thumb|Ecotourism in [[Svalbard.]]

Ecotourism is a form of nature-oriented tourism intended to contribute to the conservation of the natural environment, generally defined as being minimally impactful, and including providing both contributions to conservation and environmental education. The definition sometimes also includes being financially beneficial to the host community or making conservation financially possible. There is a range of different definitions, and the correct definition of the term was an active subject of debate as of 2009. Organizations focusing on ecotourism often make direct or indirect contributions to conservation or employ practices or technology that reduce impacts on the environment. Like most long-distance travel, ecotourism often depends on air transportation, which contributes to climate change.

Generally, ecotourism deals with interaction with living parts of natural environments, in contrast to geotourism, which is associated with geology. In contrast to nature tourism and sustainable tourism in general, ecotourism is also usually intended to foster a greater appreciation in tourists of natural habitats and threats they experience, as well as local culture.

Risks and benefits

thumb|[[Halichoerus grypus|Seal watching near Malusi Islands in Estonia]]

thumb|Kikoti Safari Camp in [[Tarangire National Park, Tanzania.]]

Ecotourism is a sub-component of the field of sustainable tourism. Ecotourism must serve to maximize ecological benefits while contributing to the economic, social, and cultural wellbeing of communities living close to ecotourism venues.

Even while ecotourism is often presented as a responsible form of tourism, it nonetheless carries several risks. Potential ecological, economic, and sociocultural benefits associated with ecotourism are described below.

Ecological risk

Ecotourism activities, or merely the presence of travelers in a particular region or location, may negatively impact the ecological integrity of protected areas.

Risks to local communities

Local communities may be negatively impacted by ecotourism. For example, as is the case with other forms of tourism, ecotourism may result in friction between tourists and local community members, and may potentially increase the cost of rent, rates, and property values, thereby marginalizing local community members.

Health risks

Ecotourism carries known health risks for tourists and local community members, along with wildlife and ecosystems. Travelers may bring pathogens to ecologically sensitive areas, putting wildlife as well as local communities at risk. Ecotourism activities may also place travelers at risk of health problems or injuries.

Potential ecological benefits

thumb|Tourist boats in [[Labuan Bajo, near Komodo National Park in Indonesia.]]

Ecotourism may also have positive ecological consequences, and some of them are listed as follows:

Direct benefits

  • Incentive to protect natural environments
  • Incentive to rehabilitate modified environments and lands
  • Provides funds to manage and expand protected areas
  • Ecotourists assist with habitat maintenance and enhancement through their actions
  • Ecotourists serving as watchdogs or guardians who personally intervene in situations where the environment is perceived to be threatened
  • The locals may also learn new skills from the ecotourists

Indirect benefits

  • Exposure to ecotourism fosters a broader sense of environmentalism
  • Communities experience changes in environmental attitude and behavior
  • Areas protected for ecotourism provide environmental benefits
  • It sharpens the future of well-being of the locals

Potential economic benefits

For some decision-makers, economic factors are more compelling than ecological factors in deciding how natural resources should be used. Potential ecotourism economic benefits are presented below:

Direct benefits

  • Generates revenue (related to visitor expenditures) and creates employment that is directly related to the sector
  • Provides economic opportunities for peripheral regions

Indirect benefits

  • High multiplier effect and indirect revenue employment
  • Supports cultural and heritage tourism, sectors that are highly compatible with ecotourism.

Potential socio-cultural benefits

A holistic approach to ecotourism must promote socio-cultural as well as economic and ecological practices. The direct and indirect socio-cultural benefits are outlined as follows:

Direct and indirect benefits

  • Foster community stability and well-being through economic benefits and local participation
  • Aesthetic and spiritual benefits and enjoyment for locals and tourists
  • Accessible to a broad spectrum of the population

When assessing the potential positive impacts of ecotourism, it is necessary to mention that ecotourism can have unintended negative effects as well. Negative impacts can be mitigated through regulations and codes of conduct that effectively and persuasively impart messages about appropriate visitor behavior.

Terminology and history

thumb|right|A hanging bridge in ecotourism area of [[Thenmala, Kerala in India - India's first planned ecotourism destination.]]

Ecotourism is a late 20th-century neologism compounded eco- and tourism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ecotour was first recorded in 1973 and ecotourism, "probably after ecotour", in 1982.

  • ecotour, n. ... A tour of or visit to an area of ecological interest, usually with an educational element; (in later use also) a similar tour or visit designed to have as little detrimental effect on the ecology as possible or undertaken with the specific aim of helping conservation efforts.
  • ecotourism, n. ... Tourism to areas of ecological interest (typically exotic and often threatened natural environments), esp. to support conservation efforts and observe wildlife; spec. access to an endangered environment controlled to have the least possible adverse effect.

Some sources suggest the terms were used nearly a decade earlier. Claus-Dieter (Nick) Hetzer, an academic and adventurer from Forum International in Berkeley, CA, coined the term ecotourism in 1965, according to the Contra Costa Times, and ran the first ecotours in the Yucatán during the early 1970s.

The definition of ecotourism adopted by Ecotourism Australia is: "Ecotourism is ecologically sustainable tourism with a primary focus on experiencing natural areas that foster environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation."

The Global Ecotourism Network (GEN) defines ecotourism as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and creates knowledge and understanding through interpretation and education of all involved (visitors, staff, and the visited)".

Ecotourism is often misinterpreted as any form of tourism that involves nature (see jungle tourism). Self-proclaimed practitioners and hosts of ecotourism experiences assume it is achieved by simply creating destinations in natural areas.

Some scholars argue that, while ecotourism is typically defined as a nature-oriented form of tourism, the core of which should include drawing tourists' attention to the beauty of nature and the fragility of the ecosystem, there is still debate about whether this viewpoint should become a universal standard. Critics point out that, despite the continuous growth of ecotourism, certain tourism organizations frequently utilize phrases like "green" or "sustainable" in their marketing as a form of greenwashing to attract environmentally conscious tourists. However, their real operating action may not properly satisfy their environmental protection responsibilities, perhaps leading to public confusion about the notion of ecotourism.

Although academics disagree about who can be classified as an ecotourist and there is little statistical data, some estimate that more than five million ecotourists—the majority of the ecotourist population—come from the United States, with many others from Western Europe, Canada, and Australia.

Currently, there are various moves to create national and international ecotourism certification programs. National ecotourism certification programs have been put in place in countries such as Costa Rica, Australia, Kenya, Estonia, and Sweden.

Sustainable tourism

Improving sustainability

Principles

Ecotourism in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems can benefit conservation, provided the complexities of history, culture, and ecology in the affected regions are successfully navigated. Catherine Macdonald and colleagues identify the factors that determine conservation outcomes, namely whether: animals and their habits are sufficiently protected; conflict between people and wildlife is avoided or at least suitably mitigated; there is good outreach and education of the local population into the benefits of ecotourism; there is effective collaboration with stakeholders in the area; and there is proper use of the money generated by ecotourism to conserve the local ecology.

Many environmentalists have argued for a global standard that can be used for certification, differentiating ecotourism companies based on their level of environmental commitment, creating a standard to follow. A national or international regulatory board would enforce accreditation procedures, with representation from various groups including governments, hotels, tour operators, travel agents, guides, airlines, local authorities, conservation organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The decisions of the board would be sanctioned by governments so that non-compliant companies would be legally required to disassociate themselves from the use of the ecotourism brand.

In 1998, Crinion suggested a Green Stars System, based on criteria including a management plan, benefits for the local community, small group interaction, education value, and staff training. Ecotourists who consider their choices would be confident of a genuine ecotourism experience when they see the higher star rating.

In 2008 the Global Sustainable Tourism Council Criteria was launched at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. The Criteria, managed by the Global Sustainable Tourism Council, created a global standard for sustainable travel and tourism and includes criteria and performance indicators for destinations, tour operators and hotels.

Labels and certification

Over 50 ecolabels on tourism exist. These include (but are not limited to):

  • Austrian Ecolabel for Tourism
  • Asian Ecotourism Standard for Accommodations (AESA)
  • Eco-certification Malta
  • EarthCheck
  • Ecotourism Australia
  • Ecotourism Ireland
  • Ecotourism Kenya
  • European Ecotourism Labelling Standard (EETLS)
  • Korean Ecotourism Standard

Guidelines and education

thumb|Ecotour guide stands on a [[Kayaking|kayak spotting dolphins and manatees, around Lido Key.]]

An environmental protection strategy must address the issue of ecotourists removed from the cause-and-effect of their actions on the environment. More initiatives should be carried out to improve their awareness, sensitize them to environmental issues, and care about the places they visit.

Small scale, slow growth, and local control

The theory of underdevelopment tourism describes the behavior of multinational corporations that control the development of ecotourism and reap the main benefits, which may lead to a loss of development ownership by local communities. This may limit the control of local communities over natural resources and raise discussions about the unequal distribution of ownership and benefits of tourism resources. These corporations finance and profit from the development of large-scale ecotourism that causes excessive environmental degradation, loss of traditional culture and way of life, and exploitation of local labor. In Zimbabwe and Nepal's Annapurna region, where underdevelopment is taking place, more than 90 percent of ecotourism revenues are expatriated to the parent countries, and less than 5 percent go into local communities.

The present sustainability challenges in ecotourism initiatives have drawn attention to small-scale, slow-growth, and locally community-based tourism development models, which are thought to be better suited to meeting long-term ecological and social objectives. Local peoples have a vested interest in the well-being of their community and are therefore more accountable to environmental protection than multinational corporations, though they receive very little of the profits. The lack of control, westernization, adverse impacts to the environment, and loss of culture and traditions outweigh the benefits of establishing large-scale ecotourism. Additionally, culture loss can be attributed to cultural commodification, in which local cultures are commodified to make a profit.

The increased contributions of communities to locally managed ecotourism create viable economic opportunities, including high-level management positions, and reduce environmental issues associated with poverty and unemployment. Because the ecotourism experience is marketed to a different lifestyle from large-scale ecotourism, the development of facilities and infrastructure does not need to conform to corporate Western tourism standards, and can be much simpler and less expensive. There is a greater multiplier effect on the economy, because local products, materials, and labor are used. Profits accrue locally and import leakages are reduced. The Great Barrier Reef Park in Australia reported over half of a billion dollars of indirect income in the area and added thousands of indirect jobs between 2004 and 2005. For travelers who want to be mindful of the environment and the impact of tourism, it is recommended to use an operator that is endorsed by a reputable ecotourism organization. In the case of the Galapagos, IGTOA has a list of the world's premiere Galapagos Islands tour companies dedicated to the lasting protection and preservation of the destination.

Natural resource management

Natural resource management can be used as a specialized tool for the development of ecotourism. There are several places throughout the world where several natural resources are abundant, but with human encroachment and habitats, these resources are depleting. Without the sustainable use of certain resources, they are destroyed, and floral and fauna species are becoming extinct. Ecotourism programs can be introduced for the conservation of these resources. Several plans and proper management programs can be introduced so that these resources remain untouched, and there are many organizations–including nonprofits–and scientists working on this field.

Natural resources of hill areas like Kurseong in West Bengal are plenty in number with various flora and fauna, but tourism for business purpose poised the situation. Researchers from Jadavpur University are presently working in this area for the development of ecotourism to be used as a tool for natural resource management.

In Southeast Asia government and nongovernmental organizations are working together with academics and industry operators to spread the economic benefits of tourism into the kampungs and villages of the region. A recently formed alliance, the South-East Asian Tourism Organization (SEATO), is bringing together these diverse players to discuss resource management concerns.

A 2002 summit held in Quebec led to the 2008 Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria–a collaborative effort between the UN Foundation and other advocacy groups. The criteria, which are voluntary, involve the following standards: "effective sustainability planning, maximum social and economic benefits for local communities, minimum negative impacts on cultural heritage, and minimum negative impacts on the environment." There is no enforcing agency or system of punishments for summit.

Impact on indigenous people and indigenous land

Valorization of the Indigenous territories can be important for designation as a protected area, which can deter threats such as deforestation. Ecotourism can help bring in revenue for Indigenous peoples.

However, there needs to be a proper business plan and organizational structure, which helps to ensure that the generated money from ecotourism indeed flows towards the Indigenous peoples themselves, and the protection of the Indigenous territory. Debates around ecotourism focus on how profits off of Indigenous lands are enjoyed by international tourist companies, who do not share back with the people to whom those lands belong. Ecotourism offers a tourist-appealing experience of the landscape and environment, one that is different from the experience of the residents; it commodifies the lives of Indigenous people and their land which is not fair to its inhabitants.

Indigenous territories<!--intentional link to DAB page--> are managed by governmental services (i.e. FUNAI in Brazil, ...) and these governmental services can thus decide whether or not to implement ecotourism in these Indigenous territories.

Ecotourism can also bring in employment to the local people (which may be Indigenous people). Protected areas for instance require park rangers, and staff to maintain and operate the ecolodges and accommodation used by tourists. Also, the traditional culture can act as a tourist attraction, and can create a source of revenue by asking payment for the showing of performances (i.e., traditional dance, ...) Ecotourism can also help mitigate deforestation that happens when local residents, under economic stress, clear lands and create smallholder plots to grow cash crops. Such land clearing hurts the environment. Ecotourism can be a sustainable and job-creating alternative for local populations.

Depending on how protected areas are set up and handled, it can lead to local people losing their homes, usually with no compensation.

Criticism

Definition

In the continuum of tourism activities that stretch from conventional tourism to ecotourism, there has been a lot of contention to the limit at which biodiversity preservation, local social-economic benefits, and environmental impact can be considered "ecotourism". For this reason, environmentalists, special interest groups, and governments define ecotourism differently. Environmental organizations have generally insisted that ecotourism is nature-based, sustainably managed, conservation supporting, and environmentally educated. The tourist industry and governments, however, focus more on the product aspect, treating ecotourism as equivalent to any sort of tourism based in nature. these schemes are environmentally destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive at its worst. They are also morally disconcerting because they mislead tourists and manipulate their concerns for the environment. The development and success of such large scale, energy intensive, and ecologically unsustainable schemes are a testament to the tremendous profits associated with being labeled as ecotourism.

Negative impact

Ecotourism has become one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism industry. One definition of ecotourism is "the practice of low-impact, educational, ecologically and culturally sensitive travel that benefits local communities and host countries". South Africa is one of the countries that is reaping significant economic benefits from ecotourism, but the negative effects far outweigh the positive—including forcing people to leave their homes, gross violations of fundamental rights, and environmental hazards—far outweigh the medium-term economic benefits. A tremendous amount of money and human resources continue to be used for ecotourism despite unsuccessful outcomes, and even more, money is put into public relation campaigns to dilute the effects of criticism. Ecotourism channels resources away from other projects that could contribute more sustainable and realistic solutions to pressing social and environmental problems. "The money tourism can generate often ties parks and managements to ecotourism". But there is a tension in this relationship because ecotourism often causes conflict and changes in land-use rights, fails to deliver promises of community-level benefits, damages environments, and has many other social impacts. Indeed, many argue repeatedly that ecotourism is neither ecologically nor socially beneficial, yet it persists as a strategy for conservation and development

The ecotourism system exercises tremendous financial and political influence. The evidence above shows that a strong case exists for restraining such activities in certain locations. Funding could be used for field studies aimed at finding alternative solutions to tourism and the diverse problems Africa faces in result of urbanization, industrialization, and the overexploitation of agriculture. Eastern African communities are not the only of developing regions to experience economic and social harms from conservation efforts. Conservation in the Southwest Yunnan Region of China has similarly brought drastic changes to traditional land use in the region. Prior to logging restrictions imposed by the Chinese Government the industry made up 80 percent of the regions revenue. Following a complete ban on commercial logging the Indigenous people of the Yunnan region now see little opportunity for economic development. Ecotourism may provide solutions to the economic hardships suffered from the loss of industry to conservation in the Yunnan in the same way that it may serve to remedy the difficulties faced by the Maasai. As stated, the ecotourism structure must be improved to direct more money into host communities by reducing leakages for the industry to be successful in alleviating poverty in developing regions, but it provides a promising opportunity.

Drumm and Moore (2002) discuss the price increase and economic leakage in their paper; saying that prices might augment since the visitors are more capable to pay higher rates for goods and services in opposition to the locals. Also, they have mentioned two solutions regarding the previous issue: (1) either a two pricing system represented as two separate price lists (the first for the locals and the second for the tourists with respect to the local's purchase power ability); (2) design unique goods and services subject only or the tourists' consumption.

Although ecotourism is intended for small groups, even a modest increase in population, however temporary, puts extra pressure on the local environment and necessitates the development of additional infrastructure and amenities. The construction of water treatment plants, sanitation facilities, and lodges come with the exploitation of non-renewable energy sources and the use of already limited local resources. The conversion of natural land to such tourist infrastructure is implicated in deforestation and habitat destruction of butterflies in Mexico and squirrel monkeys in Costa Rica. In other cases, the environment suffers because local communities are unable to meet the infrastructure demands of ecotourism. The lack of adequate sanitation facilities in many East African parks results in the disposal of campsite sewage in rivers, contaminating the wildlife, livestock, and people who draw drinking water from it. Although ecotourists claim to be educationally sophisticated and environmentally concerned, they rarely understand the ecological consequences of their visits and how their day-to-day activities append physical impacts on the environment. As one scientist observes, they "rarely acknowledge how the meals they eat, the toilets they flush, the water they drink, and so on, are all part of broader regional economic and ecological systems they are helping to reconfigure with their very activities."

Ecotourism activities are issues in environmental impact because they may disturb fauna and flora. Ecotourists believe that because they are only taking pictures and leaving footprints, they keep ecotourism sites pristine, but even harmless-sounding activities such as nature hikes can be ecologically destructive. In the Annapurna Circuit in Nepal, ecotourists have worn down the marked trails and created alternate routes, contributing to soil compaction, erosion, and plant damage.

Environmental hazards

The industrialization, urbanization and agricultural practices of human society are having a serious impact on the environment. Ecotourism is now also considered to be playing a role in environmental depletion including deforestation, disruption of ecological life systems and various forms of pollution, all of which contribute to environmental degradation. For example, the number of motor vehicles crossing a park increases as tour drivers search for rare species. The number of roads disrupts the grass cover, which has serious consequences on plant and animal species. These areas also have a higher rate of disturbances and invasive species due to increasing traffic off of the beaten path into new, undiscovered areas. Ecotourism also has an effect on species through the value placed on them. "Certain species have gone from being little known or valued by local people to being highly valued commodities. The commodification of plants may erase their social value and lead to overproduction within protected areas. Local people and their images can also be turned into commodities". Kamuaro points out the relatively obvious contradiction that any commercial venture into unspoiled, pristine land inevitably means a higher pressure on the environment.

Who benefits?

Most forms of ecotourism are owned by foreign investors and corporations that provide few benefits to the local people. An overwhelming majority of profits are put into the pockets of investors instead of reinvestment into the local economy or environmental protection leading to further environmental degradation. The limited numbers of local people who are employed in the economy enter at its lowest level and are unable to live in tourist areas because of meager wages and a two-market system. It is argued that money generated from ecotourism is the motivating factor to drive Indigenous inhabitants off the land. Up to 250,000 people worldwide have been forcibly evicted from their homes to make way for conservation projects since 1990, according to the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Mismanagement by government

While governments are typically entrusted with the administration and enforcement of environmental protection, they often lack the commitment or capability to manage ecotourism sites. The regulations for environmental protection may be vaguely defined, costly to implement, hard to enforce, and uncertain in effectiveness. Government regulatory agencies, are susceptible to making decisions that spend on politically beneficial but environmentally unproductive projects. Because of prestige and conspicuousness, the construction of an attractive visitor center at an ecotourism site may take precedence over more pressing environmental concerns like acquiring habitat, protecting endemic species, and removing invasive ones. Although there is a communal incentive to protect the environment, maximizing the benefits in the long run, a company will conclude that it is in their best interest to use the ecotourism site beyond its sustainable level. By increasing the number of ecotourists, for instance, a company gains all the economic benefit while paying only a part of the environmental cost. In the same way, a company recognizes that there is no incentive to actively protect the environment; they bear all the costs, while the benefits are shared by all other companies. The result, again, is mismanagement.

Taken together, the mobility of foreign investment and lack of economic incentive for environmental protection means that ecotourism companies are disposed to establishing themselves in new sites once their existing one is sufficiently degraded.

In addition, the systematic literature review conducted by Cabral and Dhar (2019) have identified several challenges due to slow progression of ecotourism initiatives such as (a) economic leakages, (b) lack of government involvement, (c) skill deficiency among the local communities, (d) absence of disseminating environmental education, (e) sporadic increase in pollution, (f) conflict between tourism management personnel and local communities and (g) inadequate infrastructure development.

Case studies

The purpose of ecotourism is to engage tourists in low impact, non-consumptive and locally oriented environments to maintain species and habitats – especially in underdeveloped regions. While some ecotourism projects, including some found in the United States, can support such claims, many projects have failed to address some of the fundamental issues that nations face in the first place. Consequently, ecotourism may not generate the very benefits it is intended to provide to these regions and their people, and in some cases leaving economies in a state worse than before.

The following case studies illustrate the rising complexity of ecotourism and its impacts, both positive and negative, on the environment and economies of various regions in the world.

  • Ecotourism in Costa Rica
  • Ecotourism in Jordan
  • Ecotourism in South Africa
  • Ecotourism in the United States

See also

  • Overtourism

References

Further reading

  • Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas.
  • Larkin, T. and K. N. Kähler. 2011. "Ecotourism." Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues. Rev. ed. Pasadena: Salem Press. Vol. 2, pp.&nbsp;421–424.
  • IUCN. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 301 pp.
  • Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1998. Ecoturismo. Naturaleza y Desarrollo Sostenible.
  • Milstein T, 2016, 'The Performer Metaphor: Mother Nature Never Gives Us the Same Show Twice', Environmental Communication, 10, pp.&nbsp;227 - 248, <nowiki>http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1018295</nowiki>
  • Reguero Oxide, M. del. 1995. Ecoturismo. Nuevas Formas de Turismo en el Espacio rural. Ed. Bosch Turismo
  • https://ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism/