- PRINCIPLES OF ECOTOURISM
Although the origins of the term ‘ecotourism’ are not entirely clear, one of the first to use it appears to have been Hetzer (1965), who identified four ‘pillars’ or principles of responsible tourism: minimizing environmental impacts, respecting host cultures, maximizing the benefits to local people, and maximizing tourist satisfaction. The first of these was held to be the most distinguishing characteristic of ‘ecological tourism (“EcoTourism”)’ (Fennell, 1998). Other early references to ecotourism are found in Miller’s (1978) work on national park planning for eco-development in Latin America, and documentation produced by Environment Canada in relation to a set of road-based ‘eco-tours’ they developed from the mid-1970s through to the early 1980s. Each tour focused on a different ecological zone found along the corridor of the Trans-Canada highway, with an information pack available to aid interpretation (Fennell, 1998).
Ecotourism developed ‘within the womb’ of the environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s (Honey, 1999, p. 19). Growing environmental concern coupled with an emerging dissatisfaction with mass tourism led to increased demand for nature-based experiences of an alternative nature. At the same time, less developed countries began to realize that nature-based tourism offers a means of earning foreign exchange and providing a less destructive use of resources than alternatives such as logging and agriculture (Honey, 1999). By the mid 1980s, a number of such countries had identified ecotourism as a means of achieving both conservation and development goals.
The first formal definition of ecotourism is generally credited to Ceballos-Lascuráin (1987), who defined it as: ‘travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas’. While definitions such as that of Ceballos-Lascuráin (1987) and Boo (1990) tended to emphasize the nature-based experience sought by the tourist, more recent definitions have tended to highlight various principles associated with the concept of sustainable development. According to Wight (1993), sustainable ecotourism imposes an ‘ethical overlay’ on nature-based tourism that has an educative emphasis. Although this overlay has arguably been implicit, if not explicit, in earlier discussions of ecotourism, the concept does appear to have evolved into something explicitly normative over the past decade. This is in part a reflection of increasing recognition among industry and government that nature-based tourism can only be sustained in the long term if a principled and proactive supply-side management approach is adopted.
The Ecotourism Society (1991a, b) defines ecotourism as; Responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and mproves the well-being of local people. Tickell (1994, p. ix) explains ecotourism as – “Travel to enjoy the world’s amazing diversity of
natural life and human culture without causing damage to either”. Although any number of principles of ecotourism can be devised, an analysis of definitions such as these indicates that three dimensions can represent the main essence of the concept. According to this interpretation, ecotourism is:
- Nature based,
- Environmentally educated, and
- Sustainably managed.
The last dimension is taken to encompass both the natural and cultural environments involved in supplying the ecotourism experience. Thus, where Ross and Wall (1999) outline five fundamental functions of ecotourism; namely: (i) protection of natural areas; (ii) education; (iii) generation of money; (iv) quality tourism; and (v) local participation, the last three fall under the heading ‘sustainably managed’ in this chapter. The three-dimensional interpretation is also consistent with Buckley’s (1994) restrictive notion of ecotourism in which ecotourism is nature based, environmentally educated, sustainably managed and conservation supporting.
One further dimension of ecotourism, not referred to in most definitions, but worthy of the status of at least a ‘secondary principle’, involves the small-scale, personalized and hence alternative nature of many classical ecotourism experiences. The above three principles, together with this fourth, provide the defining characteristics of classical ecotourism as shown in Fig. 1.1. Popular ecotourism is similar to classical ecotourism with the exception that it does not qualify as a form of alternative tourism. Each principle is now described in detail, beginning with the nature-based dimension.
Nature Based
The most obvious characteristic of ecotourism is that it is nature based. As noted above, it is this dimension that is emphasized in earlier definitions. Valentine (1992a, p. 108) defines nature-based tourism as tourism ‘primarily concerned with the direct enjoyment of some relatively undisturbed phenomenon of nature’. A variety of motivations for nature-based tourism have been suggested, including the desire to get back in touch with nature, a desire to escape the pressures of everyday life, seeing wildlife before it is too late, and specific interests and activities such as trekking, bird watching, canyoning and white-water rafting and kayaking (Whelan, 1991). Valentine identified three main dimensions of nature-based tourism (NBT) pertaining to the experience, style and location. In terms of the type of experience involved, different NBT experiences vary in nature dependency, intensity of interaction, social context and duration. Different styles are associated with different levels of infrastructure support, group size and type, cultural interaction factor, willingness to pay and length of visit. Locations vary in terms of accessibility (remoteness), development contribution, ownership and fragility (Valentine, 1992a, b).
Questions arise as to what does and does not constitute a nature-based experience. Does a drive through a forested area qualify as nature based, or must the driver actually pull over and go for a wander (the activity/experience component)? If he or she does wander, how long must this wander be for the individual to be considered a nature-based tourist (the duration component)? A further question relates to the natural environment itself (the attraction/ experience component). Does walking through regenerated forest areas or swimming in slightly polluted or littered lakes or streams, or for that matter any public beach, constitute a nature-based experience? (Blamey, 1997).
The issue of proximity is one that commonly arises when considering whether a tourism experience involving nature can be considered nature based. Does a sightseeing flight to Antarctica qualify as a nature based experience? What about the tourist who travels to Nepal, arguably an ‘ecotourism destination’, but gets no closer to the Himalayas than sitting in a restaurant with great views of the Annapurna range. Alternatively, the tourist might take a short stroll up a nearby hill to get better views. Even the dedicated trekker may get little closer to true wilderness than the lower altitude areas dominated by subsistence farming. In all these cases, a guide can readily be hired to provide interpretation.
Fur further contents, please write to me at mail@sushantmarasini.com.np
