- Email: [email protected]
Disentangling ecotourism
840
RESEARCH
NOTES AND REPORTS
Disentangling Ecotourism William P. Stewart Texas
A&M
Soehartini Indonesian
Ministry
University,
USA
Sekartjakrarini
of Forestry,
Indonesia
Ecotourism is a comparatively new concept that has been applied in a myriad of different contexts. The purpose of this note is to disentangle various contexts in which ecotourism has been used, and in doing so, suggest distinct perspectives in which to discuss ecotourism. Like the concept of tourism, which has been studied as both a set of behaviors and as an industry, ecotourism perspectives reflect a similar dichotomy. The activity-based perspective of ecotourism emphasizes the activity of tourists and is represented by two schools: One is descriptive and investigates that which ecotourists actually do; the second school is normative and investigates that which ecotourists should do. The second perspective, inquiry related to Ecotourism as an industry, emphasizes the host community and their relationship to the tourism resource base. This note is not meant to provide a best definition; rather it is directed at providing organization to current discourse on the subject. Advertising and marketing perspectives of ecotourism often emphasize that which tourists do. Ceballos-Lascurain defines ecotourism as:
. travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas (1987: 14). Nature tourism, cultural tourism, science tourism, and adventure travel are terms frequently used in travel brochures that are associated with ecotourism and used to describe travel activity on various ecotours. Ecotourism and nature tourism have been used synonymously to describe travelers who study specific elements of nature in sensitive environments (Boo 1991). In this sense, ecotourism is linked to such tourist behavior as birdwatching, whale viewing, wildflower photography, walks through forests, and exploration of remote natural areas. Such activities have been viewed as nonconsumptive enjoyment of natural habitats and as less erosive than other types of land use. Research related to this perspective of ecotourism would be associated with a marketing and consumer behavior orientation. The second school within the activity-based perspective is associated with value-based travel directed at minimum impact and appreciation of host cultures. Boeger (1991) discusses ecotourism within the context of “environmentally sound tourism which respects the dignity and diversity of other cultures, as well as concern for the earth’s renewable resources” (1991:Z). Responsible tourism, educational tourism, ethical travel, and alternative tourism are terms often associated with ecotourism as a minimum impact travel philosophy and used to further delineate the responsibility of “guests.” A code of travel ethics has been developed by such organizations as Center for Responsible Tourism, and Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism, which detail the proper spirit of travel and recommended behavior. Travel operators associated with this perspective of ecotourism provide instruction on proper code of conduct prior to travel. Research related to this perspective of ecotourism would be associated with biologists and anthropologists who indicate a concern for the well-being of their subjects of study.
RESEARCH
NOTES
841
AND REPORTS
The final perspective of ecotourism is supply-side oriented and rests on the thesis that a close working relationship between the local community and the tourism industry provides the necessary mechanisms to support conservation efforts. Kutay states:
. . . ecotourism is now seen as a model of development in which natural areas are planned as part of the tourism base and biological resources are clearly linked to social economic sectors (1989:32). Fennel and Eagles (1990) suggest that the local community, resource managers, and tour operators are necessary components of an ecotourism development model. This perspective on ecotourism is most explicit about the merger between conservation and tourism. The goal of development would be to attract “visitors to natural areas and use the revenues to fund local conservation and economic development” (Ziffer 1990). Norris (1992) has argued that tourism is not “eco” unless it clearly integrates both protection of resources with provision of local economic benefits. In less-developed countries, most threats to parks and protected areas arise from local populations needing to use resources for their subsistence. Traditional rural activities such as agriculture and hunting may be limited precisely because of park and protected area development. Ecotourism is thought to provide a context for local incentives for conservation and protection. Research related to this perspective of ecotourism has been associated with the conservation and development literature. Some may argue that separating a conservation framework from various marketing strategies defeats the purpose of ecotourism. In other words, ecotourism encompasses an ambitious agenda of characterizing tourist behavior, defining a minimum impact travel philosophy, and embracing a community development model (Ziffer 1990). Although such a comprehensive perspective may have popular appeal, its inclusiveness allows for flexibility in application and the consequent potential for ambiguity in interpretation. Distinguishing the merits of these perspectives of ecotourism explicitly recognizes the extended scope in which ecotourism has been used, and in doing so, may clarify future discourse. 0 0 William Stewart: Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism, Texas A&M Station TX 77843, USA. Email: %stewart@rpts. tamu.edu”.
Univcrsi~, College
REFERENCES Boeger, E. 1991 Ecotourism and the Environment. Travel and Tourism Research Association Newsletter (May):2-6. Boo, E. 1991 Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1987 The Future of Ecotourism. Mexico Journal (January):13-14. Fennel, D. A., and P. F. J. Eagles 1990 Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 1(8):23-34. Kutay, K. 1989 The New Ethic in Adventure Travel. Buzzworm: The Environmental Journal 1(4):30-36. Norris, R. 1992 Can Ecotourism Save Natural Areas? National Parks (January):33-4.
842
RESEARCH
NOTES AND REPORTS
Ziffer, K. A. 1990 Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. Series of Working Papers on Ecotourism, No. 1. Washington DC: Conservation International. Submitted 8 July 1993 Revised 25 January 1994 Accepted 30 March 1994
Delimiting
0160-7383(94)00033-6
of a Cognitive
Region
David Matthew Zuefle Texas
A&M
University,
USA
Appalachia is a term used liberally to describe any number of referents: the physiography of the eastern mountain highlands of North America, the culture and ethnic identity of that area’s inhabitants, and a legally demarcated region. Different definitionally grounded approaches have been utilized in demarcating the physical boundaries of Appalachia. These approaches agree in large part as to the main areas to be included in the region, but differ dramatically as to the inclusion of areas along its periphery. When trying to synthesize these regional definitions, the Appalachian region can thus be conceived of as encompassing both a more widely accepted and authentic “core” area and a less agreed upon “peripheral” area. This region constitutes the setting for this research note. The search for authenticity in experience by modern travelers is well documented, and a number of studies have examined the effects of tourism development on ethnic groups and isolated regions (Boynton 1986; Buck and Alleman 1979; Walle 1993); however, the impacts of this touristic search for authenticity on Appalachian culture and its self-definition are largely unstudied. Tourism development is presently being pursued by rural communities in Appalachia, hoping to diversify their economies by attracting visitors (Ladki 1993). A number of government agencies are promoting this development to Appalachian community leaders (Nelson 1990) as a yet untapped source for revitalizing struggling local economies. An important link in this development is the marketing of Appalachian authenticity and/or the staging of some brand of Appalachian experience. This marketing of rural culture is occurring not only in the “core” Appalachian communities, but increasingly in the “peripheral” areas as well. These peripheral communities that, in many cases, shunned identification with Appalachia in the past, now may be seeing inclusion in the increasingly popular region as a tourism marketing tool. This move toward marketing Appalachian communities as tourist destinations could be driving the already ambiguous Appalachian region toward a larger, diluted, and muse& symbol of its former self: a region with tenuous claims to authenticity, and its identity. While a variety of different definitions have tried to delimit Appalachia to different ends (Whisnant 1980), a particularly interesting and useful type of definition to the researcher investigating the effects of tourism development on the region is the use of studies of regional perception. A notable study of regional perception on Appalachia, (Raitz and Ulack 1984:26) developed an isopleth map as perceived by cognitive insiders and proximate outsiders. The
RESEARCH
NOTES AND REPORTS
Disentangling Ecotourism William P. Stewart Texas
A&M
Soehartini Indonesian
Ministry
University,
USA
Sekartjakrarini
of Forestry,
Indonesia
Ecotourism is a comparatively new concept that has been applied in a myriad of different contexts. The purpose of this note is to disentangle various contexts in which ecotourism has been used, and in doing so, suggest distinct perspectives in which to discuss ecotourism. Like the concept of tourism, which has been studied as both a set of behaviors and as an industry, ecotourism perspectives reflect a similar dichotomy. The activity-based perspective of ecotourism emphasizes the activity of tourists and is represented by two schools: One is descriptive and investigates that which ecotourists actually do; the second school is normative and investigates that which ecotourists should do. The second perspective, inquiry related to Ecotourism as an industry, emphasizes the host community and their relationship to the tourism resource base. This note is not meant to provide a best definition; rather it is directed at providing organization to current discourse on the subject. Advertising and marketing perspectives of ecotourism often emphasize that which tourists do. Ceballos-Lascurain defines ecotourism as:
. travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas (1987: 14). Nature tourism, cultural tourism, science tourism, and adventure travel are terms frequently used in travel brochures that are associated with ecotourism and used to describe travel activity on various ecotours. Ecotourism and nature tourism have been used synonymously to describe travelers who study specific elements of nature in sensitive environments (Boo 1991). In this sense, ecotourism is linked to such tourist behavior as birdwatching, whale viewing, wildflower photography, walks through forests, and exploration of remote natural areas. Such activities have been viewed as nonconsumptive enjoyment of natural habitats and as less erosive than other types of land use. Research related to this perspective of ecotourism would be associated with a marketing and consumer behavior orientation. The second school within the activity-based perspective is associated with value-based travel directed at minimum impact and appreciation of host cultures. Boeger (1991) discusses ecotourism within the context of “environmentally sound tourism which respects the dignity and diversity of other cultures, as well as concern for the earth’s renewable resources” (1991:Z). Responsible tourism, educational tourism, ethical travel, and alternative tourism are terms often associated with ecotourism as a minimum impact travel philosophy and used to further delineate the responsibility of “guests.” A code of travel ethics has been developed by such organizations as Center for Responsible Tourism, and Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism, which detail the proper spirit of travel and recommended behavior. Travel operators associated with this perspective of ecotourism provide instruction on proper code of conduct prior to travel. Research related to this perspective of ecotourism would be associated with biologists and anthropologists who indicate a concern for the well-being of their subjects of study.
RESEARCH
NOTES
841
AND REPORTS
The final perspective of ecotourism is supply-side oriented and rests on the thesis that a close working relationship between the local community and the tourism industry provides the necessary mechanisms to support conservation efforts. Kutay states:
. . . ecotourism is now seen as a model of development in which natural areas are planned as part of the tourism base and biological resources are clearly linked to social economic sectors (1989:32). Fennel and Eagles (1990) suggest that the local community, resource managers, and tour operators are necessary components of an ecotourism development model. This perspective on ecotourism is most explicit about the merger between conservation and tourism. The goal of development would be to attract “visitors to natural areas and use the revenues to fund local conservation and economic development” (Ziffer 1990). Norris (1992) has argued that tourism is not “eco” unless it clearly integrates both protection of resources with provision of local economic benefits. In less-developed countries, most threats to parks and protected areas arise from local populations needing to use resources for their subsistence. Traditional rural activities such as agriculture and hunting may be limited precisely because of park and protected area development. Ecotourism is thought to provide a context for local incentives for conservation and protection. Research related to this perspective of ecotourism has been associated with the conservation and development literature. Some may argue that separating a conservation framework from various marketing strategies defeats the purpose of ecotourism. In other words, ecotourism encompasses an ambitious agenda of characterizing tourist behavior, defining a minimum impact travel philosophy, and embracing a community development model (Ziffer 1990). Although such a comprehensive perspective may have popular appeal, its inclusiveness allows for flexibility in application and the consequent potential for ambiguity in interpretation. Distinguishing the merits of these perspectives of ecotourism explicitly recognizes the extended scope in which ecotourism has been used, and in doing so, may clarify future discourse. 0 0 William Stewart: Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism, Texas A&M Station TX 77843, USA. Email: %stewart@rpts. tamu.edu”.
Univcrsi~, College
REFERENCES Boeger, E. 1991 Ecotourism and the Environment. Travel and Tourism Research Association Newsletter (May):2-6. Boo, E. 1991 Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Volumes 1 and 2. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1987 The Future of Ecotourism. Mexico Journal (January):13-14. Fennel, D. A., and P. F. J. Eagles 1990 Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 1(8):23-34. Kutay, K. 1989 The New Ethic in Adventure Travel. Buzzworm: The Environmental Journal 1(4):30-36. Norris, R. 1992 Can Ecotourism Save Natural Areas? National Parks (January):33-4.
842
RESEARCH
NOTES AND REPORTS
Ziffer, K. A. 1990 Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. Series of Working Papers on Ecotourism, No. 1. Washington DC: Conservation International. Submitted 8 July 1993 Revised 25 January 1994 Accepted 30 March 1994
Delimiting
0160-7383(94)00033-6
of a Cognitive
Region
David Matthew Zuefle Texas
A&M
University,
USA
Appalachia is a term used liberally to describe any number of referents: the physiography of the eastern mountain highlands of North America, the culture and ethnic identity of that area’s inhabitants, and a legally demarcated region. Different definitionally grounded approaches have been utilized in demarcating the physical boundaries of Appalachia. These approaches agree in large part as to the main areas to be included in the region, but differ dramatically as to the inclusion of areas along its periphery. When trying to synthesize these regional definitions, the Appalachian region can thus be conceived of as encompassing both a more widely accepted and authentic “core” area and a less agreed upon “peripheral” area. This region constitutes the setting for this research note. The search for authenticity in experience by modern travelers is well documented, and a number of studies have examined the effects of tourism development on ethnic groups and isolated regions (Boynton 1986; Buck and Alleman 1979; Walle 1993); however, the impacts of this touristic search for authenticity on Appalachian culture and its self-definition are largely unstudied. Tourism development is presently being pursued by rural communities in Appalachia, hoping to diversify their economies by attracting visitors (Ladki 1993). A number of government agencies are promoting this development to Appalachian community leaders (Nelson 1990) as a yet untapped source for revitalizing struggling local economies. An important link in this development is the marketing of Appalachian authenticity and/or the staging of some brand of Appalachian experience. This marketing of rural culture is occurring not only in the “core” Appalachian communities, but increasingly in the “peripheral” areas as well. These peripheral communities that, in many cases, shunned identification with Appalachia in the past, now may be seeing inclusion in the increasingly popular region as a tourism marketing tool. This move toward marketing Appalachian communities as tourist destinations could be driving the already ambiguous Appalachian region toward a larger, diluted, and muse& symbol of its former self: a region with tenuous claims to authenticity, and its identity. While a variety of different definitions have tried to delimit Appalachia to different ends (Whisnant 1980), a particularly interesting and useful type of definition to the researcher investigating the effects of tourism development on the region is the use of studies of regional perception. A notable study of regional perception on Appalachia, (Raitz and Ulack 1984:26) developed an isopleth map as perceived by cognitive insiders and proximate outsiders. The