ?International ecotourism and the valuation of tropical rainforests in Costa Rica.? Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 47. pp. 1-10.
Orams, Mark. 1995. ?Towards a mre desirable form of ecotourism.? Tourism Management. Vol. 16. pp.3-8.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to Topic Menu
It is 6:11:02 AM on Sunday, November 22, 2009. Last Update: Saturday, May 4, 2002