Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament?

Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Reviews in tourism

Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Madhumita Das ⁎, Bani Chatterjee 1 Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 December 2013 Accepted 15 January 2015

Keywords: Ecotourism Economic impact Social impact Environmental impact

a b s t r a c t The paper aims to provide a description of the vision and present practices of ecotourism. Promotion of local livelihoods through ecotourism has been widely considered as an important policy instrument for biodiversity conservation. But ecotourism has become a hotly debated topic since its implementation across countries because of the mismatch in vision and practice. The paper uses content analysis method for reviewing published literature. Published peer-reviewed journal articles on ecotourism during 2000–2013 were collected and reviewed. The overall evidence on the outcomes of ecotourism in the world shows mixed results. Though there are many success stories, the list of failures is very high. Owing to the structural, operational and cultural problems, ecotourism in many places has become a predicament. Thus, ecotourism should be introduced with proper monitoring, evaluation and management of ecotourism sites for reinforcing long term conservation. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Evolution of ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Economic impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Employment and income generation through ecotourism . . . 3.2.2. Multiplier effect of ecotourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Ecotourism: away from equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4. Failure of ecotourism to reduce forest dependency . . . . . . 3.2.5. Ecotourism associated with compulsory displacement . . . . 3.3. Socio-cultural impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Ecotourism and community participation . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Ecotourism and empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Ecotourism and gender parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4. Conflict between conservation and socio-cultural betterment . 3.3.5. Uncertainty in community participation . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.6. Gender parity in ecotourism: a myth . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Biodiversity conservation through ecotourism . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Ecotourism as a business policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. Conflict between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism . . 3.5. Conflict management between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9778572766. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. Das), [email protected] (B. Chatterjee). 1 Tel.: +91 3222 283607 (office).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.01.002 2211-9736/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 13 13 14

4

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

1. Introduction The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) 1991 defines ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the welfare of the local people.” The principles of ecotourism are to: a) minimize negative environmental impact, b) build environmental as well as cultural awareness and respect, c) provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts, d) provide direct financial benefits for conservation, e) provide financial benefits and empowerment for local people, and f) raise sensitivity to host countries' political, environmental, and social climate.2 Quebec declaration on ecotourism (2002) recognizes the principles of sustainable tourism, concerning the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism. The declaration says that ecotourism: • contributes actively to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, • includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, development and operation, and contributing to their well-being, • interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors, and • lends itself better to independent travelers as well as to organized tours for small size groups.3 Ecotourism is a strategy for supporting conservation and providing income for communities in and around protected areas. It can contribute to economic development and conservation of protected areas by: a) generating revenues that can be used to sustainably manage protected areas, b) providing local employment, and c) inculcating a sense of community ownership (Jalani, 2012). Wildlife areas and national parks constitute a significant market for ecotourism based on natural resources and local culture (Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). Conservationists have promoted ecotourism as an integral tool of conservation of natural resources and development of indigenous communities (Stronza, 2007). It supports livelihood diversification, which is particularly important in remote areas, is labor intensive, can grow with unspecialized labor, and has low entry barriers (Holland, Burian, & Dixey, 2003). Promotion of local livelihoods through ecotourism has been widely considered as an important policy instrument for biodiversity conservation (Cattarinich, 2001; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Scheyvens, 2007). In many parts of the world, ecotourism has contributed to the dual goal of poverty eradication and conservation of natural resources (Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). Promotion of ecotourism creates a large amount of employment opportunities for local people who remain engaged in a variety of activities related to tourism. The resolution, entitled, “Promotion of ecotourism for poverty eradication and environment protection”, calls on UN member states to adopt policies that promote ecotourism highlighting its “positive impact on income generation, job creation and education, and thus on the fight against poverty and hunger”. It further recognizes that “ecotourism creates significant opportunities for the conservation, protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and of natural areas by encouraging local and indigenous communities in host countries and tourists alike to preserve and respect the natural and cultural heritage”.4 However, against the backdrop of increasing popularity of ecotourism, Banerjee (2010) discovers that the present policies of ecotourism benefit neither conservation nor local communities. The concept remains poorly understood and much abused. Lack of funding, mismanagement, population and development pressures as well as poaching and bureaucratic nature of forest department have distorted the very 2

Retrieved from http://www.ecotourism.org on 8th August, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=WEB/0078/PA on 6th September, 2012. 4 Retrieved from unwto.org/en/press-release/2013-01-03/un-general-assembly-ecotourism-key-eradicating-poverty-and-protecting-envir. on 7th October, 2014. 3

concept of ecotourism. Environmental degradation, wildlife habitat destruction, economic inequity, instability, and negative socio-economic and cultural changes within local communities are some of the few problems associated with the introduction of ecotourism (Gulinck, Vyverman, Bouchout, & Gobin, 2001). Tourism in a sensitive and fragile ecosystem may not come without incurring costs (Banerjee, 2010; Kumar, 2002; Sekhar, 2003). As such the idea of ecotourism is highly contentious and a hotly debated topic ever since it has been implemented across different countries. Numbers of researchers have expressed their serious concern that in practice much of ecotourism simply neglects communities and local people. It is simply used as a ‘buzzword’ to fascinate customers. This leads to serious policy failures. It has been often reflected that the costs incurred for the creation of ecotourism spots tend to be felt most severely at local levels, especially in the short term. Therefore, the net benefits from such conservation are low and occasionally negative for the members of local communities. In the name of conservation the already marginalized communities are further marginalized. By uprooting these communities from their traditional homeland and their native socio-cultural environment, and by destroying their economy, they are exposed to outside exploitation. It has also been observed that the average rate of species extinction has actually increased dramatically over the past few decades. One of the important reasons for this is that the protected areas are imposed on a community with no or less input, and no regard for the local people. This is the root cause behind the formation of all conflict.5 A large number of scholars also advocate that, in practice, ecotourism has often failed to deliver the expected benefits to indigenous communities due to a combination of factors like lack of mechanisms for a fair distribution of the economic benefits of ecotourism, land insecurity, little control of the villagers over tourism and more influx of tourists (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Counsell, 2005). Social advocates argue that protected areas take away local rights of access to critical resources and, thus, negatively and unreasonably impact the social and economic welfare of neighboring communities. This negative human impact harms protected area's conservation objectives because protected areas cannot succeed without the support of local communities. In the process poverty, which is aggravated by protected areas, becomes a root cause of ecosystem degradation. The 2004 World Parks Congress issued a declaration that “many costs of protected areas are borne locally—particularly by poor communities” (Springer, 2009, pp. 26). The overall evidence on the outcomes of ecotourism in the world show mixed results. The proponents see in ecotourism the potential of betterment of the indigenous communities through income generating opportunities, local empowerment, and increased number of species as a result of conservational policies. Critics, however, say that ecotourism perpetuates economic inequality and disempowers local people (Horton, 2009). Lack of access to land and natural resources, and alienating locals from planning process further aggravate the situation. It is seen in many cases that there has been an increase in people-policywildlife conflict for which the very purpose of ecotourism fails. The purpose of the present study is to advance knowledge of the complex approach of ecotourism. A series of literature have been consulted to discover the praxis and theory. The efficacy of ecotourism in conservation through the promotion of livelihood system of local people in and around the protected areas in different parts of the world is reviewed. On the basis of the review, the study finally concludes whether it is a panacea or a predicament to natural species as well as indigenous communities. 2. Review methodology Content analysis method is adopted for literature review. Content analysis is an observational research method that is used to systematically evaluate the content of all forms of recorded communication 5

Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20 on 25th May, 2013.

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

5

ECOTOURISM

Economic Employment& income generation

Socio-cultural

Environmental

Empowerment of locals & pride on culture

Conservation of natural resources

Positive attitude for conservation Fig. 1. Framework of the study.

(Kolbe & Brunette, 1991). This method also helps to identify the literature in terms of various categories (Li & Cavusgil, 1995), thereby creating a realm of research opportunities (Kolbe & Brunette, 1991). The review is limited to the published literature including books, conference proceedings and journal papers. Search engines were used to explore Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Emerald Insight, in search of literature. Published peer-reviewed journal articles during 2000–2013 were collected from various sources, and are reviewed based on authors' perspective (ecotourism, government policy issues and its impact on local people). A total of one hundred and twenty one articles including information from some websites related to ecotourism are referred for the review. Articles focusing on economic, social, and environmental impact of ecotourism in different parts of the world were selected for the purpose. The conceptual framework followed in the study is developed considering the objectives of ecotourism. Ecotourism aims at conservation of nature through tangible improvement in the local economy, and increased respect for local culture and traditions (Fig. 1). The first section of the literature review starts with the evolution of ecotourism. Ecotourism broadly aims at conservation of natural resources through providing economic benefit, social empowerment and cultural pride. It aims at improving livelihood activities and income which in turn will help in the conservation of natural resources (Abbot, Thomas, Gardner, Neba, & Khen, 2001; Kiss, 2004; Salafsky & Wollenberg, 2000; Shah, 2007). Natural resources not only include wild animals; but also birds, rivers, reefs and forests. Employment and income, generated through tourism business, generate incentives which in turn develops positive attitude toward conservation (Chen, Yang, & Xie, 2005; Gyan & Nyaupane, 2011). The result of these benefits can be seen in the reduction of unsustainable practices like fishing, hunting, and degrading activities such as forest clearing. Thus there exists a strong inter-linkage between livelihood activities and conservation. Therefore the second, third and fourth sections of the literature review describe the economic impact, socio-cultural impact and environmental impact of ecotourism respectively. Each sub-section elaborates successful case studies of ecotourism and the problems faced in certain areas to meet its objective. The final section of the literature review deals with those literature that provide an insight to make the policy successful. The last section of the article summarizes the findings and conclusions.

3. Literature review After viewing the literature, the main arguments are systemized along five distinct categories, showing the evolution of ecotourism, economic impact of ecotourism, its socio-cultural impact, its environmental impact and conflict management between ecotourism and biodiversity conservation. However, it is to be kept in mind that these three impacts (economic, socio-cultural & environment) are interrelated as ecotourism promotes conservation through socio-economic improvement of the condition of the local people.

3.1. Evolution of ecotourism The potential of tourism as an important driver of growth is proved from its contribution to national income of many countries. Nevertheless critics consider that tourism development is self-destructive and in the long run it contributes to environmental destruction. Increasing numbers of tourists threaten the quality of life and environment. Concomitant with the rapid development of the tourism industry, there are increasing environmental problems like increasing noise, declining air quality, increasing water pollution, and increasing biodiversity loss, draining of wetlands, destruction of coral reefs, etc., leading to depletion of nature. Therefore, the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 1992 lists tourism as the second major threat to protected areas. Owing to the increasing negativities of tourism, several authors reiterated tourism industry to grow carefully and in a sustainable manner (Balmford et al., 2002; Holden, 2003; Mihalic, 2000; Sharpley, 2000; Tepelus & Cordobci, 2005). Sharpley (2000) has asserted that sustainable development is an amalgamation of two schools of thought: (1) development theory and (2) environmental sustainability theory. The major focus of his writing is that tourism to grow sustainably must focus on preservation of the ecosystem and equitable development. Ecotourism originated as a type of sustainable tourism and the first formal definition of ecotourism is credited to Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin in the early 1980s (Sharpley, 2006). The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1994 promoted “Sustainable Nature-based Tourism”.6 The term ‘Eco-efficiency’ was coined by World Business Council for Sustainable Development in 1995 which aims at reducing the use of resources that has negative impacts (Gossling et al., 2005). However, the Rio+5 sessions in 1997 formally incorporated sustainable tourism as an environment and development issue. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting of 1999 incorporated “Sustainable Use Including Tourism” as a theme (Das, 2011). The United Nations ‘International year of Ecotourism’ of 2002 marked a major rise of ecotourism as an important form of sustainable tourism (Butcher, 2006). More recently United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) made a milestone resolution recognizing ecotourism at the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2012. The resolution highly stressed ecotourism's role in the fight against poverty and the protection of the environment.7 Today ecotourism is a fast growing market considered as one of the world's biggest industries (Blangy & Mehta, 2006; Das, 2011). StarmerSmith (2004) stated that the number of eco-tourists is growing three times faster than the conventional tourists. The study also forecasts that by 2024, ecotourism is expected to represent 5% of the global holiday market. The growth of this niche market is because of the fact that tourists are becoming “greener” and so demanding “environmentally appropriate tourism experiences” (Sharpley, 2006:8).

6 7

Retrieved from www.unep.org on 9th October, 2014. Retrieved from www.uncto.org on 9th October, 2014.

6

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

Ecotourism captured 7% of the international market as estimated by the United Nations World Travel Organization (UNWTO) in 2007.8 Number of examples from different ecotourism destinations can be given to be evidence for the growth of this market. Tourists to Hol Chan Marine Reserve in Belize increased by two-thirds over a five year period, from 33,669 tourists in 1991 to 50,411 in 1996. An example of Costa Rica can be shown where more than two-thirds of tourists visit protected areas and reserves and it is estimated that up to 53% of income comes from ecotourism and related activities. In Honduras, experts estimate that the number of eco-tourists grew nearly 15% with a total of 200,000 tourists in 1995.9 In India, in Bhitarkanika National Park, the number of tourists increased from 37,080 to 46,917 from 2008–09 to 2012–13 (Information Brochure, Mangrove Forest Division (WL), Rajnagar, Kendrapara, Odisha). International tourism arrivals are expanding at 6.5% annually and within this ecotourism is growing at annual rate of 5% representing the fastest growing market (Das, 2011). A debate exists among the researchers on whether the growth of ecotourism is driven by supply or by demand. While Sharpley (2006) considers growth of ecotourism is supply led, Perkins and Grace (2014) affirm that ecotourism can also be partially demand driven rather than only supply driven. Growing awareness about the detrimental effects of mass tourism, evolution of post-material values, increasing environmental awareness, and expansion of middle class families are some of the most important reasons for increasing demand for ecotourism by the tourists (Holden, 2003; Mihalic, 2000; Sharpley, 2006). 3.2. Economic impact Ecotourism highly supports the inter-linkage between livelihood activities and conservation. It is identified as a tool to enhance the livelihoods of the people around protected areas. Tourism development in protected areas or ecotourism provides an alternative to the exploitative use of environmental resources (Nyuapane & Poudel, 2011). Wunder (2000) is right to state that economic incentives are indispensable for nature conservation. Without creating an economic basis for the sustainable livelihood of the locals, the purpose of ecotourism cannot be achieved. Thus, ecotourism is developed as a strategy to conserve biodiversity through providing financial benefits to the locals in and around the protected areas. In the following section, a detailed discussion of the strategy is done. 3.2.1. Employment and income generation through ecotourism Ecotourism is being embraced as a potential economic rescuer by many rural communities who are motivated by the promise of jobs, new business opportunities, and skill development (Scheyvens, 2000, IUCN, 2012). For many indigenous communities in tropical and developing countries, ecotourism is considered as a means leading to new sources of income and betterment in household condition (Stronza, 2007). Better access to tourists through properly organized ecotourism enables local people to augment their livelihood security through employment and small enterprise development (Ashley, 2002; Goodwin, 2002). Development of ecotourism will create jobs in tourism services such as restaurants, souvenir shops, and food. Eco-lodges, campsites, home stay accommodations, restaurants, transport, and guiding services also provide economic benefits directly to local people (Mustika, Birtles, Welters, & Marsh, 2012; Reimer & Walter, 2013). Even in the case of island or marine communities, marine tourism industry often forms the most important economic activity. Job opportunities range from oneperson operations such as charter fishing boat operators, sea-kayak

8 9

Retrieved from www.uncto.org on 9th October, 2014. Retrieved from pdf.usaid.gov/pdf.docs/PNADB952.pdf on 7th October, 2014.

tour guides and scuba diving instructors to multinational cruise-ship companies (Hoyt, 2005). The paper of Mustika et al. (2012) is noted for its first attempt to explore the economic impact of the Cetacean watching tourism industry in Lovina in north Bali, Indonesia. The article by using tourist expenditure approach highlights that tourism business is more profitable than most other earning opportunities. The paper has captured primary direct expenditure and auxiliary direct expenditure, but failed to analyze the multiplier effect to capture the indirect expenditure. Though the contrary line of argument is also posed in the article in terms of higher induced immigration and detrimental impact on dolphins for more number of boats, but the authors have emphasized more on the findings about the response of 179 boat-men who do not have the intention to leave the industry as they enjoy an above average income obtained from ecotourism industry. So the river based ecotourism industry is bringing much relief to the residents of this place. In order to solve the problems, they have the opinion that shared license system, tradable daily permits and increasing entrance fees will help a lot. In another study in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park (PPSRNP), reputed to be the longest navigable underground river in the world by Jalani (2012) shows that this river ecotourism industry has been the source of income for most of the households. Fuller, Buultjens, and Cummings (2005) has done the SWOT analysis and found that ecotourism provides potential for economic development through micro-enterprises to the Ngukurr, an indigenous community in northern Australia. The article has well emphasized the importance of Community Development Employment Projects in supporting indigenous-owned and operated small enterprises through providing them the financial resources. However, the article lacks a clear and full comprehension for the complex sustainable development. Reimer and Walter (2013) have brought a solution to the complexities associated with tourism and conservation through highlighting Community Based Eco-tourism (CBET) that enforces a mutually reinforcing relationship between environmental conservation, local economic livelihood and cultural preservation. Though no systematic measurement of the impacts of ecotourism project is undertaken, the research finely articulates each one carefully through participatory observation and focus group discussion. By using Honey's (2008, Chap. 2) analytical framework of ecotourism they find that the Chiphat project appears to have fully met five of the seven components for authentic ecotourism: it involves travel to natural destinations, minimizes environmental and cultural impact, builds environmental awareness, provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people, respects local culture and implicitly supports local human rights and democratization. In a similar study, Wunder (2000) has brilliantly conceptualized the link among tourism, local benefits and conservation by using the data from the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve in the Ecuadorian Amazon region, near the border of Colombia and Peru. Income flows from tourism have given villagers a new rationality of resource use by increasing environmental awareness. The reserve was created in 1979 responding to continuous pressure on natural resources from overhunting, deforestation, cattle ranching, etc. by indigenous communities. After the creation of the reserve, local residents receive significant income from tourism that outweighs other sources. The result of this net benefit is reflected in the reduction of illegal practices and increased environmental awareness. The complex process of tourism induced change through economic incentives is encapsulated thoroughly through the case study method even without going for quantitative testing for lack of economic and environmental data. Even in the case of Periyar Tiger Reserve, India, economic incentives play an important role in curbing the dependence of the people on forests and increasing their participation in conservation of forests.10

10 Retrieved from http://www.ecoclub.com/library/epapers/13.pdf on 8th October, 2014.

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

3.2.2. Multiplier effect of ecotourism In some cases, development of ecotourism has led to the creation of production systems related to goods and services linked to tourism like local handicrafts, agriculture and services, stemming from the high level of consumption of these products by tourists. Respondents, who are affiliated with ecotourism related livelihood, perceived that the positive impact of ecotourism is primarily seen in the development of their livelihood. People changed their occupation from fishing and non-timber wood usage to ecotourism activities, as tourism provided higher income (Jalani, 2012). Guha and Ghosh (2007) empirically measure the extent to which tourism improves livelihood in a study in Indian Sunderbans. The study compares the socio-economic indicators of households under the classification of ‘tourism participants’, ‘forest dependents’, and ‘engaged in other economic activities’, and claims that tourism participants spend 19% more on food and 38% more on non-food items relative to other villagers. Earnings from tourism appear to finance at least partially annual consumption. While many scholars have criticized ecotourism practices for its seasonality approach, the supporting authors have differentiated themselves by considering tourism related income as additional revenue on top of subsistence farming. People, who work in an ecotourism destination, will spend their additional income, which they receive from ecotourism related jobs, on consumer goods. Increased demand for such goods will create new jobs. The economic and employment-generating benefits coming from ecotourism have resulted in relative prosperity for areas, and have had an important impact on local development (Seetanah, 2011; Taylor, Hardner, & Stewart, 2006). An important aspect of the research article of Taylor et al. (2006), is that it has used Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) to capture both direct and indirect effects of tourism on the island economy of Galapagos. Direct income is calculated from the income of selling goods and services to tourists (hotels, restaurants, cruise ships) and indirect income from other agents who are not directly associated with tourists. From the results, the authors claim that tourism continues to be the major driver of economic growth of the island. Two critical points are derived from this research (i) the international tourist multiplier is the lowest of all multipliers because foreign tourists spend mostly off island and (ii) the comparison of income multiplier shows that a $1000 increase in foreign tourist expenditure and domestic tourist expenditure is associated with $218 and $429 increase in total island income respectively. The fact unveiled will definitely help policy makers to focus more on domestic rather on those foreign tourists. Seetanah's (2011) paper is also consistent with earlier work of exploring linkage of tourism with natural areas and economic growth. With the help of dynamic panel data framework for a sample of 19 island economies over a period of 1990–2007, the paper suggests that sustainable tourism is to be given a key position in policies for sustainable tourism and economic development. Wunder (2000) provides an interesting fact that particularly for developing countries a rapidly growing tourism industry has proved to be an increasingly important source of foreign exchange inflows. As more native communities start to reap direct economic benefits as owners and partners of tourism services, locals will have more incentive and challenge to protect the resources that the tourists come to see (Stronza, 2007; Surendran & Sekhar, 2011). In this process it promotes biodiversity conservation through providing economic benefits to the communities in and around protected areas. However, the beneficial approach of ecotourism in uplifting the economic condition of the locals as well as of the economy is not free from criticisms. The conflict between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction is a complex dilemma. Many authors argue that ecotourism has compromised the cause of biodiversity conservation by exacerbating impoverishment on very large numbers of people (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau, 2006; Coria & Calfucura, 2012). In practice, ecotourism has mostly failed to fulfill the promises made to indigenous

7

communities, due to a number of factors like lack of mechanisms for a fair distribution of the economic benefits of ecotourism, compulsory displacement and land insecurity. The subsequent section will provide a clear picture of the mismatch between objectives and present practice. 3.2.3. Ecotourism: away from equity Goodwin (2002) provides a clear picture of the economic costs to local people because of ecotourism. Sighting the example of Keoladeo National Park (KNP), Rajasthan, India, the paper highlights that employment is concentrated in the hands of few. In KNP males from a few Jatt families dominate the tourism created employment market. The problem is worsened as labor is drawn from urban sector instead of focusing on training of unskilled or less-skilled locals. The tourists are also not accessible at all areas of the KNP, thus further limiting the avenues of the locals to earn a decent livelihood by selling native products. The author also cites the example of Komodo National Park, Indonesia to bring to light the significant leakages from the local economy, as local people are denied access to tourists although they have high interest to earn by selling tourist demanded products and services. The same practice also prevails in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe as well as St Paul's Subterranean National Park in Palawan, Philippines, where the potentiality of tourism as an economic rescuer is not explored by all the local communities. The authors, who have highlighted the economic benefits to the locals through development of ecotourism, fail to address inequitable distribution of income, which is one of the major issues in ecotourism sites. He et al. (2008) are of the opinion that disproportional distribution of benefit among stakeholders can lead to the failure of ecotourism and conservation. They have identified two types of uneven distribution of economic benefits among major groups of stakeholders: (a) a significant inequality exists between the local rural residents and the other types of stakeholders and (b) the distribution of economic benefits is unequal among the rural residents inside the reserve. The reason cited behind this problem is that most rural residents get only low-skilled and temporary jobs in small businesses. More than 80% of jobs, as reflected from Woolong Natural Reserve, China, go to outsiders. Outsiders also dominated in the low paid job arena leaving only 21% to the local farmers. Hsu and Lin's (2013) case study of Taijiang National Park in Taiwan in 2013 also reflects parallel problems. By developing their own analytical framework with 22 indicators, the paper reinforces that there has been no positive reflection in both direct and indirect public benefits. Therefore a clear conflict of interest exists among different groups. Coria and Calfucura (2012) have delved deep to find out the reasons behind such favoritism and have found that the locals suffer from resource and skill constraints. Therefore the author has pointed out that ecotourism practices should not be conceived as the only source of development of indigenous communities. The better approach should be to complement such practices with other non-detrimental actions. Inequality also exists in extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFP), as the better segment of the community possesses specialized equipment for extraction of NTFP. Moreover the community views the extraction of NTFP as a constant source of cash income, which in turn leads to constant degradation of biological resources (Delang, 2006). 3.2.4. Failure of ecotourism to reduce forest dependency Hussain and Badola (2010), in a study of 36 villages in Bhitarkanika Conservation Area, depict quite perplexing things. The villagers living in mangrove areas are poor and depend on the mangrove resources for their livelihood, though legally no extraction is permitted. An overall 14.2% of the fuel need of each of the household was met by the forests with a mean consumption of 312 kg wood per annum. Mangrove timber is extracted on a small scale in many areas for jetty construction, forest pathways, small bridges, boats, fish traps, and mooring poles. Villagers not only depend on forests for extracting timber as well as non-timber forest products, but they also catch fish, prawn, crab and related species for commercial purpose. The dependency on the forest is more for the

8

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

villages near by the protected area. The argument goes that since people living nearest to the mangrove forests have fewer years of education, employment and income, their dependence on forest is also the highest. Goodwin (2002) has identified that at the Indian and Indonesian study sites, those people who reside nearest to the protected areas and who bear the brunt mostly, appear to participate less in tourism industry. These authors' argument is totally different from the common belief of many authors who claim that those who reside nearest to the park get more employment facilities.

3.2.5. Ecotourism associated with compulsory displacement The situation of the locals worsens when they are compulsorily displaced for the creation of National Parks (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau, 2006). Even in many cases lack of access to the protected areas and insecure land tenure (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau, 2006) result in homelessness and joblessness for which a large chunk of locals do not view wildlife conservation as a sustainable way of earning income. The authors also claim that conservational organizations like International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and World Conservation Society also do not concentrate on formal safeguards of the displaced. The writers have critically defined displacement, which has expanded the periphery of displacement. According to them displacement not only includes when land takings compel physical relocation but also when local communities are denied access because of restrictive policy formulations. Physical displacement as well as restricted access for the creation of national parks inevitably exacerbate poverty. They consider that such actions have a tremendous negative economic effect on the locals. It substantially disrupts local livelihoods and causes large scale loss of land, homelessness, food insecurity, loss of lives, and increase in morbidity. The authors have cited the cases of Dja Bio. Reserve (Cameroon), Korup National Park (Cameroon), Dzanga-Ndoki National Park (Central African Republic), Nsoc National Park (Equatorial Guinea), and Cross-River Okwangwo Div. (Nigeria), where the indigenous communities are partially resettled. There have been number of parks like Lake Lobeke National Park, Boumba Beck National Park (Cameroon), Loango National Park, Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Ipassa-Mingouli (Gabon), and Nouabale' Ndoki National Park (Republic of Congo), where there is a complete absence of resettlement policy. Compensation policy has also not been successful in all these protected areas. This results in greater level of dissatisfaction and apathetic attitude of the locals toward conservation. Arjunan, Holmes, Puyravaud, and Davidar (2006) highlight the failure of prohibitions in meeting the requirement of effective conservation. The paper provides a very important dimension that positive attitudes might not always reflect sustainable practices. In the case of Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India, 61% of the respondents reported positive attitudes toward conservation of tiger, and 59% toward forests. But the dry forests cover more than 50% of the requirement of the local community in terms of fuel, fodder, manure, etc. Deterioration of rural economy due to damage to crop and livestock by wildlife, and cessation of opportunities of income from forest resources and tourism in the core zone are also the key negative impacts of conservation policy felt by the locals (Maikhuri, Nautiyal, Rao, & Saxena, 2001). They have well attempted to estimate the mean annual economic loss per household in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, a world heritage site in Indian Himalaya, and presented the estimated loss as Rs 1285, Rs 1195 and Rs 156 due to damage caused by wildlife to food crops, fruit trees and beehives respectively, Rs 1587 due to ban on collection of wild medicinal plants for marketing and Rs 7904 due to ban on tourism in the core zone. Although Reserve authority granted compensation of livestock killed by wildlife, this was hardly 5% of the market value of killed livestock as assessed by the people. People did not appreciate the present benefits from the reserve management in the form of wages for carrying out forestation work, partial compensation of livestock damage and availability of solar power devices, wool,

and spinning devices. All such actions finally inculcate a harmful attitude in the mind of the locals toward conservation. The literature about the economic impact of ecotourism can be divided into two categories. Those articles, which are in favor of ecotourism, consider it as a mechanism leading to new sources of income and betterment in household condition. Properly organized ecotourism enables local people to augment their livelihood security through employment in ecotourism related activities and small enterprise development. It also leads to local economic development through multiplier effect of ecotourism. In the process, dependency of the locals on natural resources is reduced, and biodiversity is conserved. On the other hand, another group of articles emphasize on the problems associated with ecotourism like (1) revenue leakages, as labor is drawn from urban sector, instead of focusing on training of unskilled or less-skilled locals, (2) inequitable distribution of income among the locals, (3) compulsory displacement for the creation of national parks leading to large scale loss of land, homelessness, food insecurity, loss of lives, and increase in morbidity, (4) restrictions in accessing sanctuary resulting in joblessness and (5) damage to crop and livestock by wildlife. All such problems aggravate poverty of the locals. Thus, ecotourism fails to reduce forest dependency, and the practice of conservation is away from reality. 3.3. Socio-cultural impact Ecotourism, through increase in standard of living of the local residents, empowers them socio-politically and fosters respect for different cultures and for human rights. Indirect incentives like improved infrastructures, health facilities, awareness and education from tourism development develop positive attitudes toward conservation (Nyuapane & Poudel, 2011). Community-based conservation programs such as the Van Panchayats (VP), a state level program that was introduced in Uttaranchal, and more recently the nationally designed Joint Forest Management (JFM) programs are initiated with an objective of addressing the conflicts between the local communities and the forest department over access and use of forest resources. These institutions seek to incorporate local communities in regulating use of forest products (Arjunan et al., 2006). Local community is involved in the entire process starting from the planning to execution and monitoring, and this is the key to success of ecotourism (Rowat & Engelhardt, 2007; Stone, Bhat, Bhatta, & Mathews, 2008). 3.3.1. Ecotourism and community participation The paper of Stone et al. (2008) views community participation as a remedy to the problem of unsustainable practices. The authors have used Contingent Valuation Method to place monetary value on the benefits that subsistence user groups (fisherman, fisher woman, rice farmers) receive from mangrove forests. The results indicate that all the three groups intend to restore mangroves because of the facilities they derive from mangroves. The rice farmers have a higher willingness to pay as mangroves help in controlling erosion and crop pests. Fishermen and fisherwomen get a good catch as mangroves contribute to fish nursery. Once the locals receive some tangible benefits, and they are involved in the conservational policies, they consider themselves as stakeholders in the process and support the conservational policies. The Apo Island and Handumon protected areas in the Philippines are examples of how implementation of community based marine sanctuaries can be effective as a resource management tool. Communities here are successfully managing their own sanctuaries and are rewarded not only with healthy reefs, larger fish catches, and bigger fish in and around the reserve; but also with a sense of accomplishment and pride in having control over a central part of their lives (Parras, 2001). 3.3.2. Ecotourism and empowerment Ecotourism helps in empowering local communities by providing economic, social, political, and psychological benefits. Regular economic gains from formal or informal sector employment and

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

business opportunities empower the community economically. Scheyvens (2000:241) describes social empowerment as “… a situation in which a community's sense of cohesion and integrity has been confirmed or strengthened by an activity such as ecotourism”. Shared income among community members helps improve local livelihoods by providing infrastructure, education, and health. It enables people to live in harmony and thus leads to social empowerment. While participation in decision making process leads to political empowerment, psychological power concerns the self-esteem of community members that can be enhanced by external recognition and appreciation of the unique cultural and natural resources and traditional knowledge (Nyuapane & Poudel, 2011). Wunder (2000) concludes through the empirical study of Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve, a biodiversity rich area in Ecuador's northern region that tourism income helps to unite actors and strengthen the reason for co-existence. Guha and Ghosh (2007) interpret that a part of increased income from ecotourism practices can also be used to finance the education of the children which will lead to development of human capital. This will definitely lead to empowerment of local communities in the long run. According to World Bank (2002) empowerment has four elements: (1) access to information, (2) inclusion or participation, (3) accountability and (4) local organizational capacity, and ecotourism focuses on all the four to empower the locals (Sutawa, 2012). However, the author articulates that empowerment has both positive and negative effects. While empowerment enhances self-esteem of the locals, many communities consider it as freedom without any restrictions. They attempt to get more advantages ignoring the other stakeholders. This very practice leads to create more problems in the path of sustainable development. 3.3.3. Ecotourism and gender parity Horton (2009) opines that ecotourism, by challenging the traditional gender roles, has extended womens' household roles of cleaning, cooking, and serving others. The author has found that with the arrival of ecotourism in Costa Rica, women began to take an active role in opening cabins, restaurants, and other small businesses. Such practices help women to earn reasonably by emancipating themselves from the traditional patriarchal gender norms. Scheyvens (2000) has justified women's involvement in ecotourism projects to ensure benefits for the broad range of community members. The development increases awareness for health and hygiene for women. Thus they gain ‘power’ by boosting their self-confidence, knowledge and awareness (Thien, 2009). Thien's research explores that ecotourism can be used as a “KEY or tool to open the LOCK of the DOOR. In the process it creates equal opportunities for employment and income generation for women, promotes adult education and reduce illiteracy, increase awareness on health (maternal health) and hygiene offer option for viability of indigenous community which allow them to maintain their traditional life etc.” (pp. 100). Evidences of women empowerment can be found like Masai women in Belize, who are economically empowered by establishing a lodge through ‘Sandy Beach Women's Cooperative’ as a self-initiated ecotourism venture. Women in Himachal Pradesh, India have also become actively involved in joint forest management program and consequently have gained the support of the tourism industry. Similarly the work of the Siyabonga Craft Cooperative in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, a women community, has increased the self-reliance of its members by providing them with a good source of income. The increase income has motivated them to go back to school as well as send their children to schools. While learning English has helped them to speak to the tourists who came to their shop; learning math has helped them to give the correct change to the customers and understand the bookkeeping system. Empowerment can also be seen in the case of Langtang women who perform cultural dances for tourists and use the funds raised to restore their local monastery (Scheyvens, 2000). The author has also cited few cases when ecotourism directly or indirectly empowers women socially through greater local access to services, such as water supplies or

9

health clinics. Tourism in the Annapurna area of Nepal had brought a number of benefits to the Dhampus village community. For example, installation of water taps by the lodge owners benefited many village women who otherwise had to walk some way to collect water. In addition, the demands of tourists for better facilities witnessed the adoption of labor-saving technologies – including kerosene stoves and solar water heaters – which reduced the hard work of women considerably. Similarly, in the ‘Sua Bali’ sustainable village tourism initiative, established by and is managed by a woman, each guest pays US$1 per day to the village. This money is used for temple festivities and provides a hardship fund for locals who face difficulties. Some communities have also set an example for others by overcoming cultural limitations to women's participation in decision-making forums. In Palawan village in the Philippines, women have emerged as the organizers and managers of a sustainable tourism project. There have been a number of successful eco-development initiatives in India reported by Mishra, Badola, and Bharadwaj (2009), which have acknowledged that the poorest of the poor and socially vulnerable groups such as women, scheduled castes and tribes, and those below the poverty line deserve special attention in eco-development programs. “The practice of eco-development in India is based on the premise that ecological sustainability is closely linked with financial, institutional and social sustainability” (pp. 158). Focusing more on the ownership of the locals, the eco-development programs have become successful. Moreover they attempt to understand the policy failure of protected areas and provide more attention to the needy and the poorest. The poor people in this way feel as connected and thus support conservation. Contrary to all the positive socio-cultural impact of ecotourism, many researchers do not consider ecotourism as a means for improving the social status of the entire. Authors also argue that promotion of ecotourism always does not foster respect for local culture. Many ecotourism ventures in developing countries are found to be progressing without any cheering socio-cultural impact. The subsequent section provides an array of problems that occur as quite conflicting to the mission of ecotourism. 3.3.4. Conflict between conservation and socio-cultural betterment Although increase in tourists in ecotourism spots leads to sociocultural betterment, but if tourist activity results in crowding, crime, begging, displacement from traditional lands, or prostitution, then it also leads to social disempowerment. Most of the protected areas in India do not have any kind of visitor orientation programs. The author has articulated a number of problems with reference to India which questions efficiency of protected areas in conservation. Citing the cases of popular tiger reserves such as the Kanha, Ranthambhore and Corbett National Parks in India, the author finds that forest authorities have been unable to protest increase in tourists, for higher revenue generation. This has resulted in chasing tigers surrounded by jeeps and elephants for photo session, with significant impacts on wildlife behavior and habitat (Banerjee, 2010). Wunder (2000) has also cited the case of Puerto Bolivar, Ecuador, where the high numbers of tourists have caused cultural erosion, increase alcohol consumption and disease risk. This in turn poses threat to biodiversity as well as local culture. 3.3.5. Uncertainty in community participation In many instances it is also noted that the bureaucratic nature of the forests does not allow locals to participate in the planning process (Banerjee, 2010). Tosun (2000) has gone one step ahead to explain the limitations to the participatory tourism development approach in the context of developing countries in Asia, Latin America and in the so-called former second world countries. The author has brilliantly classified the reasons under operational, structural and cultural limits to community participation in such countries. He has found that in countries such as India, Mexico, Thailand, and Turkey, a strong centralized public administrative system, unwillingness of the politicians to

10

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

distribute power appears as operational hindrances to community participation. On the other hand, lack of clear-cut definition in roles of agencies, overlap in responsibilities of government departments and little accountability between them, lack of information etc. also hinder the co-ordination for participatory tourism development approach. The structural problem occurs because of lack of qualified humanresources, lack of financial resources, lack of appropriate legal system, attitude of the bureaucrats, and domination of elites. From his personal experience, the author has found that it becomes very difficult to persuade the bureaucrats to encourage community participation, who neither have tourism background nor good contact with the locals. In some developing countries such as Turkey and Mexico local indigenous communities' right to use public places such as beaches and sea is violated by tourism operators. Citing the case of Ramada Hotel Varca in southern Goa, India, which violated both the maximum height and minimum distance from the sea criteria, the author also finds that the state acts in line with a “mercantilist model” (pp. 623) where there exists wide scale discrimination. There also exist some cultural hindrances such as limited capacity of poor people to handle development effectively, and apathy as well as low level of awareness in the local community, to effective community participation in the realm of tourism. 3.3.6. Gender parity in ecotourism: a myth Authors, who have claimed that ecotourism related activities have improved the status of women, did not highlight the difficulties associated with in. The practical side is far from reach in majority of cases. Although in few areas, employment opportunities are created, importance of women in the industry is often minimized considering them as the ‘weaker’ sex. In many cases, they are not involved in most of the activities for their lack of education and skill (Badola and Hussain, 2003). Even in the areas where they are involved, they fail to share the benefits equitably (Scheyvens, 2000). The author has found that in terms of formal employment, local women are often overlooked when ecotourism sites are developed. Giving the example of Mahenye, Zimbabwe, a joint venture agreement between the local Shangaan people and Zimbabwe Sun Ltd, which owns a chain of hotels in the country, he upholds that employment at the lodges has been heavily biased in favor of men. Among the two tourist lodges on Shangaan land, at Mahenye Lodge only three out of 15 positions have been filled by women, while at Chilo Lodge, four out of 38 positions have gone to women. This clearly shows the discrimination against women community. He has also cited the examples of Himalayan region and Indonesia, where women involved in guiding activities are regarded as prostitutes interested in foreign tourists. The most baffling part of the practice is that even if they receive income, they are rarely empowered. It is because they have no/little real power and are not considered as equal to men in their communities as well as families. Apart from the employment sector, women also have to face the discrimination at the community participation for decision making process. Scheyvens's (2000) article is right to say that women involvement in decision-making process is very poor beyond the village level because meetings often necessitate travel. In many cases, travel is a problem for women because during that period they need to compromise on their traditional roles and obligations, and because of the suspicion that a woman traveling alone will commit adultery. Therefore, the author has conveyed astutely that “the greatest challenge in the future is to ensure that women are not just consulted, but listened to, when deciding whether to pursue ecotourism and how to pursue ecotourism” (pp. 245). To sum up, it may be said that many articles have considered ecotourism as a means to empower local people socio-politically through improving their standard of living, fostering respect for different cultures, and enhancing human rights. It helps women to earn reasonably by emancipating themselves from the traditional patriarchal gender norms. Indirect incentives like improved infrastructures, health facilities, awareness and education from tourism development also help to

develop positive attitudes toward conservation. On the other hand, many authors have put emphasis also on the real practices of ecotourism. They have focussed on crowding, crime, begging, and prostitution associated with the increase in the number of tourists in ecotourism spots. In many cases, as found, traditional mind set-up of the locals does not allow women community to rise above the notion of weaker sex. Such problems are more in developing countries owing to its mismanagement as well as bureaucratic nature of management. More numbers of tourists, as found in many articles, have caused cultural erosion, increase in alcohol consumption and disease risk, as mostly the tourists are found to be pleasant seekers more in the developing countries than in the developed ones. This in turn poses threat to biodiversity as well as to local culture. 3.4. Environmental impact Ecotourism represents one of the more eco-friendly alternatives for the economic use of natural resources (Li, 2004; Wood, 2002). Tourism development in protected areas or ecotourism provides an alternative to the exploitative use of environmental resources (Nyuapane & Poudel, 2011). Wunder (2000) considers that ecotourism plays an important role in enhancing the environment quality. The policy of ecotourism concentrates on applying green growth strategy in the ambit of tourism with an intention of sustainable use of exhaustible natural resources. Biodiversity becomes an income-generating asset that works rationally for natural resource management. Holden's (2003) approach is quite different in the sense that it has emphasized on the ethics for tourism. He opines that lack of environmental ethics spells catastrophe. Thus owing to the growing evidence of environmental degradation as a result of human actions, it is highly desirable that environment should be placed on the agenda of evolution of tourism. According to him, ecotourism emphasizes the need for resource conservation keeping an eye on the growing catastrophe of depletion of natural assets. In the long term there has been a shift from instrumental ethics as a basis of conduct for the use of nature to a more conservation based ethics considering the economic interest of all stakeholders to conserve natural resources. Moreover, the environmental dimension is much more important than the economic dimension in the issues of urban ecotourism for the differences between the economic background of urban residents and non-urban areas (Wu, Wang & Ho, 2010). Mihalic (2000) claims that environmental quality of a destination is the most important factor in making travel related decision because of increasing environmental awareness among the tourists, and growing monopolistic structure of the tourism market. Ecotourism according to the author integrates the capacity of systematic environmental branding of the sites. 3.4.1. Biodiversity conservation through ecotourism Libosada (2009) believes that ecotourism provides the tangible aspect of conservation as it has been helping save animals and fragile ecosystems. Salvador, Clavero, and Pitman (2011) also carry the same kind of notion. According to them, ecotourism is a successful conservation policy for its capacity to conserve large mammals' diversity in Upper Amazonia through sustainable source of income to the inhabitants. Reimer and Walter (2013) articulate that the financial benefits from ecotourism come from park entrance fees, voluntary donations and environmental conservation levies, which are targeted directly at conservation. Nyuapane and Poudel (2011) have finely interwoven the complexity of tourism and biodiversity conservation through their focus on Chitwan National Park, Nepal. They perceive that as people receive more economic benefits, they take more pride about their natural resources and tend to preserve these resources. The paper of Abbot et al. (2001) provides evidence drawn from Kilum-Ijim forest in North West Province, Cameroon. Adoption of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) has improved the income level and livelihood

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

conditions of the people. This in turn has a positive impact on conservation by changing the attitudes of the people in and around the forest area. Ecotourism recognizes the principles of sustainable tourism. It (a) minimizes environmental impact and thus has a small ecological ‘footprint’ and (b) contributes to conservation either through direct effort like reforestation, habitat restoration, or through financial benefits (Zambrano, Broadbent, & Durham, 2010). The empirical study of Badola and Hussain (2005) has revealed that the mangrove forests in Bhitarkanika Conservation Area has helped villagers from natural disasters like super cyclone, flood etc. Local communities valued these functions of mangrove forests and so despite human-wildlife conflict, the attitudes of the local communities are not altogether negative. They are also willing to participate in mangrove restoration and support conservation (Badola, Shibani, Hussain & Ainul, 2012). Development of forests through promotion of ecotourism in the reserve also helps in mitigating carbon which can reduce green-house gas emissions which is note worthy (Badola, 2010). Zambrano et al. (2010) in an attempt to test of the efficiency of Lapa Rios Ecolodge of the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica affirm that the lodge has made substantial contribution to conservation and local people. The Costa Rica Certification of Sustainable Tourism (CST) developed by the Costa Rica Institute of Tourism has also been successful in improving performance of the ecotourism destinations (Tepelus & Cordobci, 2005). Apparently, such practices have ensured that certain mammals and birds, which became extremely scarce, can now be observed by residents and tourists with greater frequency (Wunder, 2000). Dietz and Adger (2003) and Julianne and Thomas (2009) endeavor to test the relationship between economic growth, biodiversity loss and efforts to conserve biodiversity through Environment Kuznets's Curve (EKC) hypothesis with a combination of panel and cross section data. The EKC asserts that environmental damage increases initially and then after a certain point of time it falls with rising income resulting an ‘inverted U’ shaped curve. However Dietz and Adger (2003) articulate that although economic drivers fuel environmental improvement, the species cannot replenish in the same rate yielding a ‘hyperbolic EKC’. However, Julianne and Thomas (2009) have been able to develop EKC using estimates of per capita income and deforestation rates (index of biodiversity threat) for 35 tropical countries. They find that there occurs a ‘U’ shaped relationship between increasing per capita income and species conserved following the inverted ‘U’ shaped relationship between increase in per capita income and pollution. However, the support got eliminated while performing country specific panel data analysis. The authors therefore suggest that EKC is not a very genuine representation of data and proper mechanism needs to be developed for its use. Nevertheless, a large number of articles posit ecotourism not to be very effective in promoting conservation of biodiversity. Many authors consider ecotourism as an instrument for revenue generation. The word ‘ecotourism’ is to attract customers, and thereby generate more income. Many protected areas in developing countries is found to be poorly planned, with the infrastructure and management inadequate even unsuitable for ecotourism. The following section depicts many problems of ecotourism that pose threat to successful conservation. 3.4.2. Ecotourism as a business policy Isaacs (2000) criticizes ecotourism as a wildlife conservation strategy for its inability to insure the long term protection of environmental assets. He claims that ecotourism is only a proxy market designed to attract customers. Ecotourism policies are designed to attract consumers' preferences for recreation. In that process, revenue generation has become the prime consideration and protection of environmental assets has been kept aside. This is leading directly to environmental degradation. Honey (2008, Chap. 2) has therefore claimed in his book “Ecotourism and sustainable development — Who owns paradise?” that “Much

11

of what is marketed as ecotourism is simply conventional mass tourism wrapped in a thin veneer of green” (pp. 51). The author identifies that ecotourism is still in its ‘infancy stage’ and therefore a broad set of principles and practices is to be derived that will give a new direction to the so-called ecotourism industry. Many ecotourism sites lack proper infrastructure to consider them as ecotourism sites. Scheyvens (2000) cites the case of Himalayan areas, where tourism has resulted in widespread deforestation in some areas as lodges use wood for heating water and rooms for tourists and cooking meals. Kirkpatrick (2001) has given the example of Lower Gordon River, one of the largest streams in Australia that attracted tourists for its highly scenic beauty of the reflections of rainforest-covered banks and hills on the still dark waters. With the increase in the tourists, some boat operators saw an opportunity to increase their profit by building faster boats that enabled two trips a day. Soon fast boats run by different operators started racing with each other to grab more profit. This resulted in the damage of the banks, fall of the trees into the water. The banks also began to retreat at a rapid rate. The profit motive of the ecotourism industry led to gradual decline of this World Heritage Area. 3.4.3. Conflict between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism The proponents of ecotourism have failed to see the threat caused by such activities. Rise in the number of tourists, which exceeds the carrying capacity of the place, leads to very erosion of natural resources for which tourists come (Drumm, 2008). The more elementary environmental critique against ecotourism is that it is usually based on extensive use of resources often including overseas transportation with large CO2 emissions (Buckley, 2004). Lusseau and Higham (2004) have confirmed that there is a proliferation of tour operators in response to increased tourists' demand in the case of Doubtful Sound (New Zealand). This has brought tremendous pressures on the population of bottlenose dolphins the resident in the Sound. With the number of tourists increasing, there is an increase in the number of boats. While many have permits, a large number of vessels do not have permission. It is so as there are significant commercial disadvantages associated with holding a permit because it ties operators to national responsibilities. As a result, these vessels venture into the critical zone hampering the habitat and population of dolphins. Drum's viewpoint is awfully perplexing when he considers that conservationists at the ‘Nature Conservancy’ have identified “tourism as a threat in 78 international conservation area plans because of its effect over the past seven years” (pp. 782). The failure of management in parks is eroding the very natural capital that visitors travel to see. The author also has identified that if the current levels of investment continue, the tourism boom will simply destroy the biodiversity. Prime habitats will become degraded, wildlife will become scarce, the quality of the visitor experience will decline, and eventually ecotourism will fail completely as a policy. Even in the case of Whale watching, Orams (2000) finds that the industry has expanded to 65 countries by 1995 from 12 countries in 1983. The total economic benefit from such activities totalled more than US$550 million. But the impact of this industry on the life of these endangered wild animals is very much alarming. The close proximity of the vessels to the whales, the noise and pollution of the vessels disturb their natural behavioral pattern. Martin's (2007) review paper also holds the same notion that the increase of whale shark-based ecotourism has serious impacts on their behavior, habitat, and ecology. C´ardenas-Torres, Enr´ıquez-Andrade, and Rodr´ıguez-Dowdell (2007)) point out that tourism activity is affecting the individual behavior of the sharks Bahia de Los Angeles, considered as one of the most biologically productive areas in the Gulf of California and thus affecting the industry negatively. Thus the whale-watch operators must design the tour uniquely that can help in conservation of these animals (Orams, 2000). The author has found a very important finding on customer satisfaction. The presence of whales and their behavior are important influences on whale-watcher satisfaction rather than getting close to whales. So the tour operators must come out of the traditional notion of

12

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

customer satisfaction that the visitors want to get close to the animals. In this process, they can actually help in conserving such magnificent creature. Such paradoxical issues are becoming more important in certain cases as the focus point is more on tourism to generate revenues in the name of responsible tourism. In the process, environment is getting compromised as pointed out by Eijgelaar, Thaper, and Peeters (2010). With the example of Antarctic cruise tourism the authors have unfolded that the cruise passengers tripled from 2000 to 2007. The selling point of such tourism is claimed to create environmental awareness for the destinations before it disappears and is therefore termed as responsible tourism. However, no evidence of greater environmental awareness among the tourists after their visit to such places is found by the authors. Moreover such trips produce higher green house gasses and result in significant climate change. They have estimated that the total emissions per passenger are 7.8 t CO2 per trip and 409 kg CO2 per day. Dawson, Stewart, Lemelin, and Scott (2010) emphasize that climate change is causing a substantial reduction in sea ice that is vital for survival of Arctic wildlife species such as polar bears. The polar bear populations in Western Hudson Bay in Canada declined by 22% between 1988 and 2004 mainly for such climate change. The polar bear viewing industry is estimated to contribute 20,892 t/CO2 per season which is higher than average activity emissions. Tourists are more interested to see wildlife, including polar bears, beluga whales, walrus, seals, and penguins before they disappear completely and in the process also facilitate in the extinction of such endangered species. The impact of increase in the number of tourists for the growing popularity of ecotourism industry is not only limited to magnificent creatures like tigers, lions, whales, bear etc., but also it has number of negative effects on birds (Steven, Pickering, & Castley, 2011). Kreiner, Malikinson, Labinger, and Shtainvarz (2013) have found a cyclical interaction between the tourists and the birds. Increase in birds leads to increase in the number of tourists. But as the tourists increase, number of birds decreases. Steven, Pickering, & Castley (2011) in their review paper have found that such recreational activities like ecotourism alter physiological responses of birds that include changes in temperature, heart rate or stress hormone secretion. These activities also have negative impact on their immediate behavioral responses like changes in foraging, vigilance and evasion. In many instances, responses also include changes in reproductive success and/or the number or density of birds. The net effect of the protected areas is that the objective behind their creation is lost in the process. The investigation of Müllner, Linsenmair, & Wikelski (2004) on effects of eco-tourists on the reproductive success of hoatzins (Opisthocomus hoazin) and on hormonal status of their chicks in Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador by comparing birds from undisturbed and from tourist-exposed nests reflects that chick survival is much lower at tourist-exposed nests than at undisturbed nests. Increased number of tourists in the marine protected areas also causes much damage to coral reefs and marine organisms. Dive tourism which is a major commercial activity in marine protected areas leads to damage of the reefs for the direct physical contact of the divers with their hands, body equipments and fin (Hasler & Ott, 2008; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001). Rouphael and Inglis (2001) have well presented the gender differences in environmental damage by the scuba divers in Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. While female divers are more cautious and thus cause much harm, male counterparts are more adventurous causing more environmental damage to the reefs. In few cases, the visitors also recognize that overuse of forests, vegetation damage, litter, and soil-erosion are a few but significant problems that will worsen the natural experience that the site offers (Dixit & Narula, 2010). It is so because too many visitors often lead to unsustainable usage (Kruger, 2005). The author has provided a very practical line of argument that ecotourism is less sustainable in South America, Asia and in island and mountain habitats. While scholars have exemplified Galapagos Island's growth through ecotourism, Kruger perceives that lack of easy access to see wildlife in all these areas and high revenue

leakages for the structure of the economy stand as an obstacle for increase in tourists. While on the one hand, these difficulties pose problem in bringing tourists, on the other hand more number of tourists will put more pressure on the carrying capacity of the sites. Since the vast majority of visitors are pleasure seekers, they are ignorant about conservation, with attitudes and behavior incompatible with responsible ecotourism. Therefore, more tourists during the tourist season have significant negative impact on the wildlife behavior and habitat. Often the ecotourism spots experience serious trail erosion due to a high number of tourist and vehicles on certain tracks in a fragile area. Kruger (2005) has cited problems like large scale habitat restoration in Malaysia, track erosion in Costa Rican National Park, a world famous ecotourism spot, and severe pollution by garbage in the Himalaya in Nepal, and has asked the authorities to take proper initiatives to bridge the gap between policies and practice. Even the potential local benefits of ecotourism can lead to environmental damage to a protected area without careful planning and management that balance ecological, social, and economic objectives. For example, an increase in employment opportunities, road improvement, technical assistance, or health care can stimulate migration of people into the vicinity of the protected area (Gulinck et al., 2001). Baral and Heinen (2007) from their study in Bardia National Park (BNP) and Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (SWR), Nepal, find that both are under threat of political turmoil, uncontrolled immigration, inefficient land reform policies and unsustainable resource use. Because of all such problems, the local cost outweighs the benefits that the people receive from parks to some extent. In many articles, it is often pointed out that frequent human presence inside the wild ecosystem may affect the growth of both flora and fauna (Heltberg, Channing, & Sekhar, 2000; Laudati, 2010; Linde-Rahr, 2003). Laudati (2010) has emphasized the effects of extending the territory of park land into the private land of rural farmers. The dispossession of private land and loss of control over the land use necessitate farmers to venture into wildlife areas for food and survival. This leads to severe loss of life for which the author claims that people residing near Bwindi National Park, Uganda consider that ecotourism is a ‘Trojan horse’. The locals in Western Terai landscape of Nepal also have the same kind of view that non-availability of alternative sources of livelihood compels them to depend heavily on forest resources which affect in meeting the objective of ecotourism. On the other hand increase in the number of wild animals for the protected status of the wildlife sanctuaries has resulted in increase in people-wildlife conflict. The lives of the people and also the live stocks are at risk. Though people receive compensation for loss, these are inadequate and the process is very tedious. This makes the benefit not worth of (Sawhney, 2003). Moreover the problem of political turmoil, uncontrolled immigration, and inefficient land reform policies along with the most dreadful unsustainable resource use distorts the very concept of ecotourism (Baral & Heinen, 2007). Gossling et al. (2005) through their different case studies have questioned the eco-efficiency of ecotourism. Their analysis has reflected that ecotourism does not always serve the purpose of reducing green-house gas emissions. Giving the example of Seychelles, they have given a very shocking truth that concurrent emissions of CO2-e are seven times larger in Seychelles than the world average. The authors who have supported ecotourism development in protected areas consider that ecotourism provides an alternative to the exploitative use of environmental resources. Ecotourism as explained by the authors recognizes the principles of sustainable tourism, as it minimizes environmental impact and contributes to conservation either through direct effort like reforestation and habitat restoration, or through indirect effort like financial benefits. However, many authors have also pointed out that the potential local benefits of ecotourism can lead to environmental damage to a protected area without careful planning and management that balance ecological, social, and economic objectives. Considering many examples from the world, the authors have

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

questioned the eco-efficiency of ecotourism. Their analysis has reflected that ecotourism does not always serve the purpose of biodiversity conservation. 3.5. Conflict management between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism Eco-labeling often induces firms to adopt green technologies that can reduce pollution (Amacher, Koskela & Ollikainen, 2004). Thus in, the midst of an array of problems, ecotourism will help in retaining as much as possible of what remains of wild nature through a sensible combination of sustainable use, conservation and compensation for local people wherever necessary, makes a great economic sense (Balmford et al., 2002). Looking at our callous attitude toward exploitation of natural habitats, it is very much imperative that overall human welfare is eroding for short-term private gain. Lack of clear conceptualization of ecotourism as well as struggle between the traditional and conventional values by the locals often create major problems. A bright example of Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary, Kenya can be given here. The sanctuary that was awarded the prestigious ‘Silver Otter’, in 1996 by the British Guild of Travel Writers (BGTW) is now criticized for the institutional failure and corruptive practice. This has led to increasing resentment by the Kimana community (Southgate, 2006). Lack of the possession of related resources including finance and management skill as well as knowledge to get involved in ecotourism development are also some of the major barriers resulting in withdrawal of community support. The Maasai Group living near Kenya's Amboseli National Park raises their voices as “It is we the Maasai who suffer from conservation. Wild animals eat our grass, kill our animals, destroy our shambas and kill our people … yet Kenya Wildlife Service only gives us a token compensation,” (pp. 87). It is to be noted here that the park attracts more than 200,000 tourists annually. But few Maasai have derived any substantial benefits from the thriving tourism sector. While some local men and youths have gained employment as waiters and guards, many jobs are filled by non-Maasai Kenyans. Even the traditional Maasai dances which entertain safari tourists each evening are now performed by non-Maasai Kenyans (Southgate, 2006). All such policy drawbacks that raise conflict between people and policy are to be given due attention (Lai & Nepal, 2006). Therefore to make the policy a successful one, ecotourism should be introduced in a progressive way with proper planning and be accompanied by a general educational pilot program related to sustainable use of natural and cultural resources (Gulinck et al., 2001). Once conservation in integrated with the development needs of the people, it will be a successful policy (Safafsky, 2011). Proper management of the ecotourism sites is one of the major key factors of their success. The dynamics of the three major stakeholders: (a) resources, (b) community, and (c) tourists are most important for the success of ecotourism and thus they are to be managed properly. To protect resources and meet the conservation strategies, the administrative body must restrict the scope of recreational use (Robinson, Torvik, & Verdier, 2006). Strategies like carrying capacity, regulatory practices for the vehicles, and code of conduct for the tourists should be introduced so as to minimize the negative effect of rising number of eco-tourists (Tsaur, Lin, & Lin, 2006). The notion of criteria and indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management (SFM) is another technique that can be used to assess the activities and suggest some guidelines towards better management of natural resources (Dutta, Guha, & Chattopadhyay, 2010). Involvement of the local community in the entire process is another key element of success in such conservational policies, because sustainable management of protected areas ultimately depends on the co-operation and support of the local people (Owinio, Jillo, & Kenana, 2012; Tomićević, Margaret, & Milovanovi, 2010; Tsaur et al., 2006; Karanth, Kramer, Qian, & Christensen, 2008; Ghate, 2013). public compensation and community co-management should be introduced to solve the conflicts between community

13

economy development and biodiversity conservation (Chen et al., 2005). More awareness campaigns for both the locals and the tourists will also help in the conservation policies (Isaacs, 2000; Tsaur et al., 2006).Thus all the related agencies-governments, the local authorities, the visitors, the local community, and the developers as well as the operators have to be sensitive to the environment and local traditions and follow a set of guidelines for the successful development of ecotourism. In addition, non-governmental organizations and scientific and research institutions must play a key role in the development of ecotourism (Khanna, 2002). Reynolds & Braithwaite (2001) also mention in the same line and proclaim that a wide range of management techniques like differential tax system, educating both visitors and operators will go a long way in achieving sustainability. “Win–win scenarios”, where both natural resources are conserved and human well-being is improved in ecotourism sites are though difficult but not impossible to realize (McShane et al., 2011). Long term initiatives to integrate conservation, education, research and capacity building will help locals to know more about their biodiversity and why they should protect it (Şekercioğlu, 2012). A variety of environmental indicators should be used to reflect the trends in the environment and monitor the progress made in achieving environmental policy targets. As such, environmental indicators like DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response) can be used which can help policy-makers for better policy formulation (Gabrielsen & Bosch, 2003; Maxim, Spangenberg, & O'Connor, 2009). Gibson et al.'s (2005) eight criteria for sustainability as used in Lambert's (2009) thesis, e.g., Socio-ecological integrity, Efficiency, Sufficiency, Opportunity, Intra- & Inter-generational equity, Civility and democracy, Precaution and Immediate and long term integration are also useful for the policy makers. Development of some recognition schemes such as ‘Costa Rica Certification for Sustainable Tourism’ (CST) in Costa Rica, Australian Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) in Australia, Nature's best in Sweden can also be prepared to evaluate environmental, social and economic impacts of ecotourism (Haaland & Aas, 2010; Tepelus & Cordobci, 2005). What should be more important is that the certification programs should updated periodically to get better results. The involvement of the professionals to undertake research in updating the criterions will definitely yield better results. Along with the certification programs, introduction of external auditing and accreditation will facilitate in improving the operation of the system. The system of external auditing will also help in getting rid of the accusations like “green washing” (Haaland & Aas, 2010). Thus all these monitoring and evaluation tools of the ecotourism sites will help in proper management of the sites (Rio, & Nunes, 2012). 4. Conclusion Most of the literature about ecotourism and its impact analysis are qualitative one. The authors have mostly used descriptive analysis to come to a conclusion. Considering the experiences of ecotourism throughout the world, the present paper concludes that undoubtedly ecotourism has proven to be an effective environmental conservation tool in many cases. The success stories of Galapagos Islands, Costa Rica's ecotourism spots, Chitwan National Park (Nepal), Sunderbans (India), Periyar Tiger Reserve (India), Kilum-Ijim National Park (Central Africa), Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve (Ecuadorian Amazon region), community based tourism in Indonesia etc. are examples of such success stories. These stories reflect properly organized ecotourism, which enables local people to augment their livelihood security through employment in ecotourism related activities and small enterprise development. Regular economic gains from formal or informal sector employment and business opportunities empower the community economically. The economic empowerment results in improved infrastructures, health facilities, awareness and education of the locals which in turn empowers them socially.

14

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

Increase in standard of living of the locals also fosters respect for their own culture and helps them to participate in the program leading to cultural and political empowerment respectively. External recognition and appreciation of their resources boost their morale giving rise to psychological well-being. This inculcates a positive attitude in their minds toward conservation and ecotourism succeeds. Biodiversity becomes an income generating asset that works rationally for natural resource conservation. Therefore the study has found a mutual interdependence among the economic and socio-cultural aspects of ecotourism and conservation of natural resources. However, it is creating detrimental conditions to the natural areas owing to its mis-utilization. Many ecotourism spots are now facing growing disgruntlement at the local level hampering the very success of ecotourism policies. Tiger reserves like Kanha, Ranthambore, and Corbett National Parks in India, Antarctic cruise tourism, polar bear tourism, whale watch tourism, and dolphin watch tourism have generated much revenue for the people. With ecotourism becoming more popular, there is an increase in tourists. Increase in tourists leads to more job opportunities for people. But to our surprise, these ecotourism sites have not been successful for meeting the objective of environmental conservation for lack of proper management of protected areas and environmental consciousness among the tourists. In some cases like Lovina higher income induces influx of people in terms of migration and these results negatively on wildlife and their habitat. Growing inequity in Komodo National Park (Indonesia), Keoladeo National Park (India), Gonarezhou National Park (Zimbabwe), and Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park (Palawan, Philippines) results in the negative attitude of the locals for ecotourism. Growing people-policy conflict in Taijiang National Park (Taiwan), Puerto Bolivar (Ecuador), Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (India), and Woolong Natural Reserve (China) reflects that the policy sometimes fail to address the needs of the indigenous communities properly. In those protected areas environment is put above local people. In many cases it results in increasing quarrying, deforestation and encroachments like in Central Cardamom Protected Forest (Cambodia). All these cases reflect the failure of ecotourism to espouse the underlying principles of biodiversity conservation. The reasons behind the problems associated with ecotourism are numerous like (1) revenue leakages, as labor is drawn from urban sector instead of focusing on training of unskilled or less-skilled locals, (2) inequitable distribution of income among the locals, (3) compulsory displacement for the creation of national parks leading to large scale loss of land, homelessness, food insecurity, loss of lives and increase in morbidity, (4) restrictions in accessing sanctuary resulting in joblessness and (5) damage to crop and livestock by wildlife, (6) sticking only to gun and guard approach for preservation, (7) crowding, crime, begging, prostitution etc. associated with the increase in the number of tourists in ecotourism spots, (8) insensitive attitude of the tourist, (9) lack of education for visitors as well as locals and (10) policy gap in terms of poor planning and improper and unethical management of ecotourism. All such problems infuse negative attitude in the minds of the locals and ecotourism as a policy fails. Considering large failures of ecotourism, one can point out that ecotourism at present is a predicament. However, there is much hope for ecotourism in spite of the various loopholes in the realm of its implementation. At present economic incentives play a major role in number of sites leading to partial success of ecotourism leaving much scope for socio-cultural betterment and environmental conservation. Once there is a wholesome development, it will undoubtedly be a panacea for all the predicaments. The policy drawbacks are to be addressed adequately. Involvement of the local people through their awareness will develop their interest in such policies and they will consider themselves as stakeholders. Educating tourists about conservation and infusing awareness in them will also help in such conservation policies. Government should also take positive steps through proper monitoring and evaluation of the ecotourism sites. Proper management of the sites at each of economic, social and

environmental will also help in long term conservation. Thus one hopes to look for a positive shift in the attitude of the locals toward conservational policies. References Abbot, J.I.O., Thomas, D.H.L., Gardner, A.A., Neba, S.E., & Khen, M.W. (2001). Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda Highland, Cameroon. World Development, 29(7), 1115–1136. Amacher, S.G., Koskela, E., & Ollikainen, M. (2004). Environmental quality competition and eco labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 284–306. Arjunan, M., Holmes, C., Puyravaud, J.P., & Davidar, P. (2006). Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the Kalakad– Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management, 79(2), 188–197. Ashley, C. (2002). Methodology for pro poor tourism case studies. PPT working paper no. 10 (Retrieved from http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/436/1/ Methodology%20for%20pro-poor%20tourism%20case%20studies.pdf. on 20th August 2013). Badola, R. (2010). An assessment of ecosystem services of Corbett Tiger Reserve, India. Environmentalist, 30(4), 320–329. Badola, R., & Hussain, S.A. (2003). Conflict in paradise: Women and protected areas in the Indian Himalayas Mountain. Research and Development, 23(3), 234–237. Badola, R., & Hussain, S.A. (2005). Valuing ecosystem functions: An empirical study on the storm protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem in India. Environmental Conservation, 32(1), 85–92. Badola, R., Shibani, B., Hussain, & Ainul, S. (2012). Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: A case study from the east coast of India. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96, 188–196. Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., et al. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), 950–953. Banerjee, A. (2010, March 06). Tourism in protected areas: Worsening prospects for tigers. EPW, XLV(10). Baral, N., & Heinen, J.T. (2007). Resource use, conservation attitude, management interventions, and park-people relations in the western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 34(1), 64–72. Blangy, S., & Mehta, H. (2006). Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation, 3–4(14), 233–236. Buckley, R. (Ed.). (2004). Environmental impacts of ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Butcher, J. (2006). The United Nations International Year of Ecotourism: A critical analysis of development implications. Progress in Development Studies, 6, 146–156. C´ardenas-Torres, N., Enr´ıquez-Andrade, R., & Rodr´ıguez-Dowdell, N. (2007). Community-based management through ecotourism in Bahia de los Angeles, Mexico. Fisheries Research, 84(1), 114–118. Cattarinich, X. (2001). Pro-poor tourism initiatives in developing countries: Analysis of secondary case studies. PPT working paper no. 8 (Retrieved on 22nd August, 2013 from http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/449/1/Propoor% 20tourism%20initiatives%20in%20developing%20countries%20analysis%20of% 20secondary%20case%20studies.pdf). Cernea, M.M., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development, 34(10), 1808–1830. Chen, Z., Yang, J., & Xie, Z. (2005). Economic development of local communities and biodiversity conservation: A case study from Shennongjia National Nature Reserve, China. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(9), 2095–2108. Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73(15), 47–55. Counsell, S. (2005). Greenbacks in the Garden of Eden. Linking Circles, IV: International Funders for Indigenous Peoples, Conference Report, New York. Das, S. (2011, September 10). Ecotourism, sustainable development and the Indian state. EPW, XLVI(37). Dawson, j., Stewart, E.J., Lemelin, H., & Scott, D. (2010). The carbon cost of polar bear viewing tourism in Churchill, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 319–336. Delang, C.O. (2006). Not just the minor forest products: The economic rationale for the consumption of wild food plants by subsistence farmers. Ecological Economics, 59, 64–73. Dietz, S., & Adger, W.N. (2003). Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation efforts. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(1), 23–35. Dixit, S.K., & Narula, V.K. (2010). Ecotourism in Madhav National Park: Visitor's perspectives on environment impacts. South Asian Journal of Tourism & Heritage, 3(2), 109–115. Drumm, A. (2008). The threshold of sustainability for protected areas. Bioscience, 58(9), 782–783. Dutta, D., Guha, P., & Chattopadhyay, R.N. (2010). Application of criteria and indicators in community based sustainable mangrove management in the Sunderbans, India. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53(8), 468–477. Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C., & Peeters, P. (2010). Antarctic cruise tourism: The paradoxes of ambassadorship, “last chance tourism” and greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 337–354. Fuller, D., Buultjens, J., & Cummings, E. (2005). Ecotourism and indigenous microenterprise formation in northern Australia opportunities and constraints. Tourism Management, 26(6), 891–904. Gabrielsen, P., & Bosch, P. (2003). Environmental indicators: Typology and use in reporting. European Environment Agency (EEA) internal working paper. Copenhagen.

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16 Ghate, R. (2013). Global gains at local costs: Imposing protected areas: Evidence from Central India. Retrieved on 25th May from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ tsdw20 Goodwin, H. (2002). Local community involvement in tourism around national parks: Opportunities and constraints. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(3–4), 338–360. Gossling, S., Peters, P., Ceron, J.P., Dubois, G., Patterson, T., & Richardson, R.B. (2005). The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics, 54(4), 417–437. Guha, I., & Ghosh, S. (2007). Does tourism contribute to local livelihoods? A case study of tourism, poverty and conservation in the Indian Sundarbans. SANDEE working paper no. 26 (ISSN 1893-1891). Gulinck, H., Vyverman, N., Bouchout, K.V., & Gobin, A. (2001). Landscape as framework for integrating local subsistence and ecotourism: A case study in Zimbabwe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 173–182. Gyan, P., & Nyaupane, S.P. (2011). Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood, and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1344–1366. Haaland, H., & Aas, Ø. (2010). Eco‐tourism certification — Does it make a difference? A comparison of systems from Australia, Costa Rica and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 375–385. Hasler, H., & Ott, J.A. (2008). Diving down the reefs? Intensive diving tourism threatens the reefs of the northern Red Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(10), 1788–1794. He, G., Chen, X., Liu, W., Bearer, S., Zhou, S., Cheng, L.Y., et al. (2008). Distribution of economic benefits from ecotourism: A case study of Wolong nature reserve for giant pandas in China. Environmental Management, 42(6), 1017–1025. Heltberg, R., Channing, A., & Sekhar, N. (2000). Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation: A household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. Land Economics, 76(2), 213–232. Holden, A. (2003). In need of new environmental ethics for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 94–108. Holland, J., Burian, M., & Dixey, L. (2003). Tourism in poor rural areas. PPT working paper no. 12. ODI, IIED, ICRT (Retrieved on 25th August, 2013 from http://www.odi.org.uk/ RPEG/PPT/WP12.pdf). Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development, who owns paradise? (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Horton, L.R. (2009). Buying up nature: Economic and social impacts of Costa Rica's ecotourism boom. Latin American Perspectives, 166(36), 93–107. Hoyt, E. (2005). Sustainable ecotourism on Atlantic Islands, with special reference to whale watching, marine protected areas and sanctuaries for cetaceans. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 105b(3), 141–154. Hsu, H., & Lin, J. (2013). Benefits beyond boundaries: A slogan or reality? A case study of Taijiang National Park in Taiwan. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 41–52. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf.docs/PNADB952.pdf http://www.ecoclub.com/library/epapers/13.pdf http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20 http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=WEB/0078/PA http://www.unwto.org Hussain, S.A., & Badola, R. (2010). Valuing mangrove benefits: Contribution of mangrove forests to local livelihoods in Bhitarkanika Conservation Area, East Coast of India. Wetlands Ecological Management, 18, 321–331. Information Brochure, Mangrove forest division (WL), Rajnagar, Kendrapara, Odisha. Integrating business skills into ecotourism operations (2012). Kuoni, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Isaacs, J.C. (2000). The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 61–69. Jalani, J.O. (2012). Local people's perception on the impacts and importance of ecotourism in Sabang, Palawan, Philippines. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57(9), 247–254. Julianne, H.M., & Thomas, A.W. (2009). Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 6(8), 2087–2095. Karanth, K.K., Kramer, R.A., Qian, S.S., & Christensen, N.L., Jr. (2008). Examining conservation attitudes, perspectives, and challenges in India. Biological Conservation, 141(9), 2357–2367. Khanna, M. K. (2002). Guidelines for ecotourism in and around protected areas. Retrieved on 10th July 2012 from http://www.apo-tokyo.org/gp/e_publi/gplinkeco/10chapter8. pdf. Kirkpatrick, J.B. (2001). Ecotourism, local and indigenous people, and the conservation of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 31(4), 819–829. Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism (CBET) a good use of biodiversity conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(5), 232–237. Kolbe, R., & Brunette, M. (1991). Content analysis research: an examination of applications with directives for improving research, reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 243–250. Kreiner, N.C., Malikinson, D., Labinger, Z., & Shtainvarz, R. (2013). Are birders good for birds? Bird conservation through tourism management in the Hula Valley, Israel. Tourism Management, 38, 31–42. Kruger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora's box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 579–600. Kumar, S. (2002). Wildlife tourism in India: Need to tread with care. In B.D. Sharma (Ed.), Indian wildlife: Threats and preservation (pp. 72–94). New Delhi: Anmol Publications. Lai, P.H., & Nepal, S.K. (2006). Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1117–1129. Lambert, E.E. (2009). Nature island tourism: Applying an eco-tourism sustainability framework to the island of Dominica. (Master's Thesis, Retrieved on 2nd September, 2012 from Proquest Dissertations and Theses).

15

Laudati, A.A. (2010). The encroaching forest: Struggles over land and resources on the boundary of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Society and Natural Resources, 23(8), 76–789. Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China's nature reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. Tourism Management, 25(5), 559–564. Li, T., & Cavusgil, S. (1995). A classification and assessment of research streams in international marketing. International Business Review, 4(3), 251–277. Libosada, C.M., Jr. (2009). Business or leisure? Economic development and resource protection-concepts and practices in sustainable tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management, 52(7), 390–394. Linde-Rahr, M. (2003). Property rights and deforestation: The choice of fuel wood source in rural Vietnam. Land Economics, 79, 217–234. Lusseau, D., & Higham, J.E.S. (2004). Managing the impacts of dolphin-based tourism through the definition of critical habitats: The case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 25(6), 657–667. Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. (2001). Conservation policy-people conflicts: A case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, a world heritage site, India. Forest Policy and Economic, 2(3–4), 355–365. Martin, R.A. (2007). A review of behavioural ecology of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus). Fisheries Research, 84(1), 10–16. Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J.H., & O'Connor, M. (2009). An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics, 69, 12–23. McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., et al. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966–972. Mihalic, T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management, 21(1), 65–75. Mishra, B.K., Badola, R., & Bharadwaj, A.K. (2009). Social issues and concerns in biodiversity conservation: Experiences from wildlife protected areas in India. Tropical Ecology, 50(1), 147–161. Müllner, A., Linsenmair, K.E., & Wikelski, M. (2004). Exposure to ecotourism reduces survival and affects stress response in hoatzin chicks (Opisthocomus Hoazin). Biological Conservation, 118(4), 549–558. Mustika, P.L.K., Birtles, A., Welters, R., & Marsh, H. (2012). The economic influence of community based dolphin watching on a local economy in a developing country: Implications for conservation. Ecological Economics, 79, 11–20. Nyuapane, G.P., & Poudel, S. (2011). Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1344–1366. Orams, M.B. (2000). Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all about? Tourism Management, 21(6), 561–569. Owinio, O.A., Jillo, A.H., & Kenana, M.L. (2012). Socio-economics and wildlife conservation of a peri-urban national park in central Kenya. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(6), 384–392. Parras, D.A. (2001). Coastal Resource Management in the Philippines: A Case Study in the Central Visayas Region. Journal of Environment & Development, 10(1), 80–103. Perkins, H., & Grace, D.A. (2014). Ecotourism: Supply of nature or tourist demand? Journal of Ecotourism, 8(3), 223–236. Reimer, J.K. (Kila), & Walter, P. (2013). How do you know it when you see it? Community-based ecotourism in the Cardamom Mountains of southwestern Cambodia. Tourism Management, 34, 122–132. Reynolds, P.C., & Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 22(1), 31–42. Rio, D., & Nunes, L.M. (2012). Monitoring and evaluation tool for tourism destinations. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 64–66. Robinson, J.A., Torvik, R., & Verdier, T. (2006). Political foundations of the resource curse. Journal of Development Economics, 79, 447–468. Rouphael, A.B., & Inglis, G.J. (2001). “Take only photographs and leave only footprints”?: An experimental study of the impacts of underwater photographers on coral reef dive sites. Biological Conservation, 100(3), 281–287. Rowat, D., & Engelhardt, U. (2007). Seychelles: A case study of community involvement in the development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact. Fisheries Research, 84(1), 109–113. Salafsky, N. (2011). Integrating development with conservation: A means to a conservation end or a mean end to conservation? Biological Conservation, 144(3), 973–978. Salafsky, N., & Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development, 28(8), 1421–1438. Salvador, S., Clavero, M., & Pitman, R.L. (2011). Large mammal species richness and habitat use in an upper Amazonian forest used for ecotourism. Mammalian Biology, 76(2), 115–123. Sawhney, P. (2003). People–park interaction: A case of Bandhavgarh National Park, India. In P. Velk, M. Denish, C. Martius, & N. Giesen (Eds.), Ecology and Development Series No. 5. (pp. 29–154). Scheyvens, R. (2000). Promoting women's empowerment through involvement in ecotourism: Experiences from the third world. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(3), 232–249. Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. In C.M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction (pp. 121–144). Clevedon, England: Channel View. Seetanah, B. (2011). Assessing the dynamic economic impact of tourism for island economies. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 291–308. Şekercioğlu, C.H. (2012). Promoting community-based bird monitoring in the tropics: Conservation, research, environmental education, capacity-building, and local incomes. Biological Conservation, 151, 69–73.

16

M. Das, B. Chatterjee / Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 3–16

Sekhar, N.U. (2003). Local people's attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(4), 339–347. Shah, A. (2007, Jul. 14–20). Management of protected areas: Exploring an alternative in Gir. EPW, 42(No. 27/28). Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development. Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19. Sharpley, R. (2006). Ecotourism: A consumption perspective. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1–2), 7–22. Southgate, C.R.J. (2006). Ecotourism in Kenya: The vulnerability of communities. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1–2), 80–96. Springer, J. (2009). Addressing the social impacts of conservation: Lessons from experience and future directions. Conservation and Society, 7(1), 26–29. Starmer-Smith, C. (2004, November 6). Ecofriendly tourism on the rise. Daily Telegraph Travel, 6. Steven, R., Pickering, C., & Castley, J.G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2287–2294. Stone, K., Bhat, M., Bhatta, R., & Mathews, A. (2008). Factors influencing community participation in mangroves restoration — A contingent valuation analysis. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51(6), 476–484. Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 210–221. Surendran, A., & Sekhar, C. (2011). A comparative analysis on the socio-economic welfare of dependents of the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR) in India. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 5(3), 361–379. Sutawa, G.K. (2012). Issues on Bali tourism development and community empowerment to support sustainable tourism development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4, 413–422. Taylor, J.E., Hardner, J., & Stewart, M. (2006). Ecotourism and economic growth in the Galapagos: An island economy-wide analysis. Working paper no. 06-001. Davis: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California. Tepelus, C.M., & Cordobci, R.C. (2005). Recognition schemes in tourism — From eco to sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), 135–140. Thien, O.S. (2009). Women empowerment through tourism—From social entrepreneur perspective. (Master's Thesis) Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University And Research Centre (WUR). Tomićević, J., Margaret, A., & Milovanovi, M. (2010). Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 157–162. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633.

Tsaur, S., Lin, Y., & Lin, j. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism Management, 27(4), 640–653. Wood, M.E. (2002). Ecotourism: principles, practices, & policies for sustainability. United Nations Publication. Wu, Y., Wang, H., & Ho, Y. (2010). Urban ecotourism: Defining and assessing dimensions using fuzzy number construction. Tourism Management, 31, 739–743. Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives—An empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 465–479 (www.ecotourism.org.). Zambrano, A.A., Broadbent, A.N., & Durham, W.H. (2010). Social and environmental effects of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. Journal of Ecotourism, 9(1), 62–83. Madhumita Das is a research scholar at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and is currently working on her Ph.D. thesis on the impacts of ecotourism. She has a special interest in sustainable tourism management and currently focuses in ecotourism practices at Bhitarkanika National Park, Odisha, India.

Bani Chatterjee is currently serving as a professor of Economics at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. She has a long teaching and research experience of more than 40 years. She has guided many scholars and has a large number of research articles in reputed journal and edited books. She has also served many administrative positions such as dean, head, board of governing members etc.