- Email: [email protected]
Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 439–455, 2005 Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.08.003
COMPREHENSIVE AND MINIMALIST DIMENSIONS OF ECOTOURISM David B. Weaver University of South Carolina, USA Abstract: Analysis of core criteria of ecotourism suggests two ‘‘ideal types’’ based on the level of sustainability outcomes. The minimalist emphasizes superficial learning opportunities focused on charismatic megafauna, while its sustainability objectives are site-specific and status quo-oriented. The comprehensive model adopts a holistic and global approach to attractions and interpretation that fosters environmental enhancement, deep understanding, and transformation of behavior. It is argued that the comprehensive model can best promote global sustainability by accommodating selected hard (or small-scale) and soft (or large-scale) characteristics, thereby taking advantage of the economies of scale offered by the latter. Keywords: comprehensive and minimalist ecotourism, hard and soft ecotourism, sustainable tourism. Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Re´sume´: Les dimensions comple`tes et minimalistes de l’e´cotourisme. Une analyse des crite`res essentiels de l’e´cotourisme sugge`re deux «types ide´aux» base´s sur les re´sultats du niveau de durabilite´. Le type minimaliste accentue des occasions d’apprentissage superficiel qui centrent l’attention sur des me´gafaunes charismatiques, tandis que ses objectifs pour la durabilite´ sont spe´cifiques au lieu et oriente´s vers le statu quo. Le mode`le complet adopte une approche holistique et globale aux attractions et a` l’interpre´tation, ce qui favorise l’ame´lioration de l’environnement, une compre´hension approfondie et la transformation du comportement. On soutient que le mode`le complet peut mieux de´fendre la durabilite´ globale en accommodant certaines caracte´ristiques dures (ou a` petite e´chelle) ou souple (ou a` grande e´chelle), profitant ainsi des e´conomies d’e´chelle pre´sente´es par celles-ci. Mots-cle´s: e´cotourisme complet et minimaliste, e´cotourisme dur et souple, tourisme durable. Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
INTRODUCTION In the short time since the term ‘‘eco-tourism’’ was first used in the English-language academic literature by Romeril (1985), this sector has emerged as a major focus of attention within the industry and the field of tourism studies, sometimes under synonymous terms such as ‘‘nature tourism’’ (Boo 1990; Ziffer 1989) or ‘‘ecological tourism’’ (Ruschmann 1992). The proliferation of relevant tertiary-level subjects and courses illustrates this development (Thwaites, Lipscombe and Smith 2002; Weaver 2002), as does the growing number of specialized texts
David Weaver is Professor of Tourism Management at the University of South Carolina (School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, Columbia SC 29208, USA. Email). He specializes in ecotourism, sustainable tourism, and destination lifecycles, and has authored or co-authored seven books and over 70 refereed articles and book chapters. He is the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of Ecotourism and sits on the Editorial Boards of six tourism journals. 439
440
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
(Buckley 2003; Cater and Lowman 1994; Fennell 1999; Fennell and Dowling 2003; Honey 1999; Lu¨ ck and Kirstges 2003; Page and Dowling 2002; Wearing and Neil 1999; Weaver 1998, 2001a, 2002; Whelan 1991). Evidence of its formalization and ‘‘institutionalization’’ includes the declaration of 2002 as the International Year of Ecotourism by the United Nations (Maclaren 2002), and the publication of the first issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Ecotourism in that same year. While this high level of attention has not yet resulted in a universally accepted definition, there is an emerging consensus that qualifying products must be primarily nature-based, focused on the provision of learning opportunities, and managed in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of environmentally and socioculturally sustainable outcomes, including positive benefits for local communities (Blamey 2001). It is primarily due to the promise of these latter sustainability outcomes that interest has grown to the extent described above. Yet one may question whether the global sector as it is currently structured actually achieves these outcomes.
COMPREHENSIVE AND MINIMALIST MANIFESTATIONS It is generally agreed that ecotourism products and attractions are primarily nature-based, with the prefix ‘‘eco’’ usually understood to stand for ‘‘ecological’’ (Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988). At one end of a nature-based product continuum, a product or destination may feature the entire ecosystem of the area, so that a ‘‘montane rainforest’’, ‘‘coral reef’’, or ‘‘shortgrass prairie’’ is experienced. This indicates a ‘‘holistic’’ approach toward the product, since an ecosystem implies an integrated, interconnected entity. In contrast, an ‘‘elemental’’ approach is evident at the other end of the continuum when a product focuses on specific non-captive animals or plants that are deemed to be particularly attractive or interesting. Examples of iconic charismatic megafauna that are identified closely with particular destinations include koalas in eastern Australia, giant pandas in China’s Sechuan province (Kontoleon, Swanson, Wang, Xuejun and Yang 2002), orangutans in Borneo (Russell and Ankenman 1996), quetzals in Central American rainforests, sandhill cranes in the US Great Plains, polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba (MacKay, Lamont and Partridge 1996), mountain gorillas in Rwanda and Uganda (Hamilton, Cunningham, Byarugaba and Kayanja 2000; McNeilage 1996), and gray whales in Mexico’s coastal Baja California Sur (Heckel, Espejel and Fischer 2003). A smaller number of destinations feature charismatic megaflora such as redwood trees (coastal northern California), rafflesia flowers (Sumatra and Borneo), and the Weltwitschia plant (Namibia) which are distinguished by their beauty, size, age, rareness, and/or weirdness. Most definitions also recognize the importance of associated cultural attractions, both contemporary and relict. This is most evident in destinations that were or are occupied by indigenous people, including the Australian Outback, New Zealand, the Kalahari Desert, the Amazon basin, Borneo, the Yucatan Peninsula, and northern Scandinavia. In
DAVID WEAVER
441
such situations, the boundary between nature and culture is often blurred and natural ecosystems are substantially the consequence of activities (e.g. fire-setting, plant dispersal and hunting) undertaken by indigenous people over several millennia (Hinch 2001). Here and elsewhere, the inclusion of a cultural component is a logical qualification to the ‘‘nature-based’’ focus, given that few if any places are completely free from human influences. However, aside from indigenous situations (such as those already outlined) and archeological sites, cultural influences are more often incorporated into the interpretive experience than recognized as attractions per se, which is consistent with the emphasis in many definitions on settings that are ‘‘natural’’ or relatively undisturbed (Beeton 1998; Boo 1990; Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988; Fennell 1999; Valentine 1992). With regard to the differentiation between the holistic and elemental approaches, the cultural component is more likely to be absent or downplayed in the latter, since to incorporate this could distract attention from the target animal or plant. With regard to the second core criterion, the provision of learning opportunities and experiences is one way in which ecotourism products differ fundamentally from other nature-based forms such as 3S (sea, sand, sun) resorts and outdoor adventure (Boo 1990). In each of these cases, the natural environment serves as a convenient setting for facilitating other kinds of motivations, including relaxation and hedonism in the case of 3S resorts and thrill-seeking and risk-taking in the case of outdoor adventure (Weaver 2001b). Learning opportunities can involve the provision of rigidly formal product interpretation through, for example, ‘‘permanent’’ signage and scripted lectures delivered at prescribed times, or they can involve informal opportunities that entail the maintenance of conditions (such as tranquility and trails designed to minimize exposure to others) that facilitate highly personal and unstructured interactions with, and appreciation of, the natural environment. Intermediate options include informal and interactive guided tours as well as the use of brochures and guidebooks to mediate interactions with nature. National Parks and other high profile sites typically attempt to provide formal as well as informal learning opportunities. Whether formally or informally construed, effective interpretation should at a minimum foster satisfaction as well as a basic understanding of target natural and cultural attractions. At a more profound level, effective interpretation can have a ‘‘transformative’’ effect by inducing among participants a deeper understanding of the attraction and consequent adherence to a more ethical and environmentalist ethos (Fennell 1995, 1999; Tisdell and Wilson 2001). James Butler (cited in Scace 1993:5) supports this perspective by advocating a definition that fosters ‘‘preferred behavior’’ in its participants. To bring about this deeper understanding, interpretation should focus on a few core themes, such as interdependency, energy cycles, succession and competition, which are consistent with the ecosystems-focused holistic approach toward the product (Ham 1992; Ham and Krumpe 1996; Weiler and Ham 2001). Moreover, these themes must take into account direct
442
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
and indirect human activities at both micro and macro levels that interfere with these ecological processes. Examples of such influences include anthropogenic global warming, deforestation, ozone depletion, the deliberate or inadvertent introduction of exotic species, road construction, migration, hunting, and predatory commercial fishing practices. The latter are apparently incorporated into the interpretation provided on whale tours at the well-known destination of Kaikoura, New Zealand (Curtin 2003). The third and in many ways most contentious core criterion, and one that also differentiates the latter from other forms of nature-based tourism, is product planning and management that is conducive to sustainability (Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988; Fennell 1999; Scace 1993; Whelan 1991). It is not the principle of sustainability per se that is contentious, since few would argue with the Brundtland Commission’s widely adopted definition of ‘‘sustainable development’’ as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Rather, it is the impossibility of knowing, beyond any doubt, that a particular course of action is indeed ‘‘sustainable’’. In part this owes to the subjectivity and malleability of this ‘‘essentially contested concept’’ (Hall 1998), wherein there is no consensus as to what exactly should be sustained. However this is perceived, added difficulties that confound any attempt to assess sustainability include knowing which indicators to select, what weight to apply to each, and what threshold and benchmark values to assign. Subsequently, effective measuring and monitoring procedures are extremely difficult to implement, particularly over a long period of time. Compounding the problem is the uniqueness of each destination, so that the indicators, weights, and thresholds that apply to one site may not be relevant at another superficially similar one (Weaver and Lawton 1999). Other vexatious problems involve spatial and temporal discontinuities between cause and effect that confound the prediction of results and extrapolation of trends. For example, an action that fosters sustainability in place A at time x may lead to unsustainable and often unintended consequences in place B at time y. This is illustrated by the US ski resort of Aspen, Colorado, where measures to curb growth and restrict development resulted afterwards in the diffusion of construction to nearby communities ill-prepared to accommodate such activity (Gill and Williams 1994). The ability of the affected jurisdiction to address such impacts is further compromised when the influence is an external force such as a mining company that contaminates waterways and thereby gradually undermines wildlife populations upon which a downstream ecolodge is dependent. In the Amazon region of southern Peru, the long-term viability of several ecolodges has been challenged by the clearance and colonization of adjacent rainforest by settlers from other parts of the country (Yu, Hendrickson and Castillo 1997). Even where the cause-effect relationship is obvious, prediction and trend extrapolation is made more difficult by the possibility of an avalanche effect, wherein a small increment in the cause (for example, the sewage emissions of a hotel) results in an unanticipated but
DAVID WEAVER
443
wildly disproportionate effect on the environment (producing, for example, a ‘‘red tide’’). Because the uncontestable demonstration of sustainability is impossible for all of the reasons described above, Weaver (2002) argues that the litmus test for a bona fide ecotourism product is not the absence of any resulting negative impacts, but rather the ongoing intent by managers to pursue sustainability outcomes in concert with the best available knowledge, and to quickly and effectively address any negative impacts that inadvertently arise from core activities such as wildlife observation or facilities operation. Relevant to the issue of what constitutes ‘‘sustainability’’ and sustainable practice is the degree to which ecotourism actually helps to improve the environment within which it occurs. A minimalist approach is evident in many definitions (and arguably in the Brundtland definition of sustainable development), wherein the sector merely endeavors not to worsen the situation in a given place and time. However, in many if not most situations, this ‘‘status quo’’ sustainability may counterproductively serve to perpetuate unsustainable situations such as an overdeveloped beach resort. An alternative approach is ‘‘enhancement’’ sustainability which serves to actively improve on the environmental status quo through measures such as habitat rehabilitation, ecologically sensitive site hardening, and the acquisition of land for inclusion in high order protected area networks. This approach is evident for example in James Butler (cited in Scace 1993:43), who states that ‘‘the environment must experience a net benefit from the activity’’ and in Fennell (1999:65), who argues that it ‘‘should contribute to the conservation or preservation of [natural] areas’’. Phillip Island Penguin Reserve, near Melbourne, Australia, is a good example of this approach, due to its utilization of tourism revenues to purchase new land, engage in habitat restoration, control predators, and re-introduce penguins into other areas (Head 2000). In addition to the ‘‘status quo’’/‘‘enhancement’’ dichotomy, it is also necessary for managers to determine whether they should pursue sustainable outcomes at the site, regional, or global level. Most definitions implicitly support a site or local approach in which the pursuit of sustainability is confined to a particular property, ecolodge, or park. While this requires the least effort, it ignores the external consequences of actions associated with the product’s clientele and operation, such as the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from travel to and from the site. Moreover, it gives rise to situations such as the one in Aspen. A regional or global approach, in contrast, compels the operator of an ecolodge to plant enough trees or to otherwise compensate for the estimated greenhouse gas emissions produced by facility’s clientele. The privately owned Rara Avis Rainforest Lodge and Reserve in Costa Rica illustrates this approach, with its emphasis on demonstration projects in the sustainable use of rainforest resources, and its production of rainforest seedlings to assist with reforestation efforts in other areas (Honey 1999). The extent to which sustainability should apply just to the natural environment or additionally to the sociocultural realm must also be considered. The earliest definitions were focused on the natural
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
444
environment (Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988), but were quickly superseded by definitions that endorsed social, cultural, and economic sustainability as concomitant and interrelated objectives (Epler Wood 1991; Scace, Grifone and Usher 1992; Ziffer 1989). This added focus reflected the emergence of the ‘‘community-based’’ approach in the 80s (Krippendorf 1987; Murphy 1985), which assumes that local people should be the primary recipients of economic and other benefits, and that this can be facilitated through a high level of local control over the sector. Indigenously controlled initiatives, such as the Community Baboon Sanctuary and Toledo Ecotourism Association in Belize (Alexander 2000; Edington, Edington and Stabler 1997), reflect this emphasis on community empowerment. Finally, the reference to economic benefits states that ecotourism, like all other forms of tourism, must in addition be financially sustainable, even though this is not explicitly recognized in any of the definitions examined by this author. Comprehensive and Minimalist Manifestations From the above discussion of the three core criteria emerge two ideal types—non-distorted models against which real life situations can be measured and compared (Harrison 1995). The first ideal type, ‘‘minimalist’’ ecotourism, fosters a basic or superficial understanding of particular charismatic megafauna or megaflora, and does not deliberately aspire to transform values or behavior (Table 1). Its approach to sustainability is site-specific, status quo oriented, and focused on the natural environment. In contrast, the ‘‘comprehensive’’ ideal type emphasizes a holistic perspective on the product that integrates the ecosystem and associated human influences. It fosters deep understanding and endeavors to transform participant attitudes and behavior. The objectives of sustainability are global in scope and enhancement-oriented within a combined environmental, socio-
Table 1. Comprehensive and Minimalist Ideal Types Variables
Comprehensive ecotourism
Minimalist ecotourism
Attractions
Holistic approach (nature-based, cultural)
Elemental (nature-based)
Learning
Deep understanding
Superficial (shallow) understanding Non-transformational
Transformational Sustainability
Concomitant objectives
Enhancement-based Global Environmental and sociocultural
Status quo-based Site-specific Environmental only
Financial sustainability High levels of tourist satisfaction
DAVID WEAVER
445
cultural and economic context that fully involves local communities. Held in common by both models are the imperatives of financial sustainability and high levels of satisfaction. Because undistorted ideal types such as these are seldom if ever actually encountered in real life, it is prudent to assess particular case studies as leaning or tending toward one pole or the other. For example, the aforementioned Rara Avis and Phillip Island operations resemble but do not necessarily emulate every ideal facet of the comprehensive model. It is argued here that the managers of destinations are more likely to attain the objectives of environmental and sociocultural sustainability through the implementation of the comprehensive option. By fostering a more environmentally aware and activist market, comprehensive ecotourism is conducive to the development of a product that benefits from donations and eagerness to engage in volunteer activity such as trail maintenance, litter collection, research assistance, and informal policing (McFarlane and Boxall 1996; Wearing 2001). When combined with the emphasis on global and enhancement-based sustainability, opportunities emerge to channel this volunteer activity into the rehabilitation and reclamation of habitat that has been substantially altered by human activity. One example is the Kung Krabaen Bay Royal Development Study Centre in southern Thailand, where ecotourists are encouraged to plant trees in a 160-Ha mangrove reforestation project (author’s personal observation in 2002). In contrast, a minimalist approach may hinder the attainment of these sustainability objectives. Problems can arise from the tendency in the elemental model to construct species hierarchies, wherein charismatic megafauna such as giant pandas and mountain gorillas are valued more highly by managers than obscure but no less ecologically valuable species. Managerial priority is thus likely to be given to these iconic species, to the neglect or detriment of the latter (Livingston 1981; Russell and Ankenman 1996). This attention, however, can ironically also be detrimental to the charismatic megafauna by encouraging prolonged and often intrusive contact with humans. An increased risk of stress, disease, and social disruption, for example, is associated with excessively exposed mountain gorilla groups in the Virunga region of eastern Africa (McNeilage 1996). In general, the process of observing wildlife can result in an array of often subtle negative consequences if carried out in an inadvertently inappropriate manner (Buckley 2001; Duchesne, Coˆ te´ and Barrette 2000; Henson and Grant 1991; Roe, Leader-Williams and Dalal-Clayton 1997). Studies that attempt to commodify specific species, such as Thresher’s estimate in the late 70s that a male lion can be worth US$515,000 as an ecotourism attraction over its adult lifespan (cited in Sherman and Dixon 1991), encourage this distorted focus and raise additional questions about the ethics of placing a monetary value on ‘‘invaluable’’ components of an ecosystem. Another inadvertent negative impact risk that may be reduced by the comprehensive ethos is the introduction of exotic species such as insects (Silberglied 1978), weeds (Lonsdale and Lane 1994), and water-borne pathogens (Buckley, Clough and Warnken 1998). An
446
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
equal or greater threat, however, is the increased probability that minimalist activity, with its diluted attention to learning and sustainability outcomes, will evolve into a less benign form of nature-based activity that is no longer recognizable as legitimate ecotourism. If the level of visitation is high, then the environmental and sociocultural implications of such a transformation are all the more serious (see below). Although the boundaries between ecotourism and affiliated activity are fuzzy, it is reasonable to contend that most activity falling under the former gravitates toward the minimalist side of the spectrum. Simplicity and cost effectiveness are primary reasons for this emphasis. Superficial learning opportunities focused on charismatic species, for example, are easier to provide and may be thought by managers to engender greater satisfaction. Many tourists to certain destinations, shaped by media imagery and the longstanding publicity efforts by the product marketers themselves, may be predisposed to focus their visits on featured iconic species. Russell and Ankenman (1996) indicate that this is the case with Borneo and its orangutans, while Kontoleon et al (2002) reveal the importance of giant pandas in China’s Sechuan Province to foreign tourists surveyed in Beijing. Many tourists to O’Reilly’s Rainforest Guesthouse in Lamington National Park, Queensland, come specifically to encounter (and feed) the crimson rosellas and king parrots (author’s personal observation). Therefore, they may be dissatisfied by interpretation or product development that adopts a holistic approach that does not focus around these iconic species. At the same time, attempts to instill transformational, deep understanding could be met with resistance and/or resentment, in keeping with McKercher’s (1993) assertion that most tourists are not anthropologists but consumers in search of entertainment. Volunteer activity, moreover, carries a higher risk of injury and liability, and may be dissuaded by managers. From a sustainability perspective, status-quo and site-specific parameters are much easier for managers to cope with than enhancement and global parameters. The minimalist approach appears to better fulfill the objectives of financial sustainability and satisfaction, if not environmental and sociocultural sustainability. The question then becomes how to implement a viable comprehensive model that has the potential to attain all of these objectives.
Hard and Soft Manifestations Toward conceptualizing an effective comprehensive model, it is useful at this juncture to distinguish between the ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’ variants of ecotourism, a dichotomy that has been well recognized both theoretically (Laarman and Durst 1987; Lindberg 1991; Weaver 1998) and empirically (Chapman 1995; Palacio and McCool 1997; Weaver and Lawton 2002) since the early years of discourse. As an ideal type, soft activity involves larger numbers of participants who make relatively short and physically comfortable visits to serviced sites as one component of a multipurpose experience that is facilitated through the formal industry (Figure 1). It is associated with a superficial or
DAVID WEAVER
HARD
447
SOFT the ecotourism spectrum
Strong environmental commitment Specialized visits Long trips Small groups Physically active Physical challenge Few if any services expected Deep interaction with nature Emphasis on personal experience Make own travel arrangements
Superficial environmental commitment Multi-purpose visits Short trips Larger groups Physically passive Physical comfort Services expected Shallow interaction with nature Emphasis on interpretation Rely on travel agents & tour operators
Adapted from Weaver (2002)
Figure 1. Characteristics of Hard and Soft Ecotourism as Ideal Types
veneer commitment to environmental issues, and the pursuit of a shallow interaction with nature that is mediated through formal interpretation. Soft activity is dominant in US National Parks such as Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains. In contrast, the hard ideal type entails smaller numbers who are purportedly more environmentally aware, visiting semiwilderness or wilderness destinations where few if any services are available. They embark on relatively long and specialized trips that are physically and mentally challenging, involve the pursuit of a deeper interaction with the natural environment, and are arranged independently or through exclusive packages. Antarctica is often described as an iconic hard destination (Splettstoesser 1999; Stonehouse 2001). Again, as with the comprehensive and minimalist ideal types, the real world is characterized by harder and softer experiences as well as hybrids such as Kaikoura, where formal interpretation, extensive services, and large numbers (60,000 whale watchers in 1998) combine with strongly environmentalist interpretive content (Curtin 2003). There are compelling arguments for equating the soft and hard ideal types, respectively, with the minimalist and comprehensive ideal types, thereby rendering the latter dichotomy redundant. Among these is the association between hard ecotourism and strong environmental commitment, as well as deep learning experiences. The notion of the hard model as ‘‘good’’ ecotourism, which is still supported by many current day researchers and practitioners, derives from the origins of the sector in the mid-80s as a nature-based form of alternative tourism (Weaver 2002). The latter, in turn, was conceived at that time as a more appropriate option than conventional mass tourism in particular, which was regarded by alternative tourism advocates as a generally destructive force (Jafari 2001). Where conventional activity as an ideal type is large-scale, alternative tourism is small-scale; where the former is corporate-controlled and oriented to short-term profitability, the latter is community-controlled and oriented to long-term social well-being,
448
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
etc. (Butler 1990; Weaver 2002). Hard activity generally embodies these alternative characteristics, while soft activity is widely regarded as a surreptitious or impending form of conventional mass tourism. Such alignments may often occur and may even be normative, but they are not inherent, inevitable, or necessarily desirable. For all its purported benefits, the hard model entails several serious potential drawbacks (Weaver 2001c). First, its participants, though small in number, travel for longer periods through a vast expanse of relatively pristine and fragile space within which weeds and other exotic species may be inadvertently introduced and diffused. They are also likely to intrude for extended periods upon the more isolated and less modernized cultures that inhabit these environments. Second, these same small numbers (notwithstanding longer stays) often do not generate revenue flows sufficient to induce the ‘‘incentive effect’’. This is the sector’s ability to provide an economic incentive to preserve natural habitats such as rainforests, that might otherwise be used for potentially less benign but more profitable purposes such as logging, ranching or plantation agriculture. High fees, such as those levied in the mountain gorilla parks of East Africa or the trekking venues of the Himalayas, may somewhat offset small numbers, but also foster a high cost, elitist model that raises ethical and other questions (Wheeller 1997). Indeed, it is possible to speak of minimalist hard ecotourism in situations where ego enhancement and the consuming desire to encounter a rare bird or mammal transcend or replace the desire to learn about and preserve the wilderness venue. This may be the case in some orangutan rehabilitation sites in Borneo where photo opportunities and anthropomorphic projections characterize interactions with these animals (Russell and Ankenman 1996). In contrast, soft activity is more likely to enable this incentive effect, especially since relatively substantial increases in low entry fees (for example, from $2 to $4) can result in a large gross revenue increase without reducing demand, since the increase to overall trip cost for any given individual is negligible. In addition, the tendency of soft ecotourism to be spatially concentrated minimizes the space directly impacted by related activity (Lawton 2001), while providing a critical mass of usage to justify the implementation of environmentally friendly and satisfying site and corridor-hardening measures such as high tech waste treatment facilities, alternate energy transportation and interactive interpretation centers. The facilities that are being constructed in the South Rim node of Grand Canyon National Park are one example of this synergy between high numbers and effective site and corridor hardening (GCNP 2003).
Comprehensiveness with Soft and Hard Dimensions The hard/soft dichotomy cannot be equated with the comprehensive/ minimalist dichotomy introduced in this paper, as the former is aligned mainly along a trajectory of scale (hard = small-scale, soft = large-scale) and experience within which both positive and negative impacts are
DAVID WEAVER
449
FOSTERS Holistic approach Deep understanding Transformational outcomes Enhancement sustainability Global sustainability Environmental, & sociocultural sustainability Financial sustainability Tourist satisfaction ACCOMMODATES Small groups Specialized trips Physically challenging activities Low level of services Emphasis on personal interaction Independent travel
and “ “ “ “ “ “
Large groups Multipurpose trips Physically passive activities High level of services Emphasis on interpretation Mediated travel
PRIMITIVE
DEVELOPED OPPORTUNITY SETTINGS
Figure 2. Modified Comprehensive Model
possible, while the latter is based more on the extent to which sustainable outcomes are likely to be attained. The fundamental problem with the intuitive hard/comprehensive alignment is that the ambitious sustainability implications of the comprehensive variant are not readily achievable, and may even be impeded, by its containment within a hard framework. It is argued here, instead, that the optimum comprehensive model should incorporate selected hard and soft elements so that it applies as warranted to large-scale as well as small-scale products and destinations. As depicted in Figure 2, this modified model fosters core comprehensive characteristics such as a holistic approach to the attraction, deep understanding and transformational outcomes for participants, and sustainability that is enhancement-oriented, global in scope, and inclusive of both environmental and sociocultural dimensions. Financial sustainability and high levels of satisfaction remain as core objectives. Simultaneously, this model accommodates small and large groups and overall numbers; specialized as well as multipurpose trips; activities both physically challenging and passive; a low or high level of services; personal interaction with the attraction and formal interpretation; and independent and mediated experiences, both within the site and in transit to and from the site. The usually contradictory hard and soft impulses can be reconciled through various strategies of spatial and temporal separation. Borrowing from the concept of the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum
450
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
(Newsome, Moore and Dowling 2002), ‘‘primitive’’-type settings are conducive to hard activity and ‘‘developed’’ settings to soft activity. In many situations, the product manager needs to consider just one or the other option. For example, remote portions of the Amazon basin are primitive venues that warrant a hard, comprehensive approach (Colvin 1996). Small, intensively visited sites near large urban areas may provide soft comprehensive opportunities and experiences only. More common, however, are high order protected areas (such as IUCN category II National Parks) that offer settings ranging from the primitive to the developed, and which thus can accommodate the entire modified comprehensive model within a single protected area. Such parks typically demonstrate some variant of the 95/5 rule, or the idea that visitation in parks such as Grand Canyon or Banff National Park is dominated (95%) by soft ecotourists content to confine their visit to a small area of relatively developed sites and corridors (occupying 5% of the park) (Lawton 2001). Conversely, the small hard minority tends to spend minimal times in these site-hardened environments, preferring to visit the 95% of the park that is undeveloped. Thus, only a small portion of the park is required to accommodate the vast majority, but this allows for the implementation of sophisticated site hardening and tourist management strategies, while funds generated by this area can be used to manage other parts of the park as well.
CONCLUSION The hard/soft dichotomy is a well-recognized construct within the ecotourism literature that usefully differentiates respectively between small-scale, alternative-type products and market segments and those that align with large-scale or mass tourism. This dichotomy, however, does not adequately account for differences in actual sustainability-related outcomes, since large- and small-scale dynamics are both associated with an array of potential positive and negative impacts. The comprehensive/minimalist dichotomy proposed in this paper, in contrast, embodies a distinction between ‘‘neutral’’ activity that meets the most basic or minimal requirements (it does not make the situation any worse, and provides basic learning opportunities, etc.), and products that aspire to attain enhancement-based sustainability outcomes at a global scale. The comprehensive model emerges from the concern that even those products and destinations which legitimately qualify as ecotourism are situated mainly on the minimalist side of the spectrum; that is, they tend to be diluted and shallow with respect to their actual adherence to the three core criteria described above. Accordingly, it is argued that contemporary ecotourism is largely incapable of fulfilling its potential to achieve meaningful environmental and sociocultural sustainability. More ominously, it is also vulnerable to being transformed into other, less benign forms of tourism. It is often the largescale magnitude of contemporary soft ecotourism that is cited as the great danger to destinations, with additional growth being equated with additional threat to the natural and cultural environment, as
DAVID WEAVER
451
per the logic of the destination lifecycle model (Butler 1980). As observed earlier, this association between scale and threat is longstanding in the literature, having emerged during the early 70s as part of what Jafari (2001) describes as the ‘‘cautionary’’ platform—the same conditions that spawned ecotourism and other small-scale models as alternatives to mass tourism 10 years later as part of the ‘‘adaptancy’’ platform. However, it is argued here in concert with the premises of Jafari’s (2001) allegedly more objective ‘‘knowledge-based’’ platform that size per se is not the problem, and that the success of the comprehensive model is dependent upon the extension of its principles into the soft arena, where economies of scale confer several critical potential advantages in the interests of environmental and economic sustainability that are absent in its hard manifestation. It is not within the purview of this paper to detail strategies for the effective implementation of this modified comprehensive model, and suffice it to say that the effort will not be without its challenges given the critiques of McKercher (1993), Wheeller (1997), and others. The existence of differential zoning in many higher-order protected areas, however, already provides a regulatory framework for accommodating mass as well as small-scale comprehensive ecotourism. Furthermore, much technological progress has been made recently in the field of ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ site hardening and site softening. A greater challenge perhaps is the reconciliation of comprehensive objectives and principles with the attitudes and motivations attributed to soft ecotourists. This will depend in part on the ability to deliver holistic interpretation that employs the five principles described by Weiler and Ham (2001), which include the avoidance of a preachy, ‘‘academic’’ style of delivery; the use of a conversational style that encourages audience participation; the inclusion of references and analogies that are meaningful to the audience; the delivery of no more than four or five main ideas in a session; and the use of themes (energy cycles) rather than simple topics (types of trees) to convey these ideas. The idea that the attitudes and behavior of soft ecotourists can be transformed is supported by Orams (1997), who found that participants in the Tangalooma Dolphin Feeding Program (near Brisbane, Australia) reported that this experience made them more environmentally responsible in their subsequent behavior. Tisdell and Wilson (2001) identified similar outcomes among the in situ viewers of sea turtles at Mon Repos Beach on the central Queensland coastline. Effort now needs to be placed to devise product development strategies and techniques that generate similar outcomes in other sites, so that the promise of mass comprehensive ecotourism can be realized. REFERENCES Alexander, S. 2000 Resident Attitudes Towards Conservation and Black Howler Monkeys in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27:341–350.
452
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
Beeton, S. 1998 Ecotourism: A Practical Guide for Rural Communities. Collingwood: Landlinks Press. Blamey, R. 2001 Principles of Ecotourism. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 5–22. Wallingford: CABI. Boo, E. 1990 Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol. I. Washington: World Wildlife Fund. Buckley, R. 2001 Environmental Impacts. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 379–394. Wallingford: CABI. 2003 Case Studies in Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI. Buckley, R., E. Clough, and W. Warnken 1998 Plesiomonas Shigelloides in Australia. Ambio 27:253. Butler, R. 1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24:5–12. 1990 Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research 28(3):40–45. Cater, E. and G. Lowman, eds. 1994 Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option. Chichester: Wiley. Ceballos-Lascuraı´n, H. 1988 The Future of ‘‘Ecotourism’’. Mexico Journal (January 27):13–14. Chapman, D. 1995 Ecotourism in State Forests of New South Wales: Who Visits and Why? Sydney: State Forests of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. Colvin, J. 1996 Indigenous Ecotourism: The Capirona Programme in Napo Province, Ecuador. Unasylva 47(187):32–37. Curtin, S. 2003 Whale-watching in Kaikoura: Sustainable Destination Development? Journal of Ecotourism 2:173–195. Duchesne, M., S. Coˆ te´ , and C. Barrette 2000 Responses of Woodland Caribou to Winter Ecotourism in the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Biological Conservation 96:311–317. Edington, J., M. Edington, and M. Stabler 1997 Tropical Forest Ecotourism: Two Promising Projects in Belize. In Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 163–167. Wallingford: CABI. Epler Wood, M. 1991 Global Solutions: An Ecotourism Society. In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, T. Whelan, ed., pp. 200–206. Washington: Island Press. Fennell, D. 1995 Ethics and Ecotourism: A Comprehensive Ethical Model. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 20:163–183. 1999 Ecotourism: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Fennell, D. and R. Dowling, eds. 2003 Ecotourism Policy and Planning. Wallingford: CABI. GCNP 2003 Grand Canyon Management
DAVID WEAVER
453
Ham, S. 1992 Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden: North American Press. Ham, S., and E. Krumpe 1996 Identifying Audiences and Messages for Nonformal Environmental Education: A Theoretical Framework for Interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research 1:11–23. Hamilton, A., A. Cunningham, D. Byarugaba, and F. Kayanja 2000 Conservation in a Region of Political Instability: Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14:1722–1725. Harrison, D. 1995 Development of Tourism in Swaziland. Annals of Tourism Research 22:135–156. Head, L. 2000 Renovating the Landscape and Packaging the Penguin: Culture and Nature on Summerland Peninsula, Phillip Island, Victoria, Australia. Australian Geographical Studies 38:36–53. Heckel, G., I. Espejel, and D. Fischer 2003 Issue Definition and Planning for Whalewatching Management Strategies in Ensenada, Mexico. Coastal Management 31:277–296. Henson, P., and T. Grant 1991 The Effects of Human Disturbance on Trumpeter Swan Breeding Behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248–257. Hinch, T. 2001 Indigenous Territories. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 345–357. Wallingford: CABI. Honey, M. 1999 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington. Island Press. Jafari, J. 2001 The Scientification of Tourism. In Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, V. Smith and M. Brent, eds., pp. 28–41. New York: Cognizant. Kontoleon, A., T. Swanson, Q. Wang, Q. Xuejun, and C. Yang 2002 Optimal Ecotourism: The Economic Value of the Giant Panda in China. In Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries: Case Studies, D. Pearce, C. Pearce and C. Palmer, eds., pp. 206–235. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Krippendorf, J. 1987 The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Heinemann. Laarman, J., and P. Durst 1987 Nature Travel and Tropical Forests. Raleigh: FREI Working Paper Series, Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research. Lawton, L. 2001 Ecotourism in Public Protected Areas. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 287–302. Wallingford: CABI. Lindberg, K. 1991 Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits. Washington: World Resources Institute. Livingston, J. 1981 The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation. Toronto: McLellan and Stewart. Lonsdale, W., and A. Lane 1994 Tourist Vehicles as Vectors of Weed Seeds in Kakadu National Park, Northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69:277–283. Lu¨ ck, M. and T. Kirstges, eds. 2003 Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints. Clevedon: Channel View. MacKay, K., D. Lamont, and C. Partridge 1996 Northern Ecotourists and General Tourists: An Intra-provincial Comparison. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 21:335–357.
454
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
Maclaren, F. 2002 The International Year of Ecotourism in Review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10:443–448. McFarlane, B., and P. Boxall 1996 Participation in Wildlife Conservation by Birdwatchers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(3):1–14. McKercher, B. 1993 Some Fundamental Truths about Tourism: Understanding Tourism’s Social and Environmental Impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1:6–16. McNeilage, A. 1996 Ecotourism and Mountain Gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes. In The Exploitation of Mammal Populations, V. Taylor and N. Dunstone, eds., pp. 334–344. London: Chapman and Hall. Murphy, P. 1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen. Newsome, D., S. Moore, and R. Dowling 2002 Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. Clevedon: Channel View. Orams, M. 1997 The Effectiveness of Environmental Education: Can We Turn Tourists into ‘‘Greenies’’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3:295–306. Page, S., and R. Dowling 2002 Ecotourism. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. Palacio, V., and S. McCool 1997 Identifying Ecotourists in Belize through Benefit Segmentation: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5:234–243. Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams, and B. Dalal-Clayton 1997 Take Only Photographs, Leave Only Footprints: The Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Romeril, M. 1985 Tourism and the Environment: Towards a Symbiotic Relationship. International Journal of Environmental Studies 25:215–218. Ruschmann, D. 1992 Ecological Tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management 13:125–134. Russell, C., and M. Ankenman 1996 Orangutans as Photographic Collectibles: Ecotourism and the Commodification of Nature. Tourism Recreation Research 21(1):71–78. Scace, R. 1993 An Ecotourism Perspective. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, J. Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall, eds., pp. 59–82. Waterloo: University of Waterloo. Scace, R., E. Grifone, and R. Usher 1992 Ecotourism in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. Sherman, P., and J. Dixon 1991 The Economics of Nature Tourism: Determining if it Pays. In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, T. Whelan, ed., pp. 89–131. Washington: Island Press. Silberglied, R. 1978 Inter-island Transport of Insects Aboard Ships in the Galapagos Islands. Biological Conservation 13:273–278. Splettstoesser, J. 1999 Antarctica Tourism: Successful Management of a Vulnerable Environment. In Tourism Development in Critical Environments, T. Singh and S. Singh, eds., pp. 137–148. Elmsford: Cognizant. Stonehouse, B. 2001 Polar Environments. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 219–234. Wallingford: CABI.
DAVID WEAVER
455
Thwaites, R., N. Lipscombe, and E. Smith 2002 Providing Education in a Growth Industry: Issues in Ecotourism Education and Employment in Australia. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 2:81–97. Tisdell, C., and C. Wilson 2001 Wildlife-based Tourism and Increased Support for Nature Conservation Financially and Otherwise: Evidence from Sea Turtle Ecotourism at Mon Repos. Tourism Economics 7:233–249. Valentine, P. 1992 Nature-based Tourism. In Special Interest Tourism, C. Hall and B. Weiler, eds., pp. 105–127. London: Belhaven Press. WCED 1987 Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wearing, S. 2001 Volunteer Tourism: Experiences that Make a Difference. Wallingford: CABI. Wearing, S., and J. Neil 1999 Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Weaver, D. 1998 Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. Wallingford: CABI. 2001b Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 73–83. Wallingford: CABI. 2001c Ecotourism as Mass Tourism: Contradiction or Reality? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42:104–112. 2002 Ecotourism. Brisbane: Wiley. Weaver, D., ed. 2001a The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI. Weaver, D., and L. Lawton 1999 Sustainable Tourism: A Critical Analysis. Gold Coast: Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Research Report 1. 2002 Overnight Ecotourist Market Segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research 40:270–280. Weiler, B., and S. Ham 2001 Tour Guides and Interpretation in Ecotourism. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 549–563. Wallingford: CABI. Wheeller, B. 1997 Here We Go, Here We Go, Here We Go Eco. In Tourism & Sustainability, Principles to Practice, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 39–49. Wallingford: CABI. Whelan, T., ed. 1991 Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington: Island Press. Yu, D., T. Hendrickson, and A. Castillo 1997 Ecotourism and Conservation in Amazonian Peru: Short-term and longterm Challenges. Environmental Conservation 24:130–138. Ziffer, K. 1989 Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. Washington: Conservation International.
Submitted 27 July 2003. Resubmitted 15 June 2004. Resubmitted 8 July 2004. Accepted 10 August 2004. Final version 6 October 2004. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Trevor Sofield
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 439–455, 2005 Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.08.003
COMPREHENSIVE AND MINIMALIST DIMENSIONS OF ECOTOURISM David B. Weaver University of South Carolina, USA Abstract: Analysis of core criteria of ecotourism suggests two ‘‘ideal types’’ based on the level of sustainability outcomes. The minimalist emphasizes superficial learning opportunities focused on charismatic megafauna, while its sustainability objectives are site-specific and status quo-oriented. The comprehensive model adopts a holistic and global approach to attractions and interpretation that fosters environmental enhancement, deep understanding, and transformation of behavior. It is argued that the comprehensive model can best promote global sustainability by accommodating selected hard (or small-scale) and soft (or large-scale) characteristics, thereby taking advantage of the economies of scale offered by the latter. Keywords: comprehensive and minimalist ecotourism, hard and soft ecotourism, sustainable tourism. Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Re´sume´: Les dimensions comple`tes et minimalistes de l’e´cotourisme. Une analyse des crite`res essentiels de l’e´cotourisme sugge`re deux «types ide´aux» base´s sur les re´sultats du niveau de durabilite´. Le type minimaliste accentue des occasions d’apprentissage superficiel qui centrent l’attention sur des me´gafaunes charismatiques, tandis que ses objectifs pour la durabilite´ sont spe´cifiques au lieu et oriente´s vers le statu quo. Le mode`le complet adopte une approche holistique et globale aux attractions et a` l’interpre´tation, ce qui favorise l’ame´lioration de l’environnement, une compre´hension approfondie et la transformation du comportement. On soutient que le mode`le complet peut mieux de´fendre la durabilite´ globale en accommodant certaines caracte´ristiques dures (ou a` petite e´chelle) ou souple (ou a` grande e´chelle), profitant ainsi des e´conomies d’e´chelle pre´sente´es par celles-ci. Mots-cle´s: e´cotourisme complet et minimaliste, e´cotourisme dur et souple, tourisme durable. Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
INTRODUCTION In the short time since the term ‘‘eco-tourism’’ was first used in the English-language academic literature by Romeril (1985), this sector has emerged as a major focus of attention within the industry and the field of tourism studies, sometimes under synonymous terms such as ‘‘nature tourism’’ (Boo 1990; Ziffer 1989) or ‘‘ecological tourism’’ (Ruschmann 1992). The proliferation of relevant tertiary-level subjects and courses illustrates this development (Thwaites, Lipscombe and Smith 2002; Weaver 2002), as does the growing number of specialized texts
David Weaver is Professor of Tourism Management at the University of South Carolina (School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, Columbia SC 29208, USA. Email
440
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
(Buckley 2003; Cater and Lowman 1994; Fennell 1999; Fennell and Dowling 2003; Honey 1999; Lu¨ ck and Kirstges 2003; Page and Dowling 2002; Wearing and Neil 1999; Weaver 1998, 2001a, 2002; Whelan 1991). Evidence of its formalization and ‘‘institutionalization’’ includes the declaration of 2002 as the International Year of Ecotourism by the United Nations (Maclaren 2002), and the publication of the first issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Ecotourism in that same year. While this high level of attention has not yet resulted in a universally accepted definition, there is an emerging consensus that qualifying products must be primarily nature-based, focused on the provision of learning opportunities, and managed in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of environmentally and socioculturally sustainable outcomes, including positive benefits for local communities (Blamey 2001). It is primarily due to the promise of these latter sustainability outcomes that interest has grown to the extent described above. Yet one may question whether the global sector as it is currently structured actually achieves these outcomes.
COMPREHENSIVE AND MINIMALIST MANIFESTATIONS It is generally agreed that ecotourism products and attractions are primarily nature-based, with the prefix ‘‘eco’’ usually understood to stand for ‘‘ecological’’ (Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988). At one end of a nature-based product continuum, a product or destination may feature the entire ecosystem of the area, so that a ‘‘montane rainforest’’, ‘‘coral reef’’, or ‘‘shortgrass prairie’’ is experienced. This indicates a ‘‘holistic’’ approach toward the product, since an ecosystem implies an integrated, interconnected entity. In contrast, an ‘‘elemental’’ approach is evident at the other end of the continuum when a product focuses on specific non-captive animals or plants that are deemed to be particularly attractive or interesting. Examples of iconic charismatic megafauna that are identified closely with particular destinations include koalas in eastern Australia, giant pandas in China’s Sechuan province (Kontoleon, Swanson, Wang, Xuejun and Yang 2002), orangutans in Borneo (Russell and Ankenman 1996), quetzals in Central American rainforests, sandhill cranes in the US Great Plains, polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba (MacKay, Lamont and Partridge 1996), mountain gorillas in Rwanda and Uganda (Hamilton, Cunningham, Byarugaba and Kayanja 2000; McNeilage 1996), and gray whales in Mexico’s coastal Baja California Sur (Heckel, Espejel and Fischer 2003). A smaller number of destinations feature charismatic megaflora such as redwood trees (coastal northern California), rafflesia flowers (Sumatra and Borneo), and the Weltwitschia plant (Namibia) which are distinguished by their beauty, size, age, rareness, and/or weirdness. Most definitions also recognize the importance of associated cultural attractions, both contemporary and relict. This is most evident in destinations that were or are occupied by indigenous people, including the Australian Outback, New Zealand, the Kalahari Desert, the Amazon basin, Borneo, the Yucatan Peninsula, and northern Scandinavia. In
DAVID WEAVER
441
such situations, the boundary between nature and culture is often blurred and natural ecosystems are substantially the consequence of activities (e.g. fire-setting, plant dispersal and hunting) undertaken by indigenous people over several millennia (Hinch 2001). Here and elsewhere, the inclusion of a cultural component is a logical qualification to the ‘‘nature-based’’ focus, given that few if any places are completely free from human influences. However, aside from indigenous situations (such as those already outlined) and archeological sites, cultural influences are more often incorporated into the interpretive experience than recognized as attractions per se, which is consistent with the emphasis in many definitions on settings that are ‘‘natural’’ or relatively undisturbed (Beeton 1998; Boo 1990; Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988; Fennell 1999; Valentine 1992). With regard to the differentiation between the holistic and elemental approaches, the cultural component is more likely to be absent or downplayed in the latter, since to incorporate this could distract attention from the target animal or plant. With regard to the second core criterion, the provision of learning opportunities and experiences is one way in which ecotourism products differ fundamentally from other nature-based forms such as 3S (sea, sand, sun) resorts and outdoor adventure (Boo 1990). In each of these cases, the natural environment serves as a convenient setting for facilitating other kinds of motivations, including relaxation and hedonism in the case of 3S resorts and thrill-seeking and risk-taking in the case of outdoor adventure (Weaver 2001b). Learning opportunities can involve the provision of rigidly formal product interpretation through, for example, ‘‘permanent’’ signage and scripted lectures delivered at prescribed times, or they can involve informal opportunities that entail the maintenance of conditions (such as tranquility and trails designed to minimize exposure to others) that facilitate highly personal and unstructured interactions with, and appreciation of, the natural environment. Intermediate options include informal and interactive guided tours as well as the use of brochures and guidebooks to mediate interactions with nature. National Parks and other high profile sites typically attempt to provide formal as well as informal learning opportunities. Whether formally or informally construed, effective interpretation should at a minimum foster satisfaction as well as a basic understanding of target natural and cultural attractions. At a more profound level, effective interpretation can have a ‘‘transformative’’ effect by inducing among participants a deeper understanding of the attraction and consequent adherence to a more ethical and environmentalist ethos (Fennell 1995, 1999; Tisdell and Wilson 2001). James Butler (cited in Scace 1993:5) supports this perspective by advocating a definition that fosters ‘‘preferred behavior’’ in its participants. To bring about this deeper understanding, interpretation should focus on a few core themes, such as interdependency, energy cycles, succession and competition, which are consistent with the ecosystems-focused holistic approach toward the product (Ham 1992; Ham and Krumpe 1996; Weiler and Ham 2001). Moreover, these themes must take into account direct
442
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
and indirect human activities at both micro and macro levels that interfere with these ecological processes. Examples of such influences include anthropogenic global warming, deforestation, ozone depletion, the deliberate or inadvertent introduction of exotic species, road construction, migration, hunting, and predatory commercial fishing practices. The latter are apparently incorporated into the interpretation provided on whale tours at the well-known destination of Kaikoura, New Zealand (Curtin 2003). The third and in many ways most contentious core criterion, and one that also differentiates the latter from other forms of nature-based tourism, is product planning and management that is conducive to sustainability (Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988; Fennell 1999; Scace 1993; Whelan 1991). It is not the principle of sustainability per se that is contentious, since few would argue with the Brundtland Commission’s widely adopted definition of ‘‘sustainable development’’ as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Rather, it is the impossibility of knowing, beyond any doubt, that a particular course of action is indeed ‘‘sustainable’’. In part this owes to the subjectivity and malleability of this ‘‘essentially contested concept’’ (Hall 1998), wherein there is no consensus as to what exactly should be sustained. However this is perceived, added difficulties that confound any attempt to assess sustainability include knowing which indicators to select, what weight to apply to each, and what threshold and benchmark values to assign. Subsequently, effective measuring and monitoring procedures are extremely difficult to implement, particularly over a long period of time. Compounding the problem is the uniqueness of each destination, so that the indicators, weights, and thresholds that apply to one site may not be relevant at another superficially similar one (Weaver and Lawton 1999). Other vexatious problems involve spatial and temporal discontinuities between cause and effect that confound the prediction of results and extrapolation of trends. For example, an action that fosters sustainability in place A at time x may lead to unsustainable and often unintended consequences in place B at time y. This is illustrated by the US ski resort of Aspen, Colorado, where measures to curb growth and restrict development resulted afterwards in the diffusion of construction to nearby communities ill-prepared to accommodate such activity (Gill and Williams 1994). The ability of the affected jurisdiction to address such impacts is further compromised when the influence is an external force such as a mining company that contaminates waterways and thereby gradually undermines wildlife populations upon which a downstream ecolodge is dependent. In the Amazon region of southern Peru, the long-term viability of several ecolodges has been challenged by the clearance and colonization of adjacent rainforest by settlers from other parts of the country (Yu, Hendrickson and Castillo 1997). Even where the cause-effect relationship is obvious, prediction and trend extrapolation is made more difficult by the possibility of an avalanche effect, wherein a small increment in the cause (for example, the sewage emissions of a hotel) results in an unanticipated but
DAVID WEAVER
443
wildly disproportionate effect on the environment (producing, for example, a ‘‘red tide’’). Because the uncontestable demonstration of sustainability is impossible for all of the reasons described above, Weaver (2002) argues that the litmus test for a bona fide ecotourism product is not the absence of any resulting negative impacts, but rather the ongoing intent by managers to pursue sustainability outcomes in concert with the best available knowledge, and to quickly and effectively address any negative impacts that inadvertently arise from core activities such as wildlife observation or facilities operation. Relevant to the issue of what constitutes ‘‘sustainability’’ and sustainable practice is the degree to which ecotourism actually helps to improve the environment within which it occurs. A minimalist approach is evident in many definitions (and arguably in the Brundtland definition of sustainable development), wherein the sector merely endeavors not to worsen the situation in a given place and time. However, in many if not most situations, this ‘‘status quo’’ sustainability may counterproductively serve to perpetuate unsustainable situations such as an overdeveloped beach resort. An alternative approach is ‘‘enhancement’’ sustainability which serves to actively improve on the environmental status quo through measures such as habitat rehabilitation, ecologically sensitive site hardening, and the acquisition of land for inclusion in high order protected area networks. This approach is evident for example in James Butler (cited in Scace 1993:43), who states that ‘‘the environment must experience a net benefit from the activity’’ and in Fennell (1999:65), who argues that it ‘‘should contribute to the conservation or preservation of [natural] areas’’. Phillip Island Penguin Reserve, near Melbourne, Australia, is a good example of this approach, due to its utilization of tourism revenues to purchase new land, engage in habitat restoration, control predators, and re-introduce penguins into other areas (Head 2000). In addition to the ‘‘status quo’’/‘‘enhancement’’ dichotomy, it is also necessary for managers to determine whether they should pursue sustainable outcomes at the site, regional, or global level. Most definitions implicitly support a site or local approach in which the pursuit of sustainability is confined to a particular property, ecolodge, or park. While this requires the least effort, it ignores the external consequences of actions associated with the product’s clientele and operation, such as the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from travel to and from the site. Moreover, it gives rise to situations such as the one in Aspen. A regional or global approach, in contrast, compels the operator of an ecolodge to plant enough trees or to otherwise compensate for the estimated greenhouse gas emissions produced by facility’s clientele. The privately owned Rara Avis Rainforest Lodge and Reserve in Costa Rica illustrates this approach, with its emphasis on demonstration projects in the sustainable use of rainforest resources, and its production of rainforest seedlings to assist with reforestation efforts in other areas (Honey 1999). The extent to which sustainability should apply just to the natural environment or additionally to the sociocultural realm must also be considered. The earliest definitions were focused on the natural
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
444
environment (Ceballos-Lascuraı´n 1988), but were quickly superseded by definitions that endorsed social, cultural, and economic sustainability as concomitant and interrelated objectives (Epler Wood 1991; Scace, Grifone and Usher 1992; Ziffer 1989). This added focus reflected the emergence of the ‘‘community-based’’ approach in the 80s (Krippendorf 1987; Murphy 1985), which assumes that local people should be the primary recipients of economic and other benefits, and that this can be facilitated through a high level of local control over the sector. Indigenously controlled initiatives, such as the Community Baboon Sanctuary and Toledo Ecotourism Association in Belize (Alexander 2000; Edington, Edington and Stabler 1997), reflect this emphasis on community empowerment. Finally, the reference to economic benefits states that ecotourism, like all other forms of tourism, must in addition be financially sustainable, even though this is not explicitly recognized in any of the definitions examined by this author. Comprehensive and Minimalist Manifestations From the above discussion of the three core criteria emerge two ideal types—non-distorted models against which real life situations can be measured and compared (Harrison 1995). The first ideal type, ‘‘minimalist’’ ecotourism, fosters a basic or superficial understanding of particular charismatic megafauna or megaflora, and does not deliberately aspire to transform values or behavior (Table 1). Its approach to sustainability is site-specific, status quo oriented, and focused on the natural environment. In contrast, the ‘‘comprehensive’’ ideal type emphasizes a holistic perspective on the product that integrates the ecosystem and associated human influences. It fosters deep understanding and endeavors to transform participant attitudes and behavior. The objectives of sustainability are global in scope and enhancement-oriented within a combined environmental, socio-
Table 1. Comprehensive and Minimalist Ideal Types Variables
Comprehensive ecotourism
Minimalist ecotourism
Attractions
Holistic approach (nature-based, cultural)
Elemental (nature-based)
Learning
Deep understanding
Superficial (shallow) understanding Non-transformational
Transformational Sustainability
Concomitant objectives
Enhancement-based Global Environmental and sociocultural
Status quo-based Site-specific Environmental only
Financial sustainability High levels of tourist satisfaction
DAVID WEAVER
445
cultural and economic context that fully involves local communities. Held in common by both models are the imperatives of financial sustainability and high levels of satisfaction. Because undistorted ideal types such as these are seldom if ever actually encountered in real life, it is prudent to assess particular case studies as leaning or tending toward one pole or the other. For example, the aforementioned Rara Avis and Phillip Island operations resemble but do not necessarily emulate every ideal facet of the comprehensive model. It is argued here that the managers of destinations are more likely to attain the objectives of environmental and sociocultural sustainability through the implementation of the comprehensive option. By fostering a more environmentally aware and activist market, comprehensive ecotourism is conducive to the development of a product that benefits from donations and eagerness to engage in volunteer activity such as trail maintenance, litter collection, research assistance, and informal policing (McFarlane and Boxall 1996; Wearing 2001). When combined with the emphasis on global and enhancement-based sustainability, opportunities emerge to channel this volunteer activity into the rehabilitation and reclamation of habitat that has been substantially altered by human activity. One example is the Kung Krabaen Bay Royal Development Study Centre in southern Thailand, where ecotourists are encouraged to plant trees in a 160-Ha mangrove reforestation project (author’s personal observation in 2002). In contrast, a minimalist approach may hinder the attainment of these sustainability objectives. Problems can arise from the tendency in the elemental model to construct species hierarchies, wherein charismatic megafauna such as giant pandas and mountain gorillas are valued more highly by managers than obscure but no less ecologically valuable species. Managerial priority is thus likely to be given to these iconic species, to the neglect or detriment of the latter (Livingston 1981; Russell and Ankenman 1996). This attention, however, can ironically also be detrimental to the charismatic megafauna by encouraging prolonged and often intrusive contact with humans. An increased risk of stress, disease, and social disruption, for example, is associated with excessively exposed mountain gorilla groups in the Virunga region of eastern Africa (McNeilage 1996). In general, the process of observing wildlife can result in an array of often subtle negative consequences if carried out in an inadvertently inappropriate manner (Buckley 2001; Duchesne, Coˆ te´ and Barrette 2000; Henson and Grant 1991; Roe, Leader-Williams and Dalal-Clayton 1997). Studies that attempt to commodify specific species, such as Thresher’s estimate in the late 70s that a male lion can be worth US$515,000 as an ecotourism attraction over its adult lifespan (cited in Sherman and Dixon 1991), encourage this distorted focus and raise additional questions about the ethics of placing a monetary value on ‘‘invaluable’’ components of an ecosystem. Another inadvertent negative impact risk that may be reduced by the comprehensive ethos is the introduction of exotic species such as insects (Silberglied 1978), weeds (Lonsdale and Lane 1994), and water-borne pathogens (Buckley, Clough and Warnken 1998). An
446
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
equal or greater threat, however, is the increased probability that minimalist activity, with its diluted attention to learning and sustainability outcomes, will evolve into a less benign form of nature-based activity that is no longer recognizable as legitimate ecotourism. If the level of visitation is high, then the environmental and sociocultural implications of such a transformation are all the more serious (see below). Although the boundaries between ecotourism and affiliated activity are fuzzy, it is reasonable to contend that most activity falling under the former gravitates toward the minimalist side of the spectrum. Simplicity and cost effectiveness are primary reasons for this emphasis. Superficial learning opportunities focused on charismatic species, for example, are easier to provide and may be thought by managers to engender greater satisfaction. Many tourists to certain destinations, shaped by media imagery and the longstanding publicity efforts by the product marketers themselves, may be predisposed to focus their visits on featured iconic species. Russell and Ankenman (1996) indicate that this is the case with Borneo and its orangutans, while Kontoleon et al (2002) reveal the importance of giant pandas in China’s Sechuan Province to foreign tourists surveyed in Beijing. Many tourists to O’Reilly’s Rainforest Guesthouse in Lamington National Park, Queensland, come specifically to encounter (and feed) the crimson rosellas and king parrots (author’s personal observation). Therefore, they may be dissatisfied by interpretation or product development that adopts a holistic approach that does not focus around these iconic species. At the same time, attempts to instill transformational, deep understanding could be met with resistance and/or resentment, in keeping with McKercher’s (1993) assertion that most tourists are not anthropologists but consumers in search of entertainment. Volunteer activity, moreover, carries a higher risk of injury and liability, and may be dissuaded by managers. From a sustainability perspective, status-quo and site-specific parameters are much easier for managers to cope with than enhancement and global parameters. The minimalist approach appears to better fulfill the objectives of financial sustainability and satisfaction, if not environmental and sociocultural sustainability. The question then becomes how to implement a viable comprehensive model that has the potential to attain all of these objectives.
Hard and Soft Manifestations Toward conceptualizing an effective comprehensive model, it is useful at this juncture to distinguish between the ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’ variants of ecotourism, a dichotomy that has been well recognized both theoretically (Laarman and Durst 1987; Lindberg 1991; Weaver 1998) and empirically (Chapman 1995; Palacio and McCool 1997; Weaver and Lawton 2002) since the early years of discourse. As an ideal type, soft activity involves larger numbers of participants who make relatively short and physically comfortable visits to serviced sites as one component of a multipurpose experience that is facilitated through the formal industry (Figure 1). It is associated with a superficial or
DAVID WEAVER
HARD
447
SOFT the ecotourism spectrum
Strong environmental commitment Specialized visits Long trips Small groups Physically active Physical challenge Few if any services expected Deep interaction with nature Emphasis on personal experience Make own travel arrangements
Superficial environmental commitment Multi-purpose visits Short trips Larger groups Physically passive Physical comfort Services expected Shallow interaction with nature Emphasis on interpretation Rely on travel agents & tour operators
Adapted from Weaver (2002)
Figure 1. Characteristics of Hard and Soft Ecotourism as Ideal Types
veneer commitment to environmental issues, and the pursuit of a shallow interaction with nature that is mediated through formal interpretation. Soft activity is dominant in US National Parks such as Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains. In contrast, the hard ideal type entails smaller numbers who are purportedly more environmentally aware, visiting semiwilderness or wilderness destinations where few if any services are available. They embark on relatively long and specialized trips that are physically and mentally challenging, involve the pursuit of a deeper interaction with the natural environment, and are arranged independently or through exclusive packages. Antarctica is often described as an iconic hard destination (Splettstoesser 1999; Stonehouse 2001). Again, as with the comprehensive and minimalist ideal types, the real world is characterized by harder and softer experiences as well as hybrids such as Kaikoura, where formal interpretation, extensive services, and large numbers (60,000 whale watchers in 1998) combine with strongly environmentalist interpretive content (Curtin 2003). There are compelling arguments for equating the soft and hard ideal types, respectively, with the minimalist and comprehensive ideal types, thereby rendering the latter dichotomy redundant. Among these is the association between hard ecotourism and strong environmental commitment, as well as deep learning experiences. The notion of the hard model as ‘‘good’’ ecotourism, which is still supported by many current day researchers and practitioners, derives from the origins of the sector in the mid-80s as a nature-based form of alternative tourism (Weaver 2002). The latter, in turn, was conceived at that time as a more appropriate option than conventional mass tourism in particular, which was regarded by alternative tourism advocates as a generally destructive force (Jafari 2001). Where conventional activity as an ideal type is large-scale, alternative tourism is small-scale; where the former is corporate-controlled and oriented to short-term profitability, the latter is community-controlled and oriented to long-term social well-being,
448
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
etc. (Butler 1990; Weaver 2002). Hard activity generally embodies these alternative characteristics, while soft activity is widely regarded as a surreptitious or impending form of conventional mass tourism. Such alignments may often occur and may even be normative, but they are not inherent, inevitable, or necessarily desirable. For all its purported benefits, the hard model entails several serious potential drawbacks (Weaver 2001c). First, its participants, though small in number, travel for longer periods through a vast expanse of relatively pristine and fragile space within which weeds and other exotic species may be inadvertently introduced and diffused. They are also likely to intrude for extended periods upon the more isolated and less modernized cultures that inhabit these environments. Second, these same small numbers (notwithstanding longer stays) often do not generate revenue flows sufficient to induce the ‘‘incentive effect’’. This is the sector’s ability to provide an economic incentive to preserve natural habitats such as rainforests, that might otherwise be used for potentially less benign but more profitable purposes such as logging, ranching or plantation agriculture. High fees, such as those levied in the mountain gorilla parks of East Africa or the trekking venues of the Himalayas, may somewhat offset small numbers, but also foster a high cost, elitist model that raises ethical and other questions (Wheeller 1997). Indeed, it is possible to speak of minimalist hard ecotourism in situations where ego enhancement and the consuming desire to encounter a rare bird or mammal transcend or replace the desire to learn about and preserve the wilderness venue. This may be the case in some orangutan rehabilitation sites in Borneo where photo opportunities and anthropomorphic projections characterize interactions with these animals (Russell and Ankenman 1996). In contrast, soft activity is more likely to enable this incentive effect, especially since relatively substantial increases in low entry fees (for example, from $2 to $4) can result in a large gross revenue increase without reducing demand, since the increase to overall trip cost for any given individual is negligible. In addition, the tendency of soft ecotourism to be spatially concentrated minimizes the space directly impacted by related activity (Lawton 2001), while providing a critical mass of usage to justify the implementation of environmentally friendly and satisfying site and corridor-hardening measures such as high tech waste treatment facilities, alternate energy transportation and interactive interpretation centers. The facilities that are being constructed in the South Rim node of Grand Canyon National Park are one example of this synergy between high numbers and effective site and corridor hardening (GCNP 2003).
Comprehensiveness with Soft and Hard Dimensions The hard/soft dichotomy cannot be equated with the comprehensive/ minimalist dichotomy introduced in this paper, as the former is aligned mainly along a trajectory of scale (hard = small-scale, soft = large-scale) and experience within which both positive and negative impacts are
DAVID WEAVER
449
FOSTERS Holistic approach Deep understanding Transformational outcomes Enhancement sustainability Global sustainability Environmental, & sociocultural sustainability Financial sustainability Tourist satisfaction ACCOMMODATES Small groups Specialized trips Physically challenging activities Low level of services Emphasis on personal interaction Independent travel
and “ “ “ “ “ “
Large groups Multipurpose trips Physically passive activities High level of services Emphasis on interpretation Mediated travel
PRIMITIVE
DEVELOPED OPPORTUNITY SETTINGS
Figure 2. Modified Comprehensive Model
possible, while the latter is based more on the extent to which sustainable outcomes are likely to be attained. The fundamental problem with the intuitive hard/comprehensive alignment is that the ambitious sustainability implications of the comprehensive variant are not readily achievable, and may even be impeded, by its containment within a hard framework. It is argued here, instead, that the optimum comprehensive model should incorporate selected hard and soft elements so that it applies as warranted to large-scale as well as small-scale products and destinations. As depicted in Figure 2, this modified model fosters core comprehensive characteristics such as a holistic approach to the attraction, deep understanding and transformational outcomes for participants, and sustainability that is enhancement-oriented, global in scope, and inclusive of both environmental and sociocultural dimensions. Financial sustainability and high levels of satisfaction remain as core objectives. Simultaneously, this model accommodates small and large groups and overall numbers; specialized as well as multipurpose trips; activities both physically challenging and passive; a low or high level of services; personal interaction with the attraction and formal interpretation; and independent and mediated experiences, both within the site and in transit to and from the site. The usually contradictory hard and soft impulses can be reconciled through various strategies of spatial and temporal separation. Borrowing from the concept of the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum
450
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
(Newsome, Moore and Dowling 2002), ‘‘primitive’’-type settings are conducive to hard activity and ‘‘developed’’ settings to soft activity. In many situations, the product manager needs to consider just one or the other option. For example, remote portions of the Amazon basin are primitive venues that warrant a hard, comprehensive approach (Colvin 1996). Small, intensively visited sites near large urban areas may provide soft comprehensive opportunities and experiences only. More common, however, are high order protected areas (such as IUCN category II National Parks) that offer settings ranging from the primitive to the developed, and which thus can accommodate the entire modified comprehensive model within a single protected area. Such parks typically demonstrate some variant of the 95/5 rule, or the idea that visitation in parks such as Grand Canyon or Banff National Park is dominated (95%) by soft ecotourists content to confine their visit to a small area of relatively developed sites and corridors (occupying 5% of the park) (Lawton 2001). Conversely, the small hard minority tends to spend minimal times in these site-hardened environments, preferring to visit the 95% of the park that is undeveloped. Thus, only a small portion of the park is required to accommodate the vast majority, but this allows for the implementation of sophisticated site hardening and tourist management strategies, while funds generated by this area can be used to manage other parts of the park as well.
CONCLUSION The hard/soft dichotomy is a well-recognized construct within the ecotourism literature that usefully differentiates respectively between small-scale, alternative-type products and market segments and those that align with large-scale or mass tourism. This dichotomy, however, does not adequately account for differences in actual sustainability-related outcomes, since large- and small-scale dynamics are both associated with an array of potential positive and negative impacts. The comprehensive/minimalist dichotomy proposed in this paper, in contrast, embodies a distinction between ‘‘neutral’’ activity that meets the most basic or minimal requirements (it does not make the situation any worse, and provides basic learning opportunities, etc.), and products that aspire to attain enhancement-based sustainability outcomes at a global scale. The comprehensive model emerges from the concern that even those products and destinations which legitimately qualify as ecotourism are situated mainly on the minimalist side of the spectrum; that is, they tend to be diluted and shallow with respect to their actual adherence to the three core criteria described above. Accordingly, it is argued that contemporary ecotourism is largely incapable of fulfilling its potential to achieve meaningful environmental and sociocultural sustainability. More ominously, it is also vulnerable to being transformed into other, less benign forms of tourism. It is often the largescale magnitude of contemporary soft ecotourism that is cited as the great danger to destinations, with additional growth being equated with additional threat to the natural and cultural environment, as
DAVID WEAVER
451
per the logic of the destination lifecycle model (Butler 1980). As observed earlier, this association between scale and threat is longstanding in the literature, having emerged during the early 70s as part of what Jafari (2001) describes as the ‘‘cautionary’’ platform—the same conditions that spawned ecotourism and other small-scale models as alternatives to mass tourism 10 years later as part of the ‘‘adaptancy’’ platform. However, it is argued here in concert with the premises of Jafari’s (2001) allegedly more objective ‘‘knowledge-based’’ platform that size per se is not the problem, and that the success of the comprehensive model is dependent upon the extension of its principles into the soft arena, where economies of scale confer several critical potential advantages in the interests of environmental and economic sustainability that are absent in its hard manifestation. It is not within the purview of this paper to detail strategies for the effective implementation of this modified comprehensive model, and suffice it to say that the effort will not be without its challenges given the critiques of McKercher (1993), Wheeller (1997), and others. The existence of differential zoning in many higher-order protected areas, however, already provides a regulatory framework for accommodating mass as well as small-scale comprehensive ecotourism. Furthermore, much technological progress has been made recently in the field of ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ site hardening and site softening. A greater challenge perhaps is the reconciliation of comprehensive objectives and principles with the attitudes and motivations attributed to soft ecotourists. This will depend in part on the ability to deliver holistic interpretation that employs the five principles described by Weiler and Ham (2001), which include the avoidance of a preachy, ‘‘academic’’ style of delivery; the use of a conversational style that encourages audience participation; the inclusion of references and analogies that are meaningful to the audience; the delivery of no more than four or five main ideas in a session; and the use of themes (energy cycles) rather than simple topics (types of trees) to convey these ideas. The idea that the attitudes and behavior of soft ecotourists can be transformed is supported by Orams (1997), who found that participants in the Tangalooma Dolphin Feeding Program (near Brisbane, Australia) reported that this experience made them more environmentally responsible in their subsequent behavior. Tisdell and Wilson (2001) identified similar outcomes among the in situ viewers of sea turtles at Mon Repos Beach on the central Queensland coastline. Effort now needs to be placed to devise product development strategies and techniques that generate similar outcomes in other sites, so that the promise of mass comprehensive ecotourism can be realized. REFERENCES Alexander, S. 2000 Resident Attitudes Towards Conservation and Black Howler Monkeys in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27:341–350.
452
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
Beeton, S. 1998 Ecotourism: A Practical Guide for Rural Communities. Collingwood: Landlinks Press. Blamey, R. 2001 Principles of Ecotourism. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 5–22. Wallingford: CABI. Boo, E. 1990 Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol. I. Washington: World Wildlife Fund. Buckley, R. 2001 Environmental Impacts. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 379–394. Wallingford: CABI. 2003 Case Studies in Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI. Buckley, R., E. Clough, and W. Warnken 1998 Plesiomonas Shigelloides in Australia. Ambio 27:253. Butler, R. 1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24:5–12. 1990 Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research 28(3):40–45. Cater, E. and G. Lowman, eds. 1994 Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option. Chichester: Wiley. Ceballos-Lascuraı´n, H. 1988 The Future of ‘‘Ecotourism’’. Mexico Journal (January 27):13–14. Chapman, D. 1995 Ecotourism in State Forests of New South Wales: Who Visits and Why? Sydney: State Forests of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. Colvin, J. 1996 Indigenous Ecotourism: The Capirona Programme in Napo Province, Ecuador. Unasylva 47(187):32–37. Curtin, S. 2003 Whale-watching in Kaikoura: Sustainable Destination Development? Journal of Ecotourism 2:173–195. Duchesne, M., S. Coˆ te´ , and C. Barrette 2000 Responses of Woodland Caribou to Winter Ecotourism in the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Biological Conservation 96:311–317. Edington, J., M. Edington, and M. Stabler 1997 Tropical Forest Ecotourism: Two Promising Projects in Belize. In Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 163–167. Wallingford: CABI. Epler Wood, M. 1991 Global Solutions: An Ecotourism Society. In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, T. Whelan, ed., pp. 200–206. Washington: Island Press. Fennell, D. 1995 Ethics and Ecotourism: A Comprehensive Ethical Model. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 20:163–183. 1999 Ecotourism: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Fennell, D. and R. Dowling, eds. 2003 Ecotourism Policy and Planning. Wallingford: CABI. GCNP 2003 Grand Canyon Management
DAVID WEAVER
453
Ham, S. 1992 Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden: North American Press. Ham, S., and E. Krumpe 1996 Identifying Audiences and Messages for Nonformal Environmental Education: A Theoretical Framework for Interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research 1:11–23. Hamilton, A., A. Cunningham, D. Byarugaba, and F. Kayanja 2000 Conservation in a Region of Political Instability: Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14:1722–1725. Harrison, D. 1995 Development of Tourism in Swaziland. Annals of Tourism Research 22:135–156. Head, L. 2000 Renovating the Landscape and Packaging the Penguin: Culture and Nature on Summerland Peninsula, Phillip Island, Victoria, Australia. Australian Geographical Studies 38:36–53. Heckel, G., I. Espejel, and D. Fischer 2003 Issue Definition and Planning for Whalewatching Management Strategies in Ensenada, Mexico. Coastal Management 31:277–296. Henson, P., and T. Grant 1991 The Effects of Human Disturbance on Trumpeter Swan Breeding Behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248–257. Hinch, T. 2001 Indigenous Territories. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 345–357. Wallingford: CABI. Honey, M. 1999 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington. Island Press. Jafari, J. 2001 The Scientification of Tourism. In Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, V. Smith and M. Brent, eds., pp. 28–41. New York: Cognizant. Kontoleon, A., T. Swanson, Q. Wang, Q. Xuejun, and C. Yang 2002 Optimal Ecotourism: The Economic Value of the Giant Panda in China. In Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries: Case Studies, D. Pearce, C. Pearce and C. Palmer, eds., pp. 206–235. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Krippendorf, J. 1987 The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Heinemann. Laarman, J., and P. Durst 1987 Nature Travel and Tropical Forests. Raleigh: FREI Working Paper Series, Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research. Lawton, L. 2001 Ecotourism in Public Protected Areas. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 287–302. Wallingford: CABI. Lindberg, K. 1991 Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits. Washington: World Resources Institute. Livingston, J. 1981 The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation. Toronto: McLellan and Stewart. Lonsdale, W., and A. Lane 1994 Tourist Vehicles as Vectors of Weed Seeds in Kakadu National Park, Northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69:277–283. Lu¨ ck, M. and T. Kirstges, eds. 2003 Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints. Clevedon: Channel View. MacKay, K., D. Lamont, and C. Partridge 1996 Northern Ecotourists and General Tourists: An Intra-provincial Comparison. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 21:335–357.
454
COMPREHENSIVE ECOTOURISM
Maclaren, F. 2002 The International Year of Ecotourism in Review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10:443–448. McFarlane, B., and P. Boxall 1996 Participation in Wildlife Conservation by Birdwatchers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(3):1–14. McKercher, B. 1993 Some Fundamental Truths about Tourism: Understanding Tourism’s Social and Environmental Impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1:6–16. McNeilage, A. 1996 Ecotourism and Mountain Gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes. In The Exploitation of Mammal Populations, V. Taylor and N. Dunstone, eds., pp. 334–344. London: Chapman and Hall. Murphy, P. 1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen. Newsome, D., S. Moore, and R. Dowling 2002 Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. Clevedon: Channel View. Orams, M. 1997 The Effectiveness of Environmental Education: Can We Turn Tourists into ‘‘Greenies’’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3:295–306. Page, S., and R. Dowling 2002 Ecotourism. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. Palacio, V., and S. McCool 1997 Identifying Ecotourists in Belize through Benefit Segmentation: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5:234–243. Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams, and B. Dalal-Clayton 1997 Take Only Photographs, Leave Only Footprints: The Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Romeril, M. 1985 Tourism and the Environment: Towards a Symbiotic Relationship. International Journal of Environmental Studies 25:215–218. Ruschmann, D. 1992 Ecological Tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management 13:125–134. Russell, C., and M. Ankenman 1996 Orangutans as Photographic Collectibles: Ecotourism and the Commodification of Nature. Tourism Recreation Research 21(1):71–78. Scace, R. 1993 An Ecotourism Perspective. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, J. Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall, eds., pp. 59–82. Waterloo: University of Waterloo. Scace, R., E. Grifone, and R. Usher 1992 Ecotourism in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. Sherman, P., and J. Dixon 1991 The Economics of Nature Tourism: Determining if it Pays. In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, T. Whelan, ed., pp. 89–131. Washington: Island Press. Silberglied, R. 1978 Inter-island Transport of Insects Aboard Ships in the Galapagos Islands. Biological Conservation 13:273–278. Splettstoesser, J. 1999 Antarctica Tourism: Successful Management of a Vulnerable Environment. In Tourism Development in Critical Environments, T. Singh and S. Singh, eds., pp. 137–148. Elmsford: Cognizant. Stonehouse, B. 2001 Polar Environments. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 219–234. Wallingford: CABI.
DAVID WEAVER
455
Thwaites, R., N. Lipscombe, and E. Smith 2002 Providing Education in a Growth Industry: Issues in Ecotourism Education and Employment in Australia. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 2:81–97. Tisdell, C., and C. Wilson 2001 Wildlife-based Tourism and Increased Support for Nature Conservation Financially and Otherwise: Evidence from Sea Turtle Ecotourism at Mon Repos. Tourism Economics 7:233–249. Valentine, P. 1992 Nature-based Tourism. In Special Interest Tourism, C. Hall and B. Weiler, eds., pp. 105–127. London: Belhaven Press. WCED 1987 Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wearing, S. 2001 Volunteer Tourism: Experiences that Make a Difference. Wallingford: CABI. Wearing, S., and J. Neil 1999 Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Weaver, D. 1998 Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. Wallingford: CABI. 2001b Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 73–83. Wallingford: CABI. 2001c Ecotourism as Mass Tourism: Contradiction or Reality? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42:104–112. 2002 Ecotourism. Brisbane: Wiley. Weaver, D., ed. 2001a The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI. Weaver, D., and L. Lawton 1999 Sustainable Tourism: A Critical Analysis. Gold Coast: Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Research Report 1. 2002 Overnight Ecotourist Market Segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research 40:270–280. Weiler, B., and S. Ham 2001 Tour Guides and Interpretation in Ecotourism. In The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, D. Weaver, ed., pp. 549–563. Wallingford: CABI. Wheeller, B. 1997 Here We Go, Here We Go, Here We Go Eco. In Tourism & Sustainability, Principles to Practice, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 39–49. Wallingford: CABI. Whelan, T., ed. 1991 Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington: Island Press. Yu, D., T. Hendrickson, and A. Castillo 1997 Ecotourism and Conservation in Amazonian Peru: Short-term and longterm Challenges. Environmental Conservation 24:130–138. Ziffer, K. 1989 Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. Washington: Conservation International.
Submitted 27 July 2003. Resubmitted 15 June 2004. Resubmitted 8 July 2004. Accepted 10 August 2004. Final version 6 October 2004. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Trevor Sofield