The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism

Chapter 3

Ecotourists: Not a Homogeneous
Market Segment

P.A. Wight

Pam Wight and Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Who is the Ecotourist? There is no clear agreement on
ecotourism
The purpose of this chapter is to consoli-
date reliable information about ecotourism As Wylie (1994) points out, there are many
markets, from as global a perspective as dimensions of ecotourism. It can be seen as
possible. Sections will examine the iden- an activity, a business, a philosophy, a mar-
tity of ecotourists, trends, market and trip keting device, a symbol, or a set of princi-
characteristics, origins and destinations, ples and goals. Since no universally
satisfaction and motivations, as well as accepted definition exists, there is consid-
information to assist in reaching the eco- erable overlap with nature, adventure and
tourist market. culture markets (Center for Tourism Policy
Studies, 1998; Klenosky et al., 1998) (see
The oft-asked question, ‘Who are eco- also Chapter 5). For example, US Travel
tourists?’ has no definitive answer for many Data Center research (TIAA, 1994) found
reasons, including the limited studies of that 50% of travelling adult Americans
markets, poor definitional understanding, (146.9 million) had taken an ‘adventure
and the fact that ecotourist markets are not vacation’ in the past 5 years. However,
homogeneous. Despite the large body of lit- many of the activities described could
erature on ecotourism, markets’ studies are apply to ecotourists (46% had taken soft
limited to destination area markets, to tour adventure vacations, including camping,
operator perceptions, or to more general bird-watching, animal watching, hiking,
studies of nature or adventure-based snorkelling and scuba-diving). Also, of
tourists. Studies tend to discuss general those who had not taken any adventure
growth in interest, or markets to particular trips, over one-quarter (28%) indicated
destinations, rather than identifying charac- they would probably do so in the next 5
teristics, preferences and motivations of years. This would mean that over 60%
broad ‘origin’ populations. Studies at the have taken or will take an adventure vaca-
global scale do not exist. tion, of which many activities are consid-
ered to overlap with ecotourism.

Agreement on a definition, however,
does not provide a sufficient basis for reli-
able measurement of any concept (Blamey,

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism 37
(ed. D.B. Weaver)

38 P.A. Wight

1995). A number of tourism products can shown in Table 3.1. The conclusions are
incorporate elements of adventure, such as that ‘nearly half the travelling public have
excitement or the outdoors, which may be an underlying disposition towards nature
with or without the components that and learning as part of their vacation’
together contribute to ecotourism. These (Charters, 1999). Overall, Tourism Queens-
include education, interpretation, and land considers almost 30% of the travelling
environmental and cultural protection. public as ecotourists. Only 1.6% of these
Further, even when there is an educational respondents see the term ecotourism as a
focus, this may not necessarily relate to the ‘fad’. Over half (51.5%) see ecotourism as
environment. Similarly, nature-based mar- environmentally friendly tourism that is
kets are not necessarily ecotourists (Wight, not harmful to the environment.
1993; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1998), because
the mere desire to be in/see natural envi- The market has previously been seg-
ronments does not equate with being eco- mented many different ways (e.g. free inde-
logically benign or beneficial. Confusion pendent travellers (FIT), group, business,
about the identity of ecotourists may help pleasure, occasional, frequent, experi-
to explain the wide range of ecotourism enced, specialized, general, etc.). However,
growth projections. in any destination, one individual may
belong to more than one segment. In addi-
Ecotourism markets are not homogeneous tion, ecotourists can be viewed as soft
through to hard (Wight, 1993; Weiler and
Even if a definition is established, eco- Richins, 1995; Diamantis, 1999) with
tourism markets are not a homogeneous respect to degree of interest in nature,
group. In the same way that there is a spec- degree of physical challenge, difficulty or
trum of products/experiences which may comfort, occasional or frequent, or portion
be termed ecotourism, there is also great of total trip desired to be ecotourism activi-
variation in the activities, motivations and ties (see Chapter 2). This chapter attempts
characteristics of markets: a spectrum of to examine the market as a whole.
demand (Wight, 1993). Indeed, individuals
may be interested in a number of overlap- Trends Affecting Ecotourism
ping experiences and activities.
Increased overall demand
In Australia, Tourism Queensland sur-
veyed residents and found that ‘consumers’ Ecotourism has been considered the fastest
interest in ecotourism lies along a spec- growing area of tourism for many years
trum based on a number of elements’ (Cook et al., 1992; Laarman and Durst,
(Ecotrends, 1999). These elements of 1993; Parker, 1993; WTO News, 1997,
understanding were: 1998). One of the trends fuelling this

• taking vacations in natural locations; Table 3.1. Degree of commitment/understanding of
• understanding the term ecotourism; ecotourism (Ecotrends, 1999).
• attitudes towards nature and nature-
Class of ecotourist % of Respondents
based tourism;
• reasons for choosing where to take a Definite 27.2
Probable 20.6
vacation, in particular the role of nature Possible 18.2
and learning about nature; No commitment/limited
• the extent of planning for the vacation; 32.2
• nature-based activities conducted while understanding 780
on vacation. Total number of respondents

The survey used cluster analysis (Law,
1999, personal communication) to classify
respondents into four major classes, as

Ecotourists 39

growth is the increasing propensity of trav- on the activity (e.g. in Australia, outback
ellers to take life-enriching vacations that safari tour average annual growth rates are
involve education, the outdoors and nature 47% for Germans, 21% for Swiss and 44%
(Wylie, 1997, citing Mass, 1995). The for other Europeans, but only 5% for
desire to learn and experience nature is Scandinavians; Blamey, 1995).
influenced by changing attitudes to the
environment (based on the recognition of Many estimates are probably too high,
interrelationships among species and being based on an overly liberal definition
ecosystems), development of environmen- of the soft ecotourist. Suffice it to say that
tal education in primary and secondary demand is strong and growing. However, it
schools, and the emergence of environmen- is also changing, deepening and broaden-
tal mass media (Eagles and Higgins, 1998). ing. Further data that are specific to eco-
tourism and nature-based tourism are
One of the most important trends is the clearly required before its size, significance
ageing of populations in those countries and growth can be estimated accurately.
where the international market demand for
ecotourism is centred: North America, Mainstreaming
Northern Europe and, to a lesser extent,
Japan. As people age they are attracted less There is a shift of interest by wider tourism
to active, dangerous, outdoor recreational markets toward experiencing the natural
activities, and more to appreciative and environment (WTO News, 1997), and to
less strenuous activities. This change in greater awareness about environmentally
demographics is creating more demand for and socially benign travel (TIAA, 1994;
both ecotourism trips and related soft Center for Tourism Policy Studies, 1998). A
adventure and culture trips (HLA/ARA, North American survey of travellers in
1994; Eagles, 1995). Mature Americans middle to upper income households found
(55+) account for 21% of the total US pop- that 77% have taken vacations which
ulation, and by the year 2010 this is include a nature/adventure/culture com-
expected to rise to 25% (75 million). This ponent, and the remainder intend to do so
rapid growth of mature travellers, com- in the future (HLA/ARA, 1994). In
bined with their financial ability and avail- Australia, about a quarter of adults
ability of leisure time, make them an reported being likely to take a nature-based
excellent potential market. This trend is trip in the next 12 months that involves
also evident in Canada, the EU and Japan learning about nature (Blamey, 1995).
(Center for Tourism Policy Studies, 1998). These are significant numbers, and all the
more credible because of their consistency
Growth estimates of ecotourism vary across an array of origin regions.
considerably (7–30%), even within one
organization. In October 1997, the World Operators offering ecotourism in the
Tourism Organisation (WTO News, 1997) Asia-Pacific region identified that a broad-
presented information to indicate that eco- ening of the clientele for ecotourism and a
tourism ‘now accounts for between 10 and high growth in both the number of clients
15 per cent of world tourism’, but by taking ecotours (23.4%), and the revenues
December, they had revised their estimates that they generate (18.3%), were key trends
upward to 20%, under the title Ecotourism, in the Asia-Pacific region over the period
Now One-Fifth of Market (WTO News, 1993–1995 (Lew, 1998a, b). A number of
1998). To add a level of complexity, rates of studies in North America and Australia
growth vary by destination, and even by highlight the fact that the profile of potential
region. For example, estimates for Australia ecotourists tends to be broader than the pro-
vary from 5 to 10% of domestic nature- file of actual ecotourists. Blamey and Hatch
based tourism experiences, but much (1998) state that as ecotourism becomes
higher percentages in some locations, such more extreme or specialized, the profile of
as the wet tropics. Additionally, growth participants becomes narrower, and less
varies by country of origin, and may depend

40 P.A. Wight

representative of source populations. How- The relationship between income and
ever, other opinions abound. Lew’s view activities varies. In Australia, there were
(1998b) is that while the trends appear to relatively high intentions to visit a natural
show that ‘ecotourism is about to break out attraction or national park in the upcoming
of the limited speciality travel market, they 12 months, whether or not respondents
actually reflect broader patterns found had a full-time or part-time job. Potential
throughout the tourism industry’. Epler ecotourists are only slightly more likely to
Wood (1998) indicates that ecotourism oper- have higher gross incomes than non-eco-
ators say their clientele is both broadening tourists (Blamey, 1995). Yet, participation
and deepening to attract inexperienced trav- in various activities may vary by income:
ellers. In fact, since ecotourism is actually a the most affluent US travellers (household
subset of sustainable tourism, then whether income > US$50,000) participated more
ecotourism markets are mainstreaming in snorkelling/scuba-diving (39%) and
(Wight, 1995) or whether the entire tourism sailing (29%); those with US$20,000–
industry is experiencing a shift, may be a $30,000 hiked more. The least affluent
moot point; what matters is that the trends (< US$20,000) camped more than the most
exist. affluent (95% vs. 77%) (TIAA, 1994).

Market Characteristics Occupation

There are few globally significant eco- Little information exists on occupation, but
tourism studies. In Europe, a known source in the USA, 35% of ecotourists are
of ecotourism demand, there are no sub- professional/managerial (TIAA, 1994). In
stantial studies. This chapter will therefore Australia, those with the highest propen-
focus on Canada, the USA, UK and sity to participate in nature-based activities
Australia, where rigorous studies have were professional/technical; this group
taken place, and are summarized in Tables constitutes a larger percentage of visitors
3.2, 3.9 and 3.12. In addition, information overall (Blamey and Hatch, 1998). In fact,
will be presented which may relate to blue collar, skilled trades, students and
nature-based, adventure, or nature/adven- clerical/sales generally participate more
ture/culture markets. Table 3.2 summarizes than their percentage of visitation over-
ecotourism and related markets’ character- all, although this percentage varies by
istics. The text expands, rather than repeats activity.
the information.

Income Education

In general, household incomes are higher There is a finding in all the sampled mar-
for ecotourists than for travellers overall kets that ecotourists are generally well edu-
(Backman and Potts, 1993; Liu, 1994; cated. In North America 75% of general
Eagles and Cascagnette, 1995). However, and 96% of experienced ecotourists had
this is not supported by a US adventure/ degrees or at least some college education.
outdoors travel survey (TIAA, 1994), nor In the UK, 61% of frequent ecotourists
by a previous survey of US ecotourists, were educated to degree or postgraduate
which found little divergence from the level (Diamantis, 1998). This was related to
income profiles of the average traveller income; the higher the educational status
(Cook et al., 1992). Diamantis (1999) found of frequent ecotourists, the higher their
that while age affected incomes, the major- total income earnings. However, studies
ity of UK ecotourists had mid- to high- show interest in ecotourism at all levels of
range incomes. education.

Table 3.2. Profiles of ecotourists and related travellers.

Market US adventure North American North American Can
characteristics and outdoor general experienced eco
travellera ecotouristb ecotouristsb
N = 1172 N = 1384 N = 424

Household 76% > US$30,000 Live in No information 57%
income (CDN$40,000) neighbourhoods 36%
with > US$35,000 ave
Age 24% < US$30,000 (CDN$45,000)
(CDN$40,000) C
Gender
Household 18% > US$75,000 10% 18–24 2% 18–24 46%
(CDN$100,000) 24% 25–34 20% 25–34 22%
Education 25% 35–44 28% 35–44 11%
51% 25–40 18% 45–54 28% 45–54 11%
25% 45–64 23% 55+ 23% 55+
10% 65+
Average is 40 Males and females, Males and females, 50
varies by activity varies by activity
51% male (vs. 60%
travellers overall), 44% couples 47% couples No
varies by activity families families

66% married 45% college grads 82% college >6
(vs. 56% 30% some college graduates e
travellers 21% high school
overall) 5% some HS 14% some college 24%
4% high school s
50% have children 1% some HS
(vs. 37% travellers
overall)

41% completed
college

nadian Australian UK group UK group
otouristsc ecotouristsd frequent occasional
ecotouristse ecotouristsf
N = 379 N = 247

% > CDN$50,000 Higher incomes 13% < £10,000 33% < £10,000
% > CDN$70,000 15% £10–15,000 12% £10–15,000
erage 22% £15–20,000 14% £15–20,000
CDN$64,000 17% £20–25,000 14% £20–25,000
12% £25–30,000
% 45–64 21% > £30,000 9% £25–30,000
% 35–44 18% > £30,000
% 25–34 36% 20–29 7% 17–24
% 70+ 23% 30–39 15% 25–34 28% 17–24
27% 50+ 27% 35–44 28% 25–34
: 50 24% 45–54 16% 35–44
18% 55+ 17% 45–54 Ecotourists
o information 11% 55+
55% female 54% females
57% females
45% male, 46% males 43% males

varies by activity 54% single
39% married
No information 58% married 7% divorced
34% single
8% divorced

64% university All levels, but 38% first degree 46% first degree
education 22% secondary
% some post potential 25% secondary
secondary education
ecotourists tend education 21% postgrad.
11% high school
to be more highly 23% postgrad.
Continued
educated 15% high school

41

Table 3.2. Continued

Market US adventure North American North American Can
characteristics and outdoor general experienced eco
Party travellera ecotouristb ecotouristsb No
composition/ N = 1172 N = 1384 N = 424
travelling 59% couples 61% couples No
companions 58% couple 26% families with 15% family
36% with (grand) 13% alone
Occupation children
children 7% alone No information
34% with other adults
11% with (grand) No information

parents
4% alone

35% professional/
manager

14% blue collar
12% retired
10% clerical

a TIAA, 1994; b HLA/ARA, 1994; c Eagles and Cascagnette, 1995; d Blamey and Hatch, 1998; e

nadian Australian UK group UK group 42 P.A. Wight
otouristsc ecotouristsd frequent occasional
ecotouristse ecotouristsf
o information N = 379 N = 247

30% couples 66% one 63% one
14% family/friends 18% two 15% two
45% alone (visitors 9% three 9% three
4% four 5% four
less likely to be 3% other 9% other
unaccompanied)

o information Professionals No information No information

greatest number

e Diamantis, 1998; f Diamantis, 1999.

Ecotourists 43

Age Gender

Although it cannot be assumed that all The tradition of male dominance in nature-
park visitors are ecotourists, Australian based activities has been superseded by
national parks have broad appeal, and visi- female dominance. In North America, both
tation by each age group is roughly propor- males and females are equally interested,
tional to shares of total visitors in these but participation varies by activity. In
groups. This is unlike most other nature- Australia, 55% of ecotourists are women,
based activities, where participation is and women aged 20–29 are the most active
greatest among those aged 20–29 years of all nature-based participants (Blamey
(Blamey and Hatch, 1998). Diamantis and Hatch, 1998). Similarly, a higher pro-
(1998) found that two-thirds of UK eco- portion of US adventure/outdoor travellers
tourists were aged 25–54. Similarly, in are women, compared with the profile of
North America, most ecotourists were aged average US travellers, with popularity of
25–54 (67% general ecotourism, 76% expe- various activities varying by gender (e.g.
rienced; HLA/ARA, 1994). However, all snorkel/scuba 35% of males: 26% of
ages are interested in ecotourism with a females; kayak/white-water rafting 29% of
tendency for general or occasional eco- males: 19% of females; sailing 30% of
tourists to be younger, and more frequent females: 22% of males) (TIAA, 1994). In
or experienced ecotourists to be older. the UK, Diamantis (1998, 1999) found more
female ecotourists (both frequent and occa-
Most market surveys use adults as their sional), and a relationship between gender
base, so it is difficult to obtain participa- and age: young frequent ecotourists were
tion rates for children. Previous studies predominantly female, while males were
have indicated that a large proportion of equally distributed between the young and
ecotourists appear to be childless or older age groups.
‘empty-nesters’ (Reingold, 1993; WTO,
1994), but there is evidence that eco- The reason for this increase in female
tourism and nature-based visitation has participation is not clear, but could be
broad appeal. Family vacations became a related to women’s increasing indepen-
major trend in the 1990s (49% increase in a dence and incomes, the higher population
decade; The Center for Tourism Policy of older women, their growing majority in
Studies, 1998). In the USA, 36% of adven- universities (and thus their higher educa-
ture/outdoor parties take children or grand- tion levels), and the desire to socialize with
children (TIAA, 1994). In Australia, 61% of like-minded women. Other factors consider
respondents with children intended to visit that ecotourism may be an acceptable way
a natural area in the next 12 months as for women to travel on their own, and that
opposed to 48% of those without children greater safety and security are available in
(Blamey, 1995, quoting a Newspoll study). guided tours. Whatever the reasons, eco-
tourism is satisfying women’s needs and
Age may influence activity participation desires. This may be inadvertent, although
rates. In the USA, those under 24 years there are a number of commercial operators
have a higher than average participation specializing in women’s groups.
rate for physically demanding activities
such as hiking, kayaking/white-water raft- Trip Characteristics
ing, biking, rock-climbing and sailing
(TIAA, 1994). In Australia, those under 24 In North America, ecotourists are more fre-
were more interested in bushwalking/out- quent travellers, with 41% having travelled
back/safari tours; scuba-divers/snorkellers out of their state/province six or more
were mainly 25–34; and most of those vis- times in the previous 3 years, versus 24%
iting a national/state park were 55 and over of travellers in general. This amounts to an
(Blamey, 1995). average of two or more trips per year.

44 P.A. Wight

Season eral tourist or vacationer tends to stay for a
shorter time than the nature-based trav-
There has been little information in the lit- eller. Yuan and Moisey (1992) found that
erature on what times of the year eco- Montana visitors interested in wildland-
tourism travellers prefer to travel, and that based activities spent more time in the
which exists is often contradictory or state than non-wildland-based visitors
ambiguous. The majority of North (8.22 days backpacking and 5.99 in nature
American ecotourists prefer to travel in study, vs. non-wildland-based visitors,
summer (23% June, 40% July, 40% who spent only 3.66 days). In addition, the
August). However, there is winter interest, ecotourism portion of the trip may be quite
and strong shoulder season interest (16% different from the total trip duration. One
May, to 29% September). Experienced eco- half of North Americans preferred eco-
tourists, who tend to be more frequent tourism portions of trips to be over 1 week
travellers, are more interested in all sea- (this portion is not known for experienced
sons of travel, particularly shoulder sea- ecotourists) (HLA/ARA, 1994; Wight, 1996)
sons. This finding presents useful (Fig. 3.1).
opportunities for destinations to extend
their season well into shoulder seasons and In Australia, nature-based visitors spent
beyond. In any case, both the destination a longer time (average 33 nights) in the
and reason for travel have some bearing on country than the traveller average of 24
season of travel. nights. But most nature-based visitors on
an organized tour went for a day, a half-day
Trip length or less (not overnight). Only 20% took
tours of four or more nights; the average
Ecotourists’ trip length varies tremen- length was 2.9 nights, although for males it
dously, and may vary by activity. The gen- was 3.4 nights vs. 2.3 for females (Blamey
and Hatch, 1998).

Thus, trip length may vary by destina-

50%
50

North American ecotourists (%) 45
40%

40 40%
35%

35

30 28%

25 24% 27% 23%

20 21%
15
10 10%

5 1% 1% 1% 4–7 8–14 > 14
1–3
0
<1

Trip length (days)
General consumer, total trip
Experienced ecotourist, total trip

General consumer, ecotourism portion of trip
Fig. 3.1. Preferred trip length for North American ecotourists (Wight, 1996).

Ecotourists 45

tion. Very often, for more distant locations, quent ecotourists were not concerned
the length of stay is understandably greater. about the expensive price, hence it was not
For example, nature-based travellers stay a determinant during the decision making
an average of five nights at their destina- process’ (Diamantis, 1998).
tion in the south-east USA (Backman and
Potts, 1993), yet in Alaska, conservation Willingness to pay is not the same thing
group trips averaged 12 days (ARA et al., as actual expenditures, but expenditure
1991). Trip length may also vary by origin. studies support willingness-to-pay studies.
National park visitors from all countries Montana tourists interested in wildland-
stayed longer in Australia than non- based activities spent 25–50% more per
national park visitors, and some origins day than non-wildland tourists (Yuan and
stayed more than twice the average of 23 Moisey, 1992). Canadian ecotourists spent
nights (UK and Ireland, Scandinavia, considerably more per day than general
Switzerland). Trip length may also vary by Canadian travellers (Eagles and Cascagnette,
activities, as in Australia (Table 3.3). 1995). US outdoor/adventure travellers
spent US$871 on average. Those who spent
Expenditures and willingness to spend the most had the highest incomes
(US$1275) and were older (US$1461 over
One quarter of North American ecotourists 65s); those who spent least were aged
were prepared to spend US$2000 per per- 25–34 (US$589) and had the lowest house-
son per trip that involved ecotourism expe- hold incomes (US$326). Also, men spent
riences and, on average, would be willing more than women (US$908 vs. US$831)
to spend US$238 per person per day (TIAA, 1994).
excluding travel (HLA/ARA, 1994). The
more specialized ecotourists had a higher Ecotourists have been found to have dif-
willingness to spend. ferences in expenditure characteristics
from other visitors going to the same nat-
Laarman and Gregersen (1996) point out ural areas. For example, Leones et al.,
that certain destinations or sites (‘jewels of (1998) found that nature tourists spend
nature’) have high scarcity value, and so more per trip in Sierra Vista, Arizona
markets are more willing to pay for these (US$177 per party), than other visitors
products, compared with sites for which (US$111) to the same natural areas, but
several alternatives provide roughly similar they stay longer; thus per diem expendi-
experiences. However, they point out that tures are lower. Similarly, in Australia,
willingness to pay also reflects such experi- nature-based visitors spend considerably
ence-enhancing features as presence and more while in Australia than other visitors,
quality of accommodation, guide service, with average expenditure amounting to
ground transportation and cooperative gov- AU$2256 (13% more than that spent by
ernments. UK ecotourists claim that eco- other visitors, in part because of their
tourism holidays are not expensive (59.9% longer duration of stay). But their average
agreement overall) which ‘suggests that fre- expenditure per night is only AU$78
excluding tour costs (vs. AU$90 for all
visitors) (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

Table 3.3. Trip length varies by activity (Blamey, 1995).

Nights by international visitors engaged in selected activities in Australia

Bush Scuba- Rock- Horse riding/ Outback Wildflower All
walking diving/ climbing/ trail safari viewing visitors
snorkelling mountaineering riding tours
49 44 23
37 58 74 64

46 P.A. Wight

Those strongly motivated to visit Table 3.4. Influence on trip expenditure of desire to
Australia’s natural areas had the greatest visit natural areas (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).
expenditures, with AU$3222 per person
spent per trip (Table 3.4). Also, as in North Importance of ‘desire to visit Expenditure
America, visitor expenditure varies by natural areas’, as per trip (AU$)
activity, as well as by country of origin. motivator to visit Australia
Expenditures were greatest, on average, for
horse/trail riding, followed by outback Most important motivator 3222
safari tours, and rock-climbing/moun- Major factor 2778
taineering. Those markets who spend the Influence, but not major 1946
most, on average, are Swiss, German, Little or no influence 2202
Scandinavian, other European, Canadian and
‘other Asian’ (Blamey and Hatch, 1998). Total nature-based trip expenditure 2256
(excluding tour costs)
The essence of these studies is similar:
ecotourists tend to spend more than the Table 3.5. Most popular Asia-Pacific destinations
average traveller. However, while eco- (Lew, 1998b).
tourists in general are willing to spend sub-
stantially more than most tourists, they Destination country Tour companies
expect value for their expenditures. They or region (%)
tend to be experienced, discerning trav-
ellers who are willing to pay for quality Indonesia 40.0
experiences. The price that an ecotourism India 32.5
operator charges may have little bearing on Australia 30.0
the value of the product. As McKercher Nepal 30.0
and Robbins (1998) and Laarman and Bhutan 25.0
Gregerson (1996) have stated, it appears New Zealand 20.0
than many new operators base prices on
the component parts of the trip (cost plus Australia’s total visitors were FIT). In the
pricing), whereas the level and quality of UK, Europe was the top continent of inter-
personalized service offered is the true est for ecotourists’ next ecotourism holiday
value, not those of the component parts (58%), related in part to air travel and
(see Chapter 36). expenses (Diamantis, 1999). Ranked prefer-
ences are shown in Table 3.6. The pre-
Origins and Destinations ferred location for one-third of North
Americans’ next ecotourism vacation was
Destinations of interest Canada (HLA/ARA, 1994). There are, in
fact, a huge range of current and potential
Popular belief, and much key research, has destinations of interest to ecotourists.
discussed ecotourism in the context of Attractiveness also varies with specific des-
tropical and developing countries as prime tination attributes and services.
ecotourism destinations. However, market
research on ecotourists draws a different Origins of ecotourists
picture (Wight, 1996; Blamey and Hatch,
1998). Lew’s study (1998b) of 44 ecotour There is no definitive information on eco-
companies operating in the Asia-Pacific tourism market origins. However, based on
region found that the top six destinations demand data, it is clear that the interna-
in terms of popularity included Australia tional market demands are centred in
and New Zealand (Table 3.5). In addition, North America and Europe. Eagles and
this does not account for the free indepen- Higgins (1998) estimate from anecdotal
dent travellers’ (FIT) ecotourism destina- sources that the most prominent countries
tion preferences in the region (e.g. 61% of

Ecotourists 47

Table 3.6. Preference, by continent, of UK ecotourists (Diamantis, 1999).

Destination continent UK frequent ecotourists (%) UK occasional ecotourists (%)

Europe 58.3 30.0
Asia 49.6 24.3
Americas 36.1 23.1
Australia/New Zealand/Pacific 33.8 10.9
Africa 31.9 11.7

supplying ecotourists, in order of market ipants in most nature-based activities,
size, are the USA, the UK, Germany, because they account for a very large share
Canada, France, Australia, The Netherlands, of total visitors (23%). They do not, how-
Sweden, Austria, New Zealand, Norway ever, reflect a particularly high propensity
and Denmark. In addition, Japan, southern to participate in such activities (Blamey,
Europe and the newly industrialized Asian 1995). British, US, German and Scandin-
countries are also generating increasing avian visitors appear to be more active par-
numbers of ecotourists. ticipants in nature-based activities, relative
to visitors from other origins. Additionally,
In Australia, a study of nature-based Blamey (1995) suggests that outback safari
tourists asked about the importance of tours are most similar to ecotourism
nature-based outdoor activities in destina- experiences. Table 3.7 shows origin inter-
tion selection. Germans, Scandinavians ests by select experience.
and Canadians were much more influenced
by opportunities for nature activities than Origin markets may vary with location
other origin areas. The percentage of of ecotour companies. Lew (1998b) found
national park visitors was analysed as a that for Asia-Pacific ecotour companies
proportion of total visitation from each based in the USA (22 of 44), the largest
country, to determine those origins with a proportion of clients originated from the
higher than average propensity to visit. USA (plus some from Australia and Canada).
Although the largest numbers of visitors to For companies based in Asia-Pacific (16),
Australian national parks were from Asia, a the main sources of clients were more var-
smaller than average proportion from this ied, and included Australia, the USA and
market visited these sites. Japanese visitors Europe. Asian sources (Japan, Indonesia
account for the largest percentage of partic- and the Philippines) were less important.

Table 3.7. Origins of Australian visitors by experience interest (Blamey, 1995).

Country of % All % Non-national % National % Outback Degree of
residence visitors park visitors park visitors safari visitors interest
More
UK and Ireland 11 8 14 22
Germany 4 2 6 17 interested
USA 7
Other Europe 10 3 12 13 Less
Scandinavia 5 1 7 13 interested
Switzerland 1 1 24
Canada 2 0 37
Japan 1 25 27
Other Asia 24
New Zealand 23 22 21 8
22 19 5
17 10 2

48 P.A. Wight

Domestic visitors camping and touring. Additionally, cul-
tural/aboriginal experiences may be of
A neglected group of ecotourists are those interest. Preferences also vary by site type.
who originate in the same country, domes- McNeely (1988), Dixon and Sherman
tic visitors. For example, in Australia, (1990), and Laarman and Gregersen (1996)
recent research found ecotourists to repre- feel the main attraction for nature-based
sent nearly 30% of domestic travellers tourism is publicly owned national parks,
(Ecotrends, 1999). Similarly, in North wildlife reserves and other protected areas
America as a whole, there is a high propen- (see Chapters 18 and 19). This is the main
sity to select domestic destinations for eco- activity by international visitors to
tourism. This varied by country, with USA Australia (50%). For Australian domestic
respondents regarding the USA and other markets, the most strongly supported recre-
destinations as almost equally attractive, ational activity is bushwalking for all ages
while Canadian respondents by far prefer (< 54 years: 72.3% average; 55–64: 57.1%;
to visit their own country for their next > 65 years: 45.1%). Activity preferences
ecotourism trip (HLA/ARA, 1994) (Table may also vary by origin, age or gender.
3.8). Thus domestic ecotourism visitors Interest may even vary within one destina-
represent an important and hitherto tion country, as shown in Table 3.10.
neglected market.
The HLA/ARA (1994) study of North
Preferences American ecotourists took into account the
dynamic nature of markets, and asked for
A survey of US travellers has found that last trip and next trip preferences.
adventure and outdoor travellers are simi- Ecotourism market interests changed.
lar to the general population of travellers Activities which increased in attractive-
with respect to income, number of wage ness for the next trip include: hiking/back-
earners, education, occupation, household packing, boating, fishing, cycling and
size and region of origin (TIAA, 1994). It camping. Of note is the fact that more gen-
may therefore be preference and motiva- eral interest ecotourist preferences moved
tional features that mainly differentiate towards preferences of the experienced
ecotourists from other markets. Table 3.9 ecotourist, supporting earlier suggestions
shows preferences of ecotourists from about the mainstreaming of ecotourism.
global survey information.
Accommodation

Activities Recent ecotourism research has found that
ecotourism markets prefer more than the
Typically, the most popular ecotourism conventional hotel/motel options, or camp-
activities in all surveys are visiting ing. They desire more rustic, intimate,
national parks, hiking, water-based activi- adventure-type roofed accommodation
ties (especially rafting), admiring nature, (such as bed and breakfasts, cabins, lodges,
inns) which is a growing market trend

Table 3.8. Preferred country for ecotourism vacation (HLA/ARA, 1994).

Preferred destination (%) Total
number (1354)
Origin Canada (451) USA (417) All other (486)
970
USA (5 cities) 21.5 38.5 40 384
Canada (2 cities) 64 12 24

Table 3.9. Preferences of ecotourism and related travellers.

Market US adventure North American North American
characteristic and outdoor general ecotourist experienced
travellersa (next trip)b ecotouristb (next
N = 1172 N = 1384 trip) N = 424

Activity Camping (85%) Hiking (37%) Hiking (60%)
preferences Hiking (74%) Touring (20%) Rafting (25%) and
Skiing (51%) Camping (19%)
Snorkel/scuba (30%) Boating (17%) other boating (13%
Sailing (26%) Walking (17%) Cycling (25%)
Kayaking/white-water (24%) Fishing (16%) Camping (21%)
Biking (24%) Scenery, other than Wildlife viewing (15%
Rock-climbing (18%) Scenery other than
Cattle/dude ranch (14%) mountain/ocean (14%)
Hang-glide/parasail (8%) Swimming (12%) mountain/ocean (1
Other water (9%) Skiing (13%)
Local cultures (8%) Canoeing (13%)
Cycling (8%) Kayaking (13%)
Fishing (12%)
Local cultures (12%)

Accommodation No information 56% hotel/motel 66% cabin/cottage
17% camping 60% lodge/inn
14% lodge/inn 58% camping
14% cabins 55% bed and breakfa
10% bed and breakfasts 41% hotel/motel
6% friends/relatives 40% ranch
5% RVs 56% mid-range luxur
60% mid-range luxury 38% basic/budget
31% basic/budget

a TIAA, 1994; b HLA/ARA, 1994; c Blamey and Hatch, 1998; d Diamantis, 1998.

Australia UK group UK occasional
frequent ecotouristsd
nature-based ecotouristsd
touristsc N = 379 N = 247

%) All international Educational guided Admiring nature (76%)
visitors tours (72%) Observing animals (71%)
%) Snorkelling (62%)
13%) National parks (50%) Admiring nature (72%) Educational guided
Bushwalking (19%) Observing animals (68%)
Scuba/snorkelling (13%) Bushwalking (54%) tours (60%)
Aboriginal sites (11%) Adventure tours (46%) Natural photography
Outback safari tours (3%) Nature photography (45%)
Rafting (2%) Observing flowers (40%) (51%)
Horse-riding (2%) Snorkelling (38%) Camping (49%)
Rock-climbing/ Birdwatching (35%) Scuba-diving (48%)
Whale-watching (31%) Bushwalking (47%)
mountaineering (2%) Horse-riding (22%) Adventure tours (37%)
White-water rafting (22%) Observing flowers (37%)
Scuba-diving (22%) Whale-watching (33%) Ecotourists
Rock-climbing (19%) White-water rafting (28%)
Turtle-watching (26%)
Birdwatching (25%)
Horse-riding (21%)

National parks visitors: 60% hotels/motels 53% tent
70% hotel/motel 41% tent 41% hotels/motels
42% friend/relative 32% cabins 25% bed and breakfasts
asts 8% camp 30% bed and breakfasts 23% cabins
8% backpacker hostel 29% ecolodges 19% ecolodges
6% rented house/flat 20% Inns 10% inns
ry 4% youth hostel 6% ranches 3% ranches
58% mid-range luxury 48% mid-range luxury
40% basic/budget 47% basic/budget

49

50 P.A. Wight

Table 3.10. Interest areas by market origins to Canada (Tourism Canada, 1995).

Market Principal activities of interest in Canada

USA • sea kayaking (37%)
• nature observation (36%)
Germans • whale-watching (30%)
• scuba-diving (29%)
French • other wildlife viewing (24%)
British • birdwatching (19%)
Japanese • canoeing (14%)
• rock and ice climbing (13%)
Ontario • hiking (12%)
Québécois
British Columbia • canoeing (31%) and trail riding
• other wildlife viewing (11%)
• nature observation (6%)
• scenery, national parks, forests and wildlife

• culture and nature

• canoeing

• nature observation, soft adventure/ecotourism
• locations ‘abundant in nature’, with Canada’s attraction being:

– natural attractions (96%)
– national parks (88%)
– mountainous areas (88%)
– seeing wildlife (83%)

• birdwatching, sea kayaking and canoeing
• scuba-diving (30%)
• hiking (39%)
• sea kayaking (17%),
• climbing, hiking and scuba-diving to a lesser degree
• whale-watching (15%)
• nature observation (14%)

(Hawkins et al., 1995; Selengut, 1995; HLA including nature-based visitors, is
Consultants, 1996; Wight, 1997; Diamantis, hotel/motels (69%), followed by the home
1998). The overall vacation experience of a friend or relative (36%). However,
seems to determine the accommodation nature-based visitors are significantly more
choice. likely than other visitors to use backpacker
accommodation or to go camping, and
In addition, preferences vary by activity, show at least a four times greater than aver-
and by destination. In North America, age preference for these accommodation
those who prefer activities considered types, as well as youth hostels and rented
more as ‘ecotourism’ in nature (hiking, campervans. A recent study of UK eco-
boating, camping or fishing) and experi- tourists also found that ecotourists prefer
enced in relatively wild settings, were hotels, but that alternative forms of accom-
more likely to select accommodation that modation such as tents, cabins, bed and
tends to be found in those settings (tent, breakfasts, ecolodges, etc. are also popular
cabin/cottage) (HLA Consultants, 1996). (Diamantis, 1998). It is probable that the
The opposite was found for activities less lack of alternative more rustic and intimate
associated with ecotourism. Similarly, the accommodation explains why hotels/
most common type of accommodation used motels rank quite highly. In terms of com-
by all international visitors in Australia,

Ecotourists 51

fort level, ecotourists appear to prefer mid- Lew (1998b) reports a large increase in
range luxury levels (60% in North FITs in the Asia-Pacific region. It is possi-
America, 58% in UK), followed by ble that as ecotourism matures, this un-
basic/budget (31% in North America, 40% organized dimension will increase. Clearly,
in UK) (HLA, 1996; Diamantis, 1998). changes in ecotour markets are occurring.
Asia-Pacific operators are seeing more peo-
FIT vs. group ecotourists ple of varied ages and incomes taking eco-
tours, leading to a softening of the
There is an important conceptual distinc- adventure aspect of the tours, as well as an
tion between ecotourists who are FITs (free increased market sensitivity to pricing. By
and independent travellers) and those who product modification, operators may attract
go on group tours. Studies tend to examine or generate new markets, and operators
either speciality tour operators and clients, predict the future broadening of market
or to examine all visitors to a destination. distribution channels, expansion of eco-
Exceptions include the North American tourism into new areas, and new products
market research which included separate for FITs (Lew, 1998b).
ecotourist and tour operator surveys
(HLA/ARA, 1994), and the Australian Purpose, Satisfaction and Motivation
research, where group tour travellers were
analysed separately, both for volume and Reasons for ecotourism trip
for characteristics.
Table 3.12 summarizes the reasons and
In Australia, 39% of all visitors came motivations for taking an ecotourism trip
into the country on a fully pre-paid pack- from various surveys. In all surveys, the
age tour, although this varied by activity primary reasons largely revolve around
(Table 3.11). In addition, FIT travellers may experiencing various elements of nature
take tours once at their destination. and scenery. Also prominent are new expe-
Australian visitors, on average, partici- riences, learning and exposure to local cul-
pated in three nature-based tours, but this tures. Even adventure/outdoors travellers
ranged from one to four tours. Also, the ori- had a strong interest in nature, with the
gin of visitors influenced the number of 55–66-year-olds more interested than aver-
tours (Germans participated in 6.7, age in taking the trip because of an interest
whereas Asian visitors participated in the in the environment.
fewest) (Blamey and Hatch, 1998). All
activities except non-guided walks tended The location of residence, age and other
to be part of an organized tour. factors may have considerable influence on

Table 3.11. Fully inclusive prepaid package tour use.

Activity % Not on inclusive package % Package tours

Snorkelling 49 51
Scuba 68 32
White-water rafting 49 50
Horse-racing/riding 60 40
Rock-climbing/mountaineering 65 35
National parks 57 43
Aboriginal sites 62 38
Bushwalking 67 33
Outback safari tours 65 35
Whale-watching 80 20
All visitors 3,422,000 61% (2,097,300) 39% (1,324,700)

Table 3.12. Trip reason and motivations of ecotourism and related travellers.

Market US adventure North American North American Canadian
characteristic and outdoor general ecotourist experienced ecotourists
travellera (next trip)b ecotouristb (next
N = 1172 N = 1384 trip) N = 424

Reasons, 71% fun and 45% scenery and 45% scenery and nature 1 wilder
motivations entertainment nature 22% new experiences/ undist

51% get away 28% new places 2 learn a
from it all experiences/places 16% land activities 3 tropica
15% wildlife viewing 4 birds
21% thrill 16% been and 14% see mountains 5 photog
15% try/learn want to return 11% wilderness 6 trees a
11% not crowded
something new 15% cultural attraction 11% water activities wildflo
14% interest in 15% see mountains 10% cultural attraction 7 mamm
14% study/learn 10% study/learn 8 nation
environment
7% learn/test nature and cultures nature and culture provin
13% relax and get 9 lakes a
something 10 see ma
about selves away from it all
7% health time a
11 mount
12 ocean

a TIAA, 1994; b HLA/ARA, 1994; c Eagles, 1992; d Blamey and Hatch, 1998; e Diamantis, 1998.

UK group UK group 52 P.A. Wight
occasional
Australia frequent ecotouristse
N = 247
nature-based ecotouristse

sc touristsd N = 379

rness/ 1 natural beauty 93% see natural 1 experience new and
environment different lifestyle
turbed nature of sites
85% experience 2 explore area
about nature 2 new experience local culture and be educated

al forests 3 wildlife 78% experience 3 increase knowledge
traditional and 4 meeting new people
4 close to nature natural lifestyles 5 outdoor activities
6 undisturbed natural
graphy 5 different way of 74% travel to wild
places on earth area
and experiencing nature 7 enjoy weather
70% survey/study 8 study/admire/
owers 6 exciting natural habitats
understand area
mals experiences 61% historical 9 interesting
attractions
nal and 7 something to countryside
59% experience 10 cultural attractions
ncial parks tell friends unique exclusive 11 experience
place
and streams 8 educational/ tranquillity
45% outdoor/ 12 visit national
aximum in learning experience recreational activities
parks
available 9 being physically 34% third world
countries
tains active
14% expensive
nside 10 chance to holiday

escape crowds

11 escape towns

and cities

Ecotourists 53

motivations and reasons for the trip. In Table 3.13. Motivations of group tour ecotourists
Australia, survey research found that (Eagles, 1992).
people living in the city have a greater
desire to see somewhere different from Significant motivations
home (55.9%) than people living in rural
areas (41.9%) (Ecotrends, 1999). The • wilderness and undisturbed nature
opportunity to experience nature-based • lakes and streams
outdoor activities is a significant factor • being physically active
influencing visitors to Australia from • mountains
Germany, the UK and Ireland. • national or provincial parks
• experiencing new lifestyles
Motivations • rural areas
• oceanside
• meet people with similar interests

Reasons for the trip are different from moti- Getting close to nature is a motivation for
vations. Motivations are associated with ecotourism in Australia (Ecotrends, 1999).
the needs of the individual. Reasons for Recent research on ecotourists and poten-
taking a trip may be fairly broad, whereas tial ecotourists has revealed three broad
motivational information is more helpful market segments (Bureau of Tourism
in differentiating ecotourists. In the USA, Research, 1998). Each has different motiva-
motivations varied by age among tions and different determinants of satisfac-
outdoor/adventure travellers (TIAA, 1994): tion (Table 3.14). What this research
stresses is the link between the motivations
• the younger age group (39% of 18–24- of the segments, and the aspects which
year-olds vs. 21% of the total group) determine satisfaction.
tended to look for the thrill;
Satisfaction
• the older age group (30% of 55–64-year-
olds, vs. 14% of the total group) tended Satisfaction is strongly related to meeting
to have an interest in the environment; visitor expectations, which are largely built
on destination image. Images are partly
• the middle ages (59% of 45–54-year- connected with the landscape, and partly
olds vs. 51% of total group) tended to with many other elements of the experi-
want to get away from it all. ence. In this respect, it is important to note
the relative importance which ecotourists
Eagles (1992) examined types of motivation place on various experience elements.
for group tour ecotourists, including attrac- Service/activity importance ratings for gen-
tions (related to desired features/attractions eralist and specialist North American eco-
of the destination) and social factors tourists are shown in Table 3.15. Walking
(related to opinions on personal goals and and wildlife viewing are clearly top priori-
interaction with others). The motivations ties, as is visiting a park or protected area.
that are significantly more important to This relates to the importance of setting
group ecotourists are shown in Table 3.13. and landscape to the ecotourism experi-
ence. Important services appear to be those
According to several sources (Crossley that are related to learning and cultures,
and Lee, 1994; Wight, 1996), motivations guides, and interpretative education pro-
that differentiate ecotourists from more grammes. Knowledgeable guides and good
mass travellers include: education programmes or interpretive
materials are critical.
• uncrowded locations,
• remote, wilderness areas,
• learning about wildlife, nature,
• learning about natives, cultures,
• community benefits,
• viewing plants and animals,
• physical challenge.

54 P.A. Wight

Table 3.14. Australian ecotourism segments, motivations and satisfaction (Bureau of Tourism Research,
1998).

Impulse markets Active market Personalized market

Characteristics • young-mid aged professionals • older professionals
• nature-based day trips away from • usually book in advance • expecting more comfort
• mainly domestic • international, overnight
main tourist destinations
• domestic and international bookings prior to arrival

Motivations • enjoy nature and scenic • interaction with
• getaway from masses, small group wonder environment
• relax, fun, enjoyment
• nature-based tour • challenge and achievement • education and learning
• best possible experience • no high comfort expectations • quality accommodation
• convenient transport, no planning • clear, good pre-trip information
• realistic brochure information • social interaction and food with local
• spontaneity and flexibility to produce
Satisfaction determinants • details associated with
• see/experience as advertised individual needs well-scheduled/organized
• relax, fun, enjoyment tour at premium price
• hassle-free day, with pick-up
• accomplishment more • desire to see/learn about
and drop-off significant the better known environment, local history,
the attraction sense of special experience

• escape from daily stresses • maximum enjoyment
• enhanced by environmental for time available

knowledge
• learn how to contribute to

ecological sustainability

Table 3.15. Relative importance ratings, North American ecotourists (HLA/ARA, 1994).

Experienced ecotourist General interest ecotourist Travel trade

Wilderness setting Casual walking Wilderness setting
Wildlife viewing Wildlife viewing Guides
Hiking/trekking Learn about other cultures Outdoor activities
Visit national park/other Visit national park/other All inclusive packages
Parks/protected areas
protected area protected area Interpretive/educational
Rafting/canoeing/kayaking on Wilderness setting
Hiking/trekking programmes
river/lake The importance of guides Cultural experiences
Casual walking Interpretive education Communicate in client’s
Learn about other cultures
Participate in physically programmes language
Cycling
challenging programmes Participate in physically
The importance of guides
Interpretive education programmes challenging programmes

Ecotourists 55

Klenosky et al. (1998) put forward the Table 3.16. Learning preferences of nature-based
means–end theory to develop a better visitors (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).
understanding of factors influencing park
visitors’ use of specific interpretive ser- Learning preferences Importance (%)
vices (i.e. individuals select products or
services that produce desired conse- 1 seeing and observing animals, 97
quences or benefits, which are a function of plants, landscapes 84
personal values). Thus the tourism product
attribute is related to the benefits (or conse- 2 being provided with information 74
quences) it provides, which are important about the biology/ecology of 70
to satisfying personal values (the ‘ends’). species
They found that whatever the park product
(self-guided trails, naturalist-led hikes or 3 cultural and/or historical aspects
walks, or night/overnight programmes), of the area
learning was the greatest benefit sought.
Even in canoe or fishing programmes, 4 information about geology/
learning was highest, together with doing landscapes
something different. They found that envi-
ronmental ethics were part of the product depended on how concerned they were
attributes that contributed to obtaining per- about the state of the natural environment.
sonal benefits, for both the canoe/fishing A recent Australian survey found that 62%
programmes, and the self-guided trails. of respondents will pay extra to go on a
tour with an expert guide (Ecotrends,
Diamantis (1998) found that UK fre- 1999). Sixty-nine per cent of all nature-
quent ecotourists aim to be educated by the based visitors report educational or learn-
ecotourism holiday (63.3%). In addition, ing experiences were important or very
91.3% agreed/strongly agreed with the important to them. Table 3.16 shows their
statement that the value of an ecotourism learning preferences. When nature-based
vacation is to ‘become more knowledge- visitors were asked about satisfaction after
able’ (the second highest score of all values tours, the friendliness/helpfulness of the
examined). However, he also found that staff (86% very/somewhat satisfied) was
whether or not frequent ecotourists were the individual element that gave them the
seeking to increase their knowledge most satisfaction (Table 3.17). That which
gave highest dissatisfaction was the overall
size of tour numbers (6%).

Table 3.17. Satisfaction with aspects of nature-based toursa (Blamey and Hatch, 1998).

Element Very/somewhat Very/somewhat
satisfied (%) dissatisfied (%)

Information about the natural environment 84a 1
(plants, animals, geology, etc.)
74 6
Overall size of tour (numbers of participants) 84 1
No. of guides on tour 80a 1
Value for money 76 4
Time spent at sites 82 1
Quality of sites 86 —
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff 65 5
Food 75 1
Measures to minimize environmental impacts of tours 87 1
The whole tour

NB Table excludes those who didn’t know or felt neutral about evaluations.
a Statistically significant aspects for 2 of 3 clusters of ecotourists examined.

56 P.A. Wight

One of the elements of ecotourism that Studies (1998) states that ‘there is likely to
also distinguishes it from many other be more development of eco-resorts as
tourism experiences is interpretation. environmentally-conscious travel segments
Convincing arguments have been made are expected to grow in the US as well as
that quality interpretation helps to mini- globally’. Operators in the Asia-Pacific
mize the negative environmental impacts region predict an increased awareness
of tourism (Moscardo, 1996, 1998). It has about environmentally friendly tourism
been noted that ecotourists tend to be expe- overall in the future. They also observe that
rienced/frequent travellers who demand clients are more aware of social and envi-
more from the experience, and are more ronmental issues in the destination, and
likely to seek learning and educational are generally interested in financially sup-
components in the tourism experience porting local environmental conservation
(Urry, 1990; Cleverdon, 1993; Poon, 1993; and social development projects, as shown
Moscardo, 1996; Aiello, 1998). Hence, it is in Table 3.18 (Lew, 1998b).
not surprising that the major source of dis-
satisfaction in the ecotourism experience is US ‘green’ travellers are willing to
lack of interpretation, education or good spend, on average, 8.5% more for travel
guiding (Almagor, 1985; Blamey and services and accommodation provided by
Hatch, 1998). Roggenbuck and Williams environmentally responsible operators
(1991) and Aiello (1998) show that giving (Cook et al., 1992). In an analysis of the
commercial guides interpretive training data tables, it is found that those who took
and area knowledge improves tourist satis- an ecotourism trip are more likely (92%) to
faction. Also, satisfaction improves experi- support environmentally responsible com-
ences for staff, company owners and panies than non-ecotourists (86%). Results
governments/destinations (see Chapter 35). were similar for potential ecotourists
(Table 3.19). Similarly, ecotourists were
Diamantis (1998) found that UK eco- more willing to pay extra for an eco-aware
tourists mainly expressed social intentions company, than the average traveller or non-
when participating in ecotourism holidays. ecotourist, and 46% would pay 6–20%
In terms of values, he found them to be more, whereas only 29% of non-ecotourists
motivated by maturity and internal values, would pay 6–20% more (Table 3.20). Table
such as ‘appreciate and respect the world 3.21 shows that frequent UK ecotourists
we live in’. In Australia, mature travellers were mainly interested in social and con-
strongly believe that learning about nature servation-oriented elements in terms of the
enriches life (80.1% for > 45 years), while consequences of their trip (Diamantis,
this is a less important attitude for those 1998). The realization that their visits
under 45 years (65.3%). could disturb nature (85%) suggested that
frequent UK ecotourists were a group of
Social and environmental values travellers who understood the fragility of
such landscapes. Diamantis (1998) also
Ecotourists can be considered as a growing found that while males and females were
group of tourists who are shifting away
from the consumption of things, toward the Table 3.18. Willingness of clients to donate money
consumption of meaningful, learning and to local environmental/social causes (Lew, 1998b).
experiential vacations. More are travelling
for self-improvement or self-enrichment, to Ecotour clients’ Number of %
learn and acquire new interests and willingness to operators
friends, or to improve their physical and contribute $
mental well-being. Part of the reason for
the surge in ecotourism has been increased Very willing 14 38.9
levels of environmental awareness among Somewhat willing 20 55.6
travellers. The Center for Tourism Policy Not interested or willing
2 5.6

Ecotourists 57

Table 3.19. Ecotourists, potential ecotourists and non-potential ecotourists: likelihood to support eco-aware
tourism companies (US Travel Data Center Data Tables, 1991).

Support for eco- Took Did Did not take ecotourism trip
aware companies ecotourism not take
ecotourism trip Interest in future No potential for
trip ecotourism trip ecotourism trip

Somewhat/very likely to 92% 86% 94% 83%
support companies 8% 14% 6% 17%
886 624
Not very/at all likely to 63 262
support companies

Totals

Table 3.20. Willingness to pay extra for sightseeing tours by environmentally responsible travel suppliers
(US Travel Data Center Data Tables, 1991).

% Extra willing Total Likely to take Not likely to
to pay for eco-aware travellers (%) ecotourism take ecotourism
companies
trip (%) trip (%)

0 13.5 6.2 17.2
1–5 43.1 40.4 44.8
6–10 21.1 25.7 18.9
11–20 13.3 20.0
21–40 9.7
41–60 1.4 2.9 1.0
61–99 0.9 0.5 0.6
100 0.4 0.2 0.2
DK 0.1 — 0.2
Mean 6.3 4.1 7.4
Total No. US travellers 8.4 9.7 7.4
963 271 634

both more concerned with social benefits activities and travel, and such speciality
of ecotourism, females had more environ- publications as The Educated Traveler:
mental and educational interests/concerns Directory of Special Interest Travel. Double
than males. the percentage of experienced ecotourists
read club publications than general con-
Reaching Ecotourists sumers, since many more experienced
ecotourists (50%) are members of organiza-
Publications read by ecotourists tions than general consumers (11%)
(HLA/ARA, 1994)

Ecotourists are extremely well educated. Membership in clubs/organizations
Significant numbers read nature-related
magazines (61%) and experienced eco- A potential avenue for reaching the eco-
tourists even more (72%), with the most tourist is through nature-related organiza-
popular being the National Geographic tions or clubs. The experienced ecotourist
Magazine (Table 3.22). Other publications in North America exhibits a much greater
were related to fishing/hunting, clubs,

58 P.A. Wight

Table 3.21. Trip consequence interests (Diamantis, 1998).

% Consequences of ecotourism trip

96 • respect the local population and indigenous people
93 • have awareness of the world’s natural environment
85 • be concerned that your presence there may damage the natural environment
82 • go again when possible
75 • maintain environmental standards for future holiday makers
63 • create a memory that normal holidays could not give
61 • contribute actively in conservation of these areas
56 • be more energetic and adventurous
54 • feel calm and relaxed
51 • feel travel companies just use the word ‘eco-holidays’ to attract more people

Table 3.22. Publications read (HLA/ARA, 1994).

General Experienced
consumer ecotourist

% of total sample which reads such publications

Publication 61 72
% (540 respondents) % (271 respondents)

National Geographic 35 17
Outdoor Lifea 10 36
Club publications 15
Fishing/hunting related 7
General natureb 6 2
Field and Stream 5 3
General travel 5 —
General activity/sports 5 6
Wildlife related 5 14
4 3

NB Multiple responses were permitted.
a Refers to Outdoor Life/Outdoors/Outside/Outdoor Canada.
b Refers to nature/natural history publications.

propensity to belong to a nature-oriented ecotourists. For occasional UK ecotourists,
club or organization (50%) than the general Diamantis found that 37% belong to at
interest ecotourist (11%). However, general least one group, society or organization.
interest ecotourists represent a large target Singles and those with higher than average
population, so the actual numbers who are education are more likely to be members.
members of nature-oriented organizations
are by no means small (Table 3.23). It is The information about reaching eco-
interesting to note that the experienced tourists is helpful, but not critical, in terms
ecotourism traveller, while tending to pre- of marketing. Packaging the right product
fer activity-related magazines, belongs to for the right market is very important, as
more nature/wilderness-related organiza- are customer service, quality and value for
tions. In the UK, Diamantis (1998) found money. In addition, the ability to provide
that 22% of frequent ecotourists are mem- quality interpretive guides, and to meet
bers of an environmental group or society. and exceed customer expectations is criti-
Most of these (67%) are highly involved cal (Pam Wight and Associates, 1999).

Ecotourists 59

Table 3.23. Membership in organizations/clubs (HLA/ARA, 1994).

General Experienced
consumer ecotourist

% of total sample which belongs to club/organization

Club/organization 11 50
% (153 respondents) % (189 respondents)

Sierra Club 18 34
Outdoor activity club 13 11
Nature organizationa 10 37
Audubon Society 17
Other wildlife organizationsb 5
Fishing and hunting 10 8
Greenpeace —
Worldwide Fund for Nature 6 2
National Wildlife Federation 5
Boy/Girl Scouts 4 3
4 3
4 —

NB Multiple responses were permitted, therefore total percentage may exceed 100%.
a Refers to nature/naturalist/conservation/park organizations.
b Refers to organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and wilderness societies.

Conclusions similarities, as summarized in Tables 3.2,
3.9 and 3.12.
Ecotourism is a complicated subject,
involving specialized niche markets that While this chapter has attempted the
may share many characteristics, prefer- challenge of analysing and summarizing
ences and motivations, or vary by these globally significant market studies, it
same attributes. Markets today reflect should be pointed out that the application
greater sophistication, as well as changing of these findings requires care. Like any
lifestyles, attitudes, values and interests. other travellers, ecotourists at the aggregate
They exhibit well-defined expectations, level tend to be educated, time-poor, and
and seek new experiences and purposes for desire value for money. They are interested
travel based on these diverse interests and not simply in a menu of choices, but in
preferences. Destinations and operators quality customer services, customization,
need to be able to provide convenience and interpretation by knowledgeable guides, a
customization for these diverse markets. sense of authenticity, and opportunities to
experience a number of destination areas,
Ecotourism markets are not homoge- all conveniently packaged or available to
neous. However, it may be that ecotourism the FIT.
markets cannot be segmented well at the
global level. For example, Diamantis (1998) Ecotourism markets are dynamic. They
found in the UK that ecotourists were fre- have changed somewhat in the last decade,
quent or occasional, in North America, and are likely to continue to refine their
HLA/ARA found ecotourists were more preferences and seek benefits related to
generally interested or experienced. It may their motivations, as well as to support
be that particular destinations attract cer- companies which provide experiences
tain ecotourist segments. In any event, pre- which support their social and environ-
vious studies have revealed a variety of mental value systems. Operators (commu-
segments with distinctive differences and nities and destinations) must increase the
value of their products, and respond to the

60 P.A. Wight

needs and preferences of ecotourists. It is and this will vary by each operation/
how the market findings provided in this destination.
chapter are applied, which is relevant,

References

Aiello, R. (1998) Interpretation and the marine tourism industry, who needs it?: a case study of Great
Adventures, Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies 9(1), 51–61.

Almagor, U. (1985) A tourist’s ‘Vision Quest’ in an African game reserve. Annals of Tourism Research
12, 31–48.

ARA Consulting Group, Eureka Tourism and Hospitality Management Consultants and the Tourism
Research Group (1991) Yukon Wilderness Adventure Travel Market Awareness Study. Yukon
Department of Tourism, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Backman, K.F. and Potts, T.D. (1993) Profiling Nature-Based Travelers: Southeastern Market
Segments. Strom Thurmond Institute, South Carolina.

Blamey, R. (1995) The Nature of Ecotourism, Occasional Paper No. 21. Bureau of Tourism Research,
Canberra.

Blamey, R. and Hatch, D. (1998) Profiles and Motivations of Nature-Based Tourists Visiting Australia,
Occasional Paper No. 25. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.

Bureau of Tourism Research (1998) Ecotourism Snapshot: a Focus on Recent Market Research. Office
of National Tourism, Australia.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1998) Introduction. In: Lindberg, K., Epler-Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds)
Ecotourism: a guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. The Ecotourism Society, North
Bennington, Vermont, pp. 7–10.

Center for Tourism Policy Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa (1998) Repositioning Hawaii’s
Visitor Industry Products. Prepared for the Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism, Hawaii Tourism Office.

Charters, T. (1999) Environmental Tourism Manager for Tourism Queensland, quoted in Ecotrends,
March.

Cleverdon, R. (1993) Global tourism trends: influences, determinants and directional flows. World
Travel and Tourism Review 3, 81–89.

Cook, S.D., Stewart, E. and Repass, K., US Travel Data Centre (1992) Discover America: Tourism and
the Environment. Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, DC.

Crossley, J. and Lee, B. (1994) Ecotourists and mass tourists: a difference in ‘benefits sought’.
Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference, Bal Harbour, Florida.

Diamantis, D. (1998) Ecotourism: characteristics and involvement patterns of its consumers in the
United Kingdom. PhD dissertation, Bournemouth University, UK.

Diamantis, D. (1999) The characteristics of UK’s ecotourists. Tourism Recreation Research 24(2),
99–102.

Dixon, J.A. and Sherman, P.B. (1990) Economics of Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Eagles, P. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 31(2),

3–7.
Eagles, P. (1995) Understanding the market for sustainable tourism. In: McCool, S. and Watson, A.E.

(eds) Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Sustainability. Special session of the Annual
meeting of the National Recreation and Park Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
12–14 October. General Technical Report INT-GTR-323, USDA Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, Utah.
Eagles, P.F.J. and Cascagnette, J.W. (1995) Canadian ecotourists: who are they? Tourism Recreation
Research 20(1), 22–28.
Eagles, P.F.J. and Higgins, B.R. (1998) Ecotourism market and industry structure. In: Lindberg, K.,
Epler Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2.
The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.
Epler Wood, M. (1998) New directions in the ecotourism industry. In: Lindberg, K., Epler Wood, M.
and Engeldrum, D. (eds) Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. The
Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

Ecotourists 61

Hawkins, D., Epler Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (1995) The Ecolodge Source book for Planners and
Developers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.

HLA Consultants (1996) Ecotourism Accommodation: an Alberta Profile. Alberta Economic
Development and Tourism, Edmonton, Alberta.

HLA Consultants and The ARA Consulting Group (1994) Ecotourism – Nature/Adventure/Culture:
Alberta and British Columbia Market Demand Assessment. Canadian Heritage, Industry Canada,
British Columbia Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Alberta Economic
Development and Tourism, and the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia.

Klenosky, D.B., Frauman, E., Norman, W.C. and Gengler, C.E. (1998) Nature-based tourists’ use of
interpretive services: a means-end investigation. Journal of Tourism Studies 9(2), 26–36.

Laarman, J.G. and Durst, P.B. (1993) Nature tourism as a tool for economic development and conser-
vation of natural resources. In: Nenon, J. and Durst, P.B. (eds) Nature Tourism and Asia:
Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation and Economic Development. USDA, Forest
Service, USAID, USDA, Office of International Cooperation and Development, Washington, DC,
pp. 1–19.

Laarman, J.G. and Gregersen, H.M. (1996) Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. Tourism
Management 17(4), 247–254.

Leones, J., Colby, B. and Crandall, K. (1998) Tracking expenditures of the elusive nature tourists of
Southeastern Arizona. Journal of Travel Research 36(3), 56–64.

Lew, A. (1998a) Ecotourism Trends. Annals of Tourism Research 25(3), 742–746.
Lew, A. (1998b) The Asia-Pacific ecotourism industry: putting sustainable tourism into practice. In:

Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Addison
Wesley Longman Ltd, Harlow, UK.
Liu, J.C. (1994) Pacific Islands Ecotourism: a Public Policy and Planning Guide. University of
Hawaii, The Pacific Business Center Program, Honolulu.
McKercher, B. and Robbins, B. (1998) Business development issues affecting nature-based tourism
operators in Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2), 173–188.
McNeely, J.A. (1988) Economics and Biological Diversity. International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
Moscardo, G. (1996) Mindful visitors. Annals of Tourism Research 23(2), 376–397.
Moscardo, G. (1998) Interpretation and sustainable tourism: functions, examples and principles.
Journal of Tourism Studies 9(1), 2–13.
Pam Wight and Associates (1999) Catalogue of Exemplary Practices in Adventure Travel and
Ecotourism. Prepared for the Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa.
Parker, T. (1993) Nature tourism in Nepal. In: Nenon, J. and Durst, P.B. (eds) Nature Tourism and
Asia: Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation and Economic Development. USDA,
Forest Service, USAID, USDA, Office of International Cooperation and Development.
Washington, DC, pp. 21–30.
Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. CAB International, Wallingford,
UK.
Reingold, L. (1993) Identifying the elusive ecotourist. In: Going Green, a supplement to Tour and
Travel News (October 25), 36–39.
Roggenbuck, J.W. and Williams, D.R. (1991) Commercial tour guides’s effectiveness as nature educa-
tors. Paper presented at the World Congress on Leisure and Tourism, Sydney.
Selengut, A. (1995) ‘Foreword’. In: Hawkins, D., Epler Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (eds) The Ecolodge
Source Book. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, pp. v-vi.
Tourism Canada (1995) Adventure Travel in Canada: an Overview of Product, Market and Business
Potential. Tourism Canada, Canada Directorate, Ottawa, February.
Tourism Queensland (1999) Ecotrends March, quoting a survey commissioned by the Environmental
Tourism Department of Tourism Queensland.
Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA) (1994) Adventure Travel: Profile of a Growing Market,
conducted by US Travel Data Center, Washington, DC.
Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London, UK.
US Travel Data Center (1991) Tourism & The Environment Study Tables. TIAA, Washington, DC.
Weiler, B. and Richins, H. (1995) Extreme, extravagant and elite: a profile of ecotourists on
Earthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research 20(1), 29–36.
Wight, P.A. (1993) Sustainable ecotourism: balancing economic, environmental and social goals
within an ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies 4(2), 54–66.

62 P.A. Wight

Wight, P.A. (1995) Planning for success in sustainable tourism. Invited presentation to ‘Plan for
Success’, National Conference of the Canadian Institute of Planners, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
2–5 June.

Wight, P.A. (1996) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Second in a
two-part series for Journal of Travel Research 34(4), 2–10.

Wight, P.A. (1997) Ecotourism accommodation spectrum: does supply match the demand? Tourism
Management 18(4), 209–220.

World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1994) Global Tourism Forecasts to the Year 2000 and Beyond:
East Asia and the Pacific, 4. WTO, Madrid.

WTO News (1997) Eco-tourism: a Rapidly Growing Niche Market December/January.
http://www.world-tourism.org/newslett/decjan97/decjan6.htm

WTO News (1998) Ecotourism, Now One-Fifth of Market January/February. http://www.world-
tourism.org/newslett/janfeb98/ecotour.htm

Wylie, J. (1994) Journey Through a Sea of Islands: a Review of Forest Tourism in Micronesia. USDA
Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Wylie, J. (1997) Tourism and the Environment. Executive Development Institute for Tourism,
University of Hawaii at Manoa, 23–24 June. Quoting J. Mass (1995) Ten travel trends and what
you can do about them. Travel Industry Association of America National Conference.

Yuan, M.S. and Moisey, N. (1992) The characteristics and economic significance of visitors attracted
to Montana wildlands. Western Wildlands Fall 18(3), 20–24.

Chapter 4

Global Growth and Magnitude
of Ecotourism

D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

School of Business and Public Management, The George Washington University,
Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Even before Thomas Cook began the The focus of this chapter is the growth
world’s first travel agency in 1841 (Gartner, and magnitude of ecotourism. However, in
1996) or before the first group of young order to better understand how ecotourism
European men took their once in a lifetime is growing, it is important to look briefly at
‘Grand Tour’, humans have been inclined the tourism industry in general. Just like
to travel or participate in tourism activities. other forms of tourism, ecotourism is
Regardless of the reasons why we travel – dependent upon a series of global and
religious practice, social interaction, regional trends that dictate the ability and
leisure activities, cultural exchange or just desire people will have to travel in the
plain curiosity – people like to travel. Proof future. Past trends have shown that factors
of this can be found in the fact that the such as available leisure time, disposable
demand for travel and tourism services is income, and education, among others,
growing at a faster rate than ever before. influence the amount and type of tourism
an individual or group will partake in. By
As tourist numbers increase around the analysing both past and projected data for
world, so do the types of activities they the general tourism industry, we can not
choose to undertake during their trip. only forecast upcoming tourism trends, but
While ‘traditional’ tourism still exists and also trends in specific types of tourism.
continues to grow, ‘new’ types of tourism,
or alternative tourism, such as ecotourism, The Tourism Industry
cultural/heritage, educational or health
tourism have emerged, as well. Not only The World Tourism Organization (WTO)
does the market for these new types of estimates that by the year 2020 there will
tourism exist, but trends indicate that the be 1.6 billion international tourist arrivals
market for alternative tourism is growing worldwide, spending over US$2 trillion.
faster than could be imagined. Tourists are This means that globally, arrivals will con-
seeking more out of their precious vacation tinue to grow at an average of 4.3% and
time than just relaxation. Advances in both spending at 6.7% per year. This surpasses
transportation and communication have the maximum probable expansion in the
opened new doors, allowing us to travel world’s wealth estimated at a 3% increase
further and experience more of the world,
than ever before.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism 63
(ed. D.B. Weaver)

64 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

per year (WTO, 1988a). Regardless of significantly in all markets during the
whether these estimates are realistic or not, 1990–1995 period due to the Gulf War and
it is obvious that tourism, growing at an a poor global economy. When comparing
exorbitant rate, has yet to reach its full 1997 with 1998, market increases occurred
potential. in all major outbound markets with the
exception of the East Asia/Pacific region,
Travel and tourism is also one of the primarily due to the Asian economic crisis
world’s fastest growing economic activities. of 1997. International arrivals are projected
According to the World Travel and Tourism to increase from 673 million in 2000 to
Council (WTTC), tourism is ‘expected to 1.05 billion in 2010, and 1.6 billion in
contribute 10.8% to the global gross 2020. These forecasts are based on annual
domestic product in 2000 (US$3.6 trillion), growth rates of 4.2% to the end of the
rising to 11.6% or US$6.6 trillion by 2010’ 1990s and between 4 and 5% during the
(World Travel and Tourism Council, 2000). first decade of the 21st century.
They also estimate that capital investment
for tourism will reach US$701 billion or Regional Breakdown
9.4% of total investment in 2000 and reach
US$1.4 trillion or 10.6% of total by 2010 Given the information above, it is difficult
(WTTC, 2000). The WTTC also estimates not to believe, barring a huge disaster, that
that travel and tourism-related jobs in 2000 tourism will demonstrate continued growth
will reach 192 million, accounting for over throughout the world. Tourism destina-
8% of global employment. Over 59 million tions, however, are likely to change.
new jobs will be created over the next 10 According to the WTO, Europe will con-
years (WTTC, 2000). tinue to be the largest receiving region well
into 2020 but will decline from 59% of the
Tourism arrivals and receipts market share to 49%. As Table 4.1 indi-
cates, East Asia and the Pacific region will
According to the WTO (1998b, 1999) pass the Americas, as the second largest
between 1989 and 1998, international receiving region. Africa, the Middle East
tourism arrivals grew at an average annual and South Asia are projected to increase at
rate of 10% and international tourism a slower rate of 5%, 4% and 1%, respec-
receipts (excluding transport) at 9% (Fig. tively, by 2020 (WTO, 1998b).
4.1). Annual percentage increases declined

700
600
500
400
300
200
100

0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Arrivals (millions)
Receipts (US$ billions)

Fig. 4.1. International tourist arrivals and receipts: 1989 to 1998 (WTO, 1999).

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 65

Table 4.1. Forecast of international tourist arrivals 1995–2020 (World Tourism Organization, 1998b).

Tourist arrivals (millions)

Regions 1995 2000 2010 2020

Europe 335 390 527 717
East Asia/Pacific 80 116 231 438
Americas 134 195 284
Africa 110
Middle East 20 27 46 75
South Asia 14 19 37 69
Total 4
6 11 19
563 692 1047 1602

Speciality Market Forces sites, folklore and theatre characterizes
this type of tourism.
Travel motivations are major push factors • Adventure tourism can range from high
in determining what kind of tourism peo- to soft adventure and, in that order,
ple will seek. Overall the tourism market is includes activities such as mountain
becoming increasingly segmented with climbing, scuba-diving or walking along
many new tourism alternatives. ‘The new park trails.
consumers want to be involved – to dis- • Health tourism. Natural hot springs,
cover new experiences, to interact with the weight reduction.
community, and to learn about and appre- • Sports tourism. Tennis, golfing, World
ciate the destination at more than a superfi- Cup football, Olympic events.
cial level’ (Jones, 1998). In response to this • Cruise ship. 81% sail from North
trend, destinations are increasingly target- American ports. US$18 billion in 1997,
ing their tourism product at specific mar- 205 ships. 8.5% growth since 1990 in
kets or ‘speciality travel markets’. Below is North America, Europe growing rapidly.
a list (International Institute of Tourism
Studies, 1999) of some of these specific In 1997, WTO Secretary General
types of tourism; however, in many cases a Francesco Franigialli confirmed that even
destination is able to develop its tourism as tourism in general continues to grow
product in such a way as to satisfy various dramatically, the area of greatest expansion
different markets simultaneously. is that of speciality travel. Specifically, he
stated that ‘trends show a higher than aver-
• Ecotourism. Increasingly, parks, nature age increase in new types of tourism
reserves and natural settings are becom- including ecotourism and all nature-related
ing popular tourist destinations. The forms of tourism, which today account for
development of environmentally sensi- approximately 20% of total international
tive hotels and resorts responds to the travel’ (WTO, 1998c). This is not to say that
fast growing ecotourism markets and the traditional tourism, such as mass tourism
general public’s awareness of environ- to amusement parks or beaches will cease
mental preservation and sustainability. to exist. The fact remains that there will
Sustainability is to improve the quality always be a market for traditional tourism;
of life today without destroying it for however, consumer preferences are expand-
future generations. ing to alternative forms of vacationing,
often as an ‘add-on’ to more ‘traditional’
• Cultural and heritage tourism. Culture tourism activities.
and history are the most popular of
tourist activities. Experiencing different According to the Adventure Travel
customs and lifestyles, learning about Society, ‘Special interest travel is now the
historical cultures, visiting historic fastest growing segment of the travel

66 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

market. It has grown 12% annually over products provided by environmentally
the past 5 years. The last decade brought responsible travel suppliers’ (TIA, 2000).
increased levels of physical fitness and a Another study of North American travel
growing respect and concern for the envi- consumers in 1994 showed that ‘77% had
ronment’ (Adventure Travel Society, 1998). already taken a vacation involving activi-
It has been largely acknowledged that ties related to nature, outdoor adventure, or
tourists are looking for more out of their learning about another culture in the coun-
vacation. Just as people’s tastes vary, so tryside or wilderness. Of the 23% remain-
does their willingness to experiment, ing who had not, all but one respondent
whether that is by trekking through an stated that they were interested in doing
Amazon jungle, taking a class about so’ (Wight, 1996).
Australian aboriginal culture or observing
sea turtles in Costa Rica. Ecotourism Indicators

Ecotourism and Nature-based As previously mentioned, ecotourism is
Tourism often ‘clumped’ together with other forms
of nature tourism making it difficult to
Many have said that ecotourism is one of the grasp its real magnitude and growth rate. In
fastest growing, if not ‘the’ fastest growing the absence of some of the traditional mea-
type of ‘new tourism’. Trends indicate that surement tools often used to calculate gen-
the growth of ecotourism coupled with the eral tourism expansion, those wishing to
larger market segment of nature tourism far measure ecotourism growth must employ
surpasses that of tourism in general. While other indicators, which do provide insight
the lack of clear differentiation between eco- into the current and future magnitude of
tourism and other forms of nature tourism the sub-industry. The following indicators
makes tracking ecotourism development dif- include growth in ecotourism education,
ficult, it is obvious that travel to natural international recognition and regional sup-
areas is increasing at a tremendous rate. In port, international funding opportunities,
1996, the WTO predicted that there would and growth in tourism eco-certification and
be an 86% increase in tourism receipts, of eco-labelling programmes. Each of these
which the majority would come from ‘active, indicators provides a glimpse beyond the
adventurous, nature and culture-related traditional statistical analysis, into the cur-
travel’ (Honey, 1999). rent position of ecotourism and its
expected future growth.
In economic terms, the WTO announced
in 1997 that ‘ecotourism is worth US$20 Increase in ‘nature-motivated’ tourism
billion a year’ at the World Ecotour visitation worldwide
Conference. Although this amount pales in
comparison to tourism’s estimated US$3.6 Visitation to ecotourism or nature tourism
trillion contribution to the global gross destinations is on the increase worldwide.
domestic product, it still represents a sub- More and more destinations are trying to
stantial portion of total tourism receipts ‘jump’ on the nature tourism ‘bandwagon’.
(WTO, 1998c). Some examples (mainly in Many destinations are experiencing an
North America) of the magnitude of eco- increased number of visitors looking to
tourism or nature tourism follow. include eco-activities in their vacation.
Demand for destinations that include nat-
At the same time, travellers seem to be ural elements such as national parks and
willing to pay for an ‘eco’ experience. In a local parks, forests, waterways and others
recent study, Travel Industries of America continues to increase. For example, accord-
(TIA) found that ‘83% of all American trav- ing to a 1998 Travel Poll by TIA, ‘National
ellers are inclined to support ‘‘green’’ com-
panies and are willing to spend, on
average, 6.2% more in travel services and

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 67

parks are one of America’s biggest attrac- Growth in ecotourism education
tions. Nearly 30 million US adults (20% of
travellers or 15% of all US adults) took a Tourism, in general, is a relatively new
trip of 100 miles or more, one-way, to visit field of study. Only in the last half a cen-
a national park during 1997–1998. tury or so, has tourism studies gained
Residents of the Rocky Mountain region of recognition as a social science. Twenty-
the US were the most likely to visit a five years ago, the George Washington
national park with 37% saying they University was one of the first colleges in
included a park visit while travelling (dur- the world to offer a graduate level degree in
ing 1997–1998)’ (TIA, 2000). Although not tourism administration. Today, there are
all of the activities undertaken at these numerous institutions around the world,
parks can be considered ecotourism, offering everything from undergraduate
according to TIA ‘a large share of these and graduate degrees to tourism certificate
travellers (70%) participated in outdoor or diploma programmes. In addition to
activities while visiting the national parks. general tourism education, training specific
Among these outdoor activities, hiking to speciality tourism such as ecotourism is
(53%) was the most popular, followed by also expanding. In 1999, the Ecotourism
camping (33%) and fishing (19%)’ (TIA, Society put together a sample list of uni-
2000). TIA also found that ‘one-half of US versities in the US, Canada and the UK that
adults, or 98 million people, have taken an offer programmes or courses in ecotourism.
adventure trip in the past 5 years. This In these three countries alone, there are
includes 31 million adults who engaged in over 25 institutions of higher learning
hard adventure activities like white-water involved in ecotourism training (Eco-
rafting, scuba-diving and mountain biking. tourism Society, 1999) Of course, eco-
Adventure travellers are more likely to be tourism training is not limited to these few
young, single and employed compared to countries. Ecotourism-specific education is
all US adults’ (TIA, 2000). gaining recognition throughout the world
in both developed and developing coun-
As visitation to natural areas increases, tries. The Commonwealth Department of
including ecotourism visitation, so does Tourism in Australia also offers a list of
the demand for travel professionals to programmes in Australia. In addition, uni-
accommodate these tourists. Over the last versities in Costa Rica, Ecuador and Ghana
few years there has also been an increase in are just some of the many institutions
tourism professionals, such as travel worldwide delivering post-secondary eco-
agents, tour operators, tour guides, etc., tourism education.
that focus either on the ecotourism or at
least, the nature tourism markets. Today, it International recognition and
is not difficult to find a tour operator that regional support
specializes in an ‘eco-niche’ such as bird-
watching or hiking, among others. Internationally and regionally, nature
tourism and ecotourism are gaining public
At the same time, travel industry organi- awareness. Internationally, one of the great-
zations have also developed around this est ‘achievements’ of the ecotourism indus-
trend. Some of these groups include try is to have 2002 declared the
Partners in Responsible Tourism (PIRT), ‘International Year of Ecotourism’ by the
The Ecotourism Society (TES), Business United Nations (UN). The UN also declared
Enterprises for Sustainable Travel (BEST), 1999 to be the ‘Year of Sustainable
along with other regional ecotourism soci- Tourism, Small Island States and the
eties, such as in Australia, Pakistan, etc. Ocean’. The choice of ecotourism specifi-
These are just examples of the growing cally only 3 years later, is not only
number of travel industry affiliated organi- a great success for industry, but it also
zations developed to address different
aspects and issues related to this growing
trend for tourism to natural areas.

68 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

signifies the gradually accepted distinction tourism, such as ecotourism, that is
between sustainable tourism and eco- planned from the beginning with the local
tourism on the international development community and the sustainability of the
level. industry, as the prime benefactors. Some
of the strategies that are already being
Regionally, many governments have implemented include the following (DFID,
adopted either ecotourism strategies within 1999):
their national tourism plan or implemented
ecotourism-specific development projects. • The Fiji Tourism Development Plan has
The Vietnamese government planned to begun a programme of removal of red
adopt a ‘National Ecotourism Strategy’ in tape and regulations that suppress the
1999, designed to highlight ecotourism as a informal sector.
national development priority. The govern-
ment of Nepal implemented a 5-year • Some South African national and
Manaslu Ecotourism Project designed to provincial parks have facilitated access
build infrastructure, help local communi- to markets for local entrepreneurs by
ties benefit from tourism and at the same providing opportunities to initiate suit-
time help to conserve the environment able lodging outside the park or small
(Shrestha, 1997). In the US, the Environ- business endeavours or advertising
mental Protection Agency has begun a inside the park. The South African gov-
tourism industry-wide discussion on sus- ernment asks potential investors to sub-
tainable tourism development. The inten- mit their plans for boosting local
tion of this project is to create a working development when they bid for a
dialogue aimed at promoting sustainable tourism lease.
tourism development and management by
identifying what impediments and oppor- • Enhanced community participation in
tunities for sustainability the tourism areas where tourism is being used as a
industry is currently faced with. tool for economic development, such as
the north coast of Honduras.
According to the WTO, Brazil ‘launched
a US$200 million program to develop eco- At the same time, strategies currently being
logical tourism in the Amazon’ in 1997. employed throughout the world at the non-
The programme was funded by the Inter- governmental level include the following
American Development Bank, with a focus (DFID, 1999):
on private sector investment in Amazon
ecotourism, and the expansion and • Provide credit and non-financial ser-
improvement of conditions for ecotourism vices for micro-enterprise.
within this area (WTO, 1998c). Ecotourism
investment made by the Brazilian govern- • Build the capacity of poor people to
ment in 1996 totalled US$3 billion. assess tourism options.
However, in terms of gross domestic prod-
uct, this was less than Costa Rica, the • Facilitate communication and negotia-
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Chile tion between the tourism industry and
and Argentina, for example. Brazil expects local people.
that investment levels in ecotourism will
reach US$12 billion in 1999 (WTO, 1998c). • Understand tourism businesses so they
are well positioned so that all stakehold-
In addition to international agreements ers are satisfied.
and discussions, such as the UN’s Council
for Sustainable Development, there are a Some examples of the initiatives being
great number of smaller strategies taking taken by business to enhance linkages
place on a national or regional level to include (DFID, 1999):
stimulate tourism at the micro-enterprise
level and promote business linkages • out-source contracting (e.g. laundry,
intended upon developing alternative transportation, food service, water
sports concessions);

• support local enterprise;
• encourage tourists to visit local sellers;
• develop partnerships with communities;

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 69

• enhance partnerships with donors, mand a minority share of the international
NGOs and governments. tourism market, tourism can still make a
significant contribution to their economy’.
International funding or aid Of the earth’s poor ‘80% live in 12 coun-
tries (under $1 per day). In 11 of these,
One of the strongest indicators that eco- tourism is significant and/or growing’.
tourism, and more generally, sustainable Furthermore, for the world’s 100 poorest
tourism, are gaining worldwide recogni- countries, ‘tourism is significant in almost
tion, is the increasing amount of funding half the low income countries and virtually
available for these endeavours. Official all the lower-middle income countries
development financing or aid is usually (accounting for over 2% of GDP or 5% of
mobilized through multilateral (representa- exports)’ (DFID, 1999).
tive of several governments) institutions,
bilateral (one government) agencies, or Some of the key projects developed or
regional development banks. Many of these being developed by major multi-lateral or
institutions have begun to incorporate sus- national funding organizations are explained
tainable tourism development into larger below. It is important to note that the most
regional or national sustainable develop- significant aspect of this particular indica-
ment projects. Some of the organizations tor is the recent acceptance and continued
that have accepted sustainable tourism as a growth of tourism as a means for stimulat-
viable economic device for development ing economic growth, reducing poverty,
include the World Bank, UN, USAID, and and in the case of ecotourism, protecting
the European Union. the environment.

In the past, tourism has received ‘mixed In 1995, the World Bank boasted that
reviews’ from various development organi- since the 1992 Earth Summit, they had
zations, largely due to the bad reputation become the ‘world’s leading financier of
the industry has acquired from poorly environmental projects in the developing
planned, non-sustainable tourism develop- world’ (Honey, 1999). Recently, the World
ment. This problem occurs when tourism Bank Group, which includes the
is developed without stakeholder partici- International Finance Corporation (IFC)
pation and planning. Often, tourism pro- and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
jects that are deemed ‘economically Agency (MIGA), has begun to formally
beneficial’ are not necessarily socially or reintroduce sustainable tourism as a tool
environmentally beneficial, nor do the eco- for economic, social and environmental
nomic benefits fall to those most closely development. It is important to note that
affected by the development. While it is the IFC never stopped funding tourism pro-
true that this type of non-sustainable jects, as did the World Bank, although eco-
tourism development still occurs through- tourism does not account for a large
out the world, the popularization of alter- portion of their agenda (Honey, 1999). The
native tourism development such as IFC has devoted a special unit to general
ecotourism or cultural heritage tourism, is tourism development, which has invested
once again allowing tourism to be accepted over US$600 million in loans and equity
as an economic tool for sustainable devel- investments for general tourism develop-
opment (International Institute of Tourism ment projects (Honey, 1999). MIGA only
Studies, 1999). began its involvement with ecotourism in
1994 with the Rain Forest Aerial Tram in
Increased participation in tourism Costa Rica (Honey, 1999). Below is a list of
development on the part of international some examples of World Bank projects that
funding is particularly important to the include ecotourism development:
world’s poorest countries. According to the
UK’s Department for International Develop- • Lesotho-Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier
ment (DFID), ‘while poor countries com- Conservation and Development Area
Project

70 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

• Uganda-Protected Areas Management • Chile: Training and Capacity Building in
and Sustainable Use Project Tourism

• Madagascar-Second Environment Program • Costa Rica: Community-Based Eco-
Support Project tourism for Conservation of the Marine
Turtle and Marine Resources in
• Panama Atlantic Biological Corridor Gandoca. Project dates: February 1997–
• Costa Rica Development of Ecomarkets February 1998
• Georgia-Integrated Black Sea Environ-
• Dominican Republic: Ecotouristic Pro-
mental Project motion with Gender Participation on
• Indonesia-Maluku Conservation & Natural Ecological Transept Los Calabozos-La
Guazara in High Watershed Yaque del
Resources Management Project. Norte River. Project dates: September
1997–February 1998
The UN has also become involved with
tourism projects through the United • Dominican Republic: Sustainable
Nations Development Program (UNDP), Ecotourism and Environmental Educa-
which is the world’s largest multilateral tion in the Surrounding of Los Haitises
source for development cooperation National Park. Project dates: September
(UNDP, 1999) and the Global Environment 1997–September 1998
Facility (GEF). GEF was established as a
joint international effort to help solve • Zimbabwe: Umzingwane Ecotourism
global environmental problems. The GEF Project. Project dates: October 1997–
Trust Fund was established by a World October 1998.
Bank resolution as a joint programme
between the United Nations Development The two groups discussed above, the World
Program, UNEP and the World Bank Bank and the UN, are arguably the largest
(UNDP, 1999). international funding organizations on
Earth. However, there are a number of
In 1992, UNDP launched the GEF Small national or governmental aid organizations
Grants Program (GEF/SGP). The GEF/SGP such as USAID in the US, JICA in Japan,
provides grants of up to US$50,000 and DFID in the UK and many others. Each of
other support to community-based groups these programmes also provides develop-
(CBOs) and non-governmental organiza- mental funding to other countries around
tions (NGOs) for activities that address the world, including the funding of sus-
local problems related to the GEF areas of tainable tourism projects.
concern. Since its inception, the GEF/SGP
has funded over 750 projects in Africa, In addition to multilateral or govern-
North America and the Middle East, Asia mental aid, many not-for-profit organiza-
and the Pacific, Europe and Latin America tions, particularly those involved in
and the Caribbean. Today, the programme conservation and wildlife protection, have
is operational in 46 countries (Christopher also begun to incorporate tourism and eco-
Holtz, Washington 1999, personal commu- tourism into their strategic planning. Later
nication). Here are a few tourism projects in this book the role of not-for-profit orga-
from their small-grants portfolio: nizations will be discussed at length, there-
fore it is not necessary to go into too much
• Belize: Red Band Scarlet Macaw detail here on the efforts of the NGO com-
Conservation and Tourism Development munity. However, it is worth mentioning
Project. Project dates: June 1997–May that many governmental or internationally
1998 funded tourism projects are generally
developed in conjunction with or at least
• Brazil: Training Program for Income under the guidance of a not-for-profit orga-
Generation and Environmental Education nization, either locally or internationally.
for Communities near the Chapada dos
Veadeiros National Park. Project dates:
September 1997–February 1998

Global Growth and Magnitude of Ecotourism 71

Green certification and eco-labels • Blue Flag (Europe). This certification
for tourism scheme is promoted by the Foundation
For Environmental Education in Europe,
In general, the tourism industry is depen- which is a non-governmental organiza-
dent on the environment for its sustainabil- tion and is aimed primarily at the
ity and makes extensive use of the natural preservation and responsible use of
and cultural resources in its area of opera- beaches in Europe.
tion. The industry’s prosperity is thus
somewhat dependent on the conservation • We Are an Environmentally-friendly
and responsible use of the environment. Operation (Germany). This certification
Several organizations including govern- scheme is promoted by the Deutscher
ment organizations, not-for-profit industry Hotel and Gaststatten Verbans DEHOGA
organizations and NGOs have addressed (Hotel and Restaurant Association of
the issue pertaining to environmental con- Germany), which is an industry associa-
servation and best practices within the tion operating in the field of lodging and
tourism industry by introducing ecola- catering.
belling and green certification schemes.
Each certification programme defines crite- • Committed to Green (Europe). This cer-
ria and standards that enhance efficiency tification scheme has been developed by
and reduce overuse and wastage. Each the European Golf Association’s Ecology
scheme is unique in that the certification Unit.
period varies and may range from 1 to 3
years. Evaluation methods also vary from • Ecotel (International). This scheme has
scheme to scheme. Although there is abun- been developed by HVS Eco Services,
dant information on the criteria required to the environmental consulting division
participate in these schemes, there is a of HVS dedicated exclusively to the hos-
shortage of information on the evaluation pitality industry.
mechanisms and duration period of each
scheme. The individual certification pro- • British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow
grammes are discussed in greater detail Awards (International). These awards
below (United Nations Environment have been developed by British Airways
Program, 1998). and are directed at tour operators, indi-
vidual hotels and chains, national parks
• PATA Green Leaf (Asia-Pacific). This is a and heritage sites and other activities
green certification scheme developed by associated with tourism in order to pro-
the Pacific Asia Travel Association, mote the responsible use of the environ-
which is an industry association. ment by these agencies.

• Tyrolean Environmental Seal of Quality • Code of Practice for Ecotourism
(Austria and Italy). This scheme is pro- Operators (Regional). This code was
moted by Tirol Werbung and Sudtirol developed in 1991 by the Ecotourism
Werbung, which are public authorities Association of Australia, a not-for-profit
operating in the area of accommodation organization, to develop ethics and stan-
and catering. dards for ecotourism and to facilitate
understanding and interaction between
• Green Globe (International). This pro- the tourist, host communities, the
gramme was developed by the WTTC, tourism industries and government and
which is an industry association and conservation groups.
focuses on all industries within the
tourism sector. Conclusion

• The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary In its early stage of development, eco-
System (International). This scheme is tourism was regarded as a completely new
promoted by Audubon International, concept. However, today, as we can see
which is a non-governmental associa- from the indicators highlighted here, the
tion. areas of both ecotourism and nature

72 D.E. Hawkins and K. Lamoureux

tourism have become a significant portion practised on every one of the Earth’s conti-
of the tourism industry in general. Growing nents. There is no doubt that the industry
environmental awareness worldwide, paired made tremendous strides in the last part of
with advances in transportation and com- the 20th century. However, there is still
munication, will only help to foster future much to be done. ‘Green cloaking’, mis-
ecotourism growth. The markets for these managed or poorly planned projects and
types of sustainable tourism are likely to lack of education, are just some of the
expand as more people in the world obstacles ‘real’ ecotourism must overcome
achieve the financial resources needed to in order to continue to serve its purpose.
travel. In addition, ecotourism develop- Strong leadership, solid foundations and
ment will continue to expand and increase idealistic principles have brought eco-
in importance as more communities tourism to where it is today. We need to
around the world begin to accept it as an recommit to the promise of ecotourism so
essential strategy for their overall sustain- that future generations can enjoy sustain-
able development plan. able tourism experiences which produce
sound economic, social and environmental
Thirty years ago, the term ‘ecotourism’ outcomes.
did not exist. In 2000, ecotourism was

References

Adventure Travel Society, Inc. (1998) Adventure Travel Society Information Packet. The Adventure
Travel Society, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) Tourism and Poverty Elimination:
Untapped Potential. DFID, London.

The Ecotourism Society (1999) Ecotourism Education University and College Fact Sheet.
Bennington, Vermont, pp. 2–6.

Gartner, W.C. (1996) Tourism Development: Principles, Processes and Policies. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.

Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press,
Washington, DC.

International Institute of Tourism Studies (1999) Tourism Investment Promotion and Facilitation.
Draft. The George Washington University, Washington.

Jones, C.B. (1998) The new tourism and leisure environment: a discussion paper. Economics
Research Associates, San Francisco.

Shrestha, M. (1997) Can Trekkers Help Manaslu? People and Planet 6 (4).
Travel Industries of America (TIA) (1999) Fast Facts. TIA web site: http://www.tia.org/press/

fastfacts8.stm Washington.
Travel Industries of America (TIA) (2000) Travel Trends. TIA web site: http://www.tia.org/Travel/

TravelTrends.asp Washington.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (1999) About UNDP. http://www.undp.org.br/

pnudmund ING.htm?BI=UNDP New York.
United Nations Environment Program (1998) Ecolabels in the Tourism Industry. United Nations

Environment Program Industry and Environment, Paris.
Wight, P. (1996) North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics. Sage

Publications, California.
World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1998a) Global Tourism Forecasts. World Tourism Organization,

Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1998b) Tourism 2020 Vision. World Tourism Organization,

Madrid, pp. 3–11.
World Tourism Organization (1998c) Ecotourism. In: WTO News Jan/Feb Issue I. World Tourism

Organization, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999) Tourism Highlights 1999. World Tourism Organization,

Madrid.
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2000) World Travel and Tourism Council Year 2000 TSA

Research Tables. World Travel and Tourism Council, London.

Chapter 5

Ecotourism in the Context
of Other Tourism Types

D.B. Weaver

School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,
Queensland, Australia

Introduction ‘nature-based tourism’, ‘adventure tourism’,
‘trekking’ and ‘3S tourism’). These are fol-
The term ‘ecotourism’ has been used in the lowed by the terms that connote certain
literature and by the tourism industry since values or end results (i.e. ‘alternative’ or
the mid-1980s, and during this time has co- ‘mass’ tourism, ‘sustainable tourism’,
evolved along with a number of related and ‘non-consumptive’ or ‘consumptive
terms, including ‘nature-based tourism’, tourism’). ‘Mass tourism’ has both a
‘adventure tourism’, ‘alternative tourism’, descriptive and a value component, but is
‘trekking’, ‘non-consumptive tourism’ and considered under the second category
‘sustainable tourism’. Such terms are often because of its status as a counterpoint to
used synonymously with ecotourism, lead- alternative tourism. The net result of such
ing to a confusion in semantics that hin- a structure is to clarify both the descriptive
ders the development of tourism as a and evaluative dimensions of ecotourism
coherent field of studies with its own logi- within the context of this constellation of
cal network of distinct tourism categories. tourism categories.
At the same time, ecotourism and such
terms as ‘mass tourism’ and ‘3S’ (sea, sand, Nature-based Tourism
sun) tourism are typically seen as being
mutually exclusive. The purpose of this Ecotourism was often portrayed in the
chapter is, firstly, to consider the various early literature (e.g. Boo, 1990; Sherman
perspectives on the relationship between and Dixon, 1991; Whelan, 1991; WTTERC,
ecotourism and the other terms cited above 1993) as being indistinguishable from
that have emerged since the 1980s. ‘nature-based’, ‘nature-oriented’ or ‘nature’
Secondly, as a basis for future discussion, tourism. This tendency was no doubt fos-
Venn diagrams are used to suggest appro- tered by the equation of ‘nature’ with a rel-
priate relationships between ecotourism atively unspoiled natural environment, and
and each of these terms. with the close association between eco-
tourism and that same sort of environment.
The chapter begins with the terms that However, even at that early stage, some
are essentially descriptive, in that they analysts such as Ziffer (1989) argued for
indicate the relevant resource base, attrac-
tions and activities used by that sector (i.e.

© CAB International 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism 73
(ed. D.B. Weaver)

74 D.B. Weaver

the differentiation between ecotourism and Nature-based tourism
nature-based tourism on the grounds that
the former implied adherence to a particu- Ecotourism
lar set of sustainability values. In contrast,
nature-based tourism according to Ingram Fig. 5.1. Nature-based tourism and ecotourism.
and Durst (1987) is simply leisure travel
that involves utilization of the natural component is best demonstrated with
resources of an area. respect to the influence and presence of
indigenous cultures, wherein the boundary
This early recognition of a distinction between culture and nature may be per-
between ecotourism and nature-based ceived as cloudy at best, and arguably even
tourism is now more normative in the liter- as an entirely artificial construct.
ature and among practitioners (e.g.
Goodwin, 1996; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1998). Adventure Tourism
Fennell (1999) suggests a growing consen-
sus around the view that ecotourism is but As with nature-based tourism, the term
one component within the latter broad cat- ‘adventure tourism’ has sometimes been
egory. The breadth of options that is used interchangeably with ecotourism (e.g.
accommodated within the ‘nature-based Kutay, 1989). Others, such as the Canadian
tourism’ category is apparent in Goodwin Tourism Commission, have included
(1996), who includes 3S-type mass ‘nature observation’ and ‘wildlife viewing’
tourism, adventure tourism and trekking, under the adventure tourism umbrella
as well as ecotourism. To this array could (Fennell, 1999). However, more usually,
be added hunting and fishing, which are adventure tourism is differentiated by its
seldom described as forms of ecotourism. emphasis on three factors:
More open to debate is the specification of • an element of risk in the tourism experi-
ecotourism’s ‘territory’ within the nature-
based tourism realm, which depends upon ence (Ewart, 1989; Hall, 1992; Fennell,
the extent to which one accepts interac- 1999);
tions with nature that are ‘soft’ and high- • higher levels of physical exertion by the
volume as a legitimate component of participant (Ewart, 1989); and
ecotourism (see discussion on mass • the need for specialized skills to facili-
tourism below). Beyond this question of tate successful participation.
scale and intensity of interaction, eco- Although there is a tendency in the litera-
tourism is differentiated from other forms ture to associate adventure tourism with
of nature-based tourism by such factors as natural settings (Sung et al., 1996/97), this
sustainability (that is, nature-based tourism form of tourism also has a connection with
is not necessarily sustainable) and the
nature of the interaction between the
tourist and the attraction, as discussed
below.

The Venn diagram depicted in Fig. 5.1
puts forward the view, with one major
qualification, that ecotourism is a subset of
nature-based tourism. The fact that eco-
tourism is not subsumed entirely under
this category recognizes that certain past
and present cultural attractions may consti-
tute a secondary component of ecotourism.
Such a view, for example, is contained in
the original definition of ecotourism pro-
vided by Ceballos-Lascuráin (in Boo, 1990).
The logic of incorporating this cultural

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 75

non-nature-based venues. This is demon- Ecotourism Adventure
strated by tourist activities that involve tourism
interaction with remote cultures, or with
situations involving conflict (as in Fig. 5.2. Adventure tourism and ecotourism.
Fielding’s the World’s Most Dangerous
Places guidebook – Pelton, 1999). any interaction with the natural environ-
ment, then the overlap will of course
On the nature side, activities typically be much greater (Canadian Tourism
associated with adventure tourism include Commission, 1997).
white-water rafting, wilderness hiking, sky-
diving, sea-kayaking, caving, orienteering, Trekking
mountain climbing, diving and hang-
gliding (Sung et al., 1996/97). Aside from ‘Trekking’ is a form of tourism activity usu-
the characteristics listed above, the essen- ally associated with mountainous venues
tial factor that tends to place such activities such as the Himalayas and northern
within adventure tourism, and not eco- Thailand (Cohen, 1989; Rai and Sundriyal,
tourism, is the nature of interaction with 1997; Weaver, 1998). A trek typically
the surrounding natural environment. entails some combination of distance hik-
Whereas ecotourism places the stress on an ing, visits to local villages, adventure expe-
educative or appreciative interaction with riences (such as using rope bridges to cross
that environment or some element thereof, streams) and nature/scenery appreciation
adventure tourists are primarily interested (Dearden and Harron, 1994). Hence, trekking
in accessing settings that facilitate the can legitimately be portrayed as an amal-
desired level of risk and physical exertion. gam that incorporates, in varying degrees,
Steep mountain slopes, wilderness settings elements of cultural tourism, ecotourism
and white-water rapids, in this view, are and adventure tourism (see Fig. 5.3). While
valued primarily for the personal thrills advocating that ecotourism should main-
and challenges that they offer, not for their tain its focus as a distinct tourism type,
scientific interest or associated species of Fennell (1999) acknowledges that such
wildlife. combinations, which he describes as ACE
tourism (adventure, cultural, ecotourism),
However, there are of course many situ- are preferred by some practitioners and
ations where the ‘adventure tourist’ is marketers over terms such as ecotourism.
equally interested in the above qualities. At least two related factors account for this
Similarly, there are many ‘ecotourists’ who popularity. Firstly, there are many circum-
are willing to incur an element of risk in stances where it is virtually impossible to
order to access or experience a particular differentiate in any meaningful way among
natural attraction. Examples include the the three components; the distinctions, for
wilderness hiker who seeks to find some example, are not likely to be made by the
undisturbed habitat, or the birdwatcher tourists themselves as they simultaneously
who takes physical risks in order to engage in cultural, nature-based and
observe a rare bird of prey in its high adventurous activities. Secondly, such a
mountain habitat. Accordingly, the rela-
tionship between ecotourism and adven-
ture tourism is one of partial overlap, as
depicted in Fig. 5.2. The reason for provid-
ing only a limited scope for overlap is the
probability that only the ‘harder’ and more
dedicated forms of ecotourism, which
account for only a very small proportion of
all ecotourism activity (see Chapter 2), will
entail a significant element of risk. If mini-
mal-risk ‘soft adventure’ activities are
allowed, which encompasses just about

76 D.B. Weaver

Ecotourism Cultural accepted definitions of ecotourism if they
tourism focus on the observation of the marine
environment and are pursued in a sustain-
Adventure Trekking able manner. This is not to say that marine
tourism observation is necessarily a form of eco-
tourism, but rather that there is no inherent
Fig. 5.3. Trekking and ecotourism. grounds for exclusion on the basis of a
close association with 3S tourism. The case
synthesized tourism product may be popu- for a linkage is strengthened by historical
lar among consumers seeking a diversified trends in the diving sector that have seen a
and more holistic tourism experience, as movement away from consumptive activi-
opposed to one that is perceived to be ties such as spear-fishing (which is now
mono-directional and overly specialized. illegal in many recreational diving venues)
Another example of such an acronym, toward the passive viewing of marine
coined as a result of similar concerns, and fauna. As well, marine protected areas are
also applicable to trekking, is the concept growing in importance as a preferred non-
of NEAT tourism (nature, ecotourism and consumptive diving venue (Tabata, 1991;
adventure tourism) (Ralf Buckley, 1999, Davis et al., 1996).
personal communication).
The amount of overlap provided in Fig.
3S Tourism 5.4 attests to the importance of diving as a
rapidly growing component of tourism,
With its resource base of ‘sea, sand and and hence of ecotourism (Tabata, 1991).
sun’, 3S tourism clearly fits within the cat- This linkage between the two sectors is not
egory of nature-based tourism. However, merely a matter of incidental interest, since
given its affiliation with mass tourism and it leads to the need for a major reassess-
its emphasis on hedonism, a link is rarely ment of the overall magnitude of eco-
made with ecotourism, which is usually tourism, its composition, and of its
positioned at the opposite end of the importance within destinations that are not
tourism spectrum in terms of motivation, usually associated with the sector. The lat-
impact and scale (see below). Despite this ter include stereotypical 3S locales such as
apparent incompatibility, there is one the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin
major cluster of activities that account for Islands and the Bahamas (Weaver, 1998), as
an area of overlap. This group includes well as the Egyptian coastal resort of
scuba-diving, skin diving, snorkelling, sub- Sharm-el-Sheikh, where divers in the mid-
marine tours and other types of marine 1990s accounted for about 50,000 of
observation. Such activities are commonly 200,000 visitors in total (Hawkins and
associated with 3S-oriented vacations, yet
can be entirely consistent with widely 3S Tourism

Ecotourism

Fig. 5.4. 3S Tourism and ecotourism.

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 77

Roberts, 1994). In addition, specialized with the remainder of the latter category
diving venues such as Saba (Netherlands being accounted for by mainly socio-cul-
Antilles) and Palau would need to be more tural forms of alternative tourism such as
firmly repositioned as specialized eco- vacation farms, homestays, feminist travel,
tourism destinations if the diving that etc. Mass tourism stands in relationship to
occurs there is recognized as a form of eco- this model as a mutually exclusive cate-
tourism. gory of tourism, separated by what Clarke
(1997) describes as a conceptual barrier.
Alternative Tourism and
Mass Tourism As stated above, this structure, depicted
in Fig. 5.5, is the one that has been preva-
The discussion of ecotourism within the lent in the literature. However, this per-
context of alternative tourism cannot be spective is now being increasingly
divorced from the context of mass tourism, challenged in conjunction with changing
and hence the two are discussed together views about the nature of the relationship
in this section. Within the tourism litera- between alternative tourism and mass
ture, ecotourism is commonly regarded as a tourism. In effect, this view suggests that
form of ‘alternative tourism’ that places its the alternative tourism and mass tourism
emphasis on natural rather than cultural ideal types are merely the poles of a con-
attractions (e.g. Goodwin, 1996; Weaver, tinuum, and that the movement from one
1998). To appreciate this value-based link- to the other is therefore a matter of subtle
age, it is necessary to review some of the transition rather than abrupt boundary.
major conceptual developments that have This rethinking, which also entails a
occurred in the field of tourism studies reassessment of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ values
since the 1960s. In brief, the post-war assigned to each of the ideal types (see the
period was dominated by an ‘advocacy section on sustainable tourism below), is
platform’ that tended to view tourism coherent with yet another shift in philoso-
uncritically as an economic benefit to most phy within tourism studies, to what Jafari
destinations. This perspective both con- (1989) describes as a more objective
doned and encouraged the emergence of ‘knowledge-based platform’.
the mass tourism sector (Jafari, 1989).
During the 1970s, the advocacy platform As the line between alternative and
was challenged by a ‘cautionary platform’ mass tourism becomes increasingly vague,
that regarded mass tourism in a far more so too does the boundary between eco-
critical light because of its purported nega- tourism and mass tourism. For many acad-
tive impacts. emics and practitioners, the concept of
‘mass’ or ‘large-scale ecotourism’ is an oxy-
The next logical step in this evolution moron or a betrayal of principle. Yet, while
was the emergence in the early 1980s of the it is logical to assume that a small-scale
‘adaptancy platform’, which introduced the ecotourism enterprise is more likely to
concept of ‘alternative tourism’ as a more meet the requirements of sustainability in
benign alternative to mass tourism (Dernoi, most circumstances, there is no inherent
1981; Holden, 1984; Gonsalves, 1987). reason why a large-scale product cannot be
Typically, the relationship between the two sustainable, while simultaneously meeting
forms of tourism was depicted in dialecti- the other criteria assigned to ecotourism.
cal and dichotomous terms, with alterna- Upon closer examination, one can identify
tive tourism clearly being the ‘good’ additional grounds for including some por-
option, and mass tourism the ‘bad’ option tion of ecotourism activity under the cate-
(Lanfant and Graburn, 1992; Clarke, 1997) gory of mass or large-scale tourism:
(Table 5.1). With the two types of tourism
conceived in this way, ecotourism is logi- • ‘Soft’ ecotourism activity in some desti-
cally subsumed under alternative tourism, nations is in practice already large
enough in volume to warrant the label
of mass tourism (without its negative

78 D.B. Weaver

Table 5.1. Mass tourism and alternative tourism: ideal types as portrayed by the advocacy platform
(Weaver, 1998).

Characteristic Mass tourism Alternative tourism

Markets Psychocentric–midcentric Allocentric–midcentric
Segment High; package tours Low; individual arrangements
Volume and mode Distinct high and low seasons No distinct seasonality
Seasonality A few dominant markets No dominant markets
Origins

Attractions Highly commercialized Moderately commercialized
Emphasis Generic, ‘contrived’ Area specific, ‘authentic’
Character Tourists only or mainly Tourists and locals
Orientation

Accommodation Large scale Small scale
Size Concentrated in ‘tourist areas’ Dispersed throughout area
Spatial pattern High density Low density
Density ‘International’ style; obtrusive, Vernacular style, unobtrusive,
Architecture
non-sympathetic complementary
Ownership Non-local, large corporations Local, small businesses

Economic status Dominates local economy Complements existing activity
Role of tourism Mainly external Mainly internal
Linkages Extensive Minimal
Leakages Low High
Multiplier effect

Regulation Non-local private sector Local ‘community’
Control Minimal; to facilitate private Extensive; to minimize local
Amount
sector negative impacts
Ideology Free market forces Public intervention
Emphasis Economic growth, profits; Community stability and well-

Timeframe sector-specific being; integrated, holistic
Short term Long term

value connotations), while remaining holder capable of lobbying government
coherent with the principles of sustain- on a more equal foothold with tradi-
ability. This situation is evident in many tional resource users such as agricul-
popular protected areas, where stringent ture, mining and logging.
zoning regulations and site-hardening • Many if not most ‘soft’ ecotourism par-
tactics facilitate a high but apparently ticipants are mass tourists engaged in
sustainable volume of visitation (see such activities as part of a broader,
Chapter 18). The argument has even multi-purpose vacation that often places
been made that higher volumes of visita- the emphasis in the 3S realm. Most eco-
tion create the economies of scale and tourism activity in the high profile eco-
revenue flow that justify the implemen- tourism destinations of Costa Rica and
tation of sophisticated management Kenya, for example, fits into this cate-
techniques that facilitate sustainable gory (Weaver, 1999). Moreover, it
outcomes. In addition, they help to posi- appears that the possibility of accessing
tion ecotourism as a resource stake- both the well-serviced beach-based

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 79

Alternative (Ayala, 1996; Clarke, 1997). In turn, mass
tourism tourism supplies a large market of soft eco-
tourists that helps to position ecotourism
Mass tourism as an important stakeholder capable of lob-
bying on an equal footing with stakehold-
Ecotourism ers in other sectors such as agriculture and
logging. Furthermore, as mentioned above,
Fig. 5.5. Alternative tourism and ecotourism: the mass tourism industry can introduce
conventional approach. sophisticated environmental management
strategies to ecotourism that Clarke (1997)
resorts and the natural attractions of suggests are beyond the capability of most
well-known protected areas is a primary traditional small-scale ecotourism opera-
motivation for these tourists to visit tions.
those two countries, rather than coun-
tries that are wildlife-rich but service- The relationships fostered by this less
poor. conventional perspective are depicted in
Fig. 5.7. All tourism is depicted by a single
This evidence suggests that the emerging circle, within which smaller-scale, alterna-
relationship between mass tourism and tive tourism-type products constitute one
ecotourism may be moving in the direction relatively small component that gradually
of synthesis, convergence and symbiosis. gives way to large-scale tourism (the dotted
As shown in Fig. 5.6, ecotourism can serve line represents the presence of a transition
to strengthen the mass tourism product by zone rather than a sharp boundary).
offering opportunities for diversification Ecotourism is positioned as a diverse activ-
that are especially attractive in the light of ity that overlaps both the alternative and
the increased ‘greening’ of the tourist mar- mass tourism components of the circle,
ket. As well, ecotourism, with its roots in thereby encompassing all options from the
the cautionary and adaptancy platforms, lone wilderness hiker (hard ecotourism) to
can help to impart an ethos of sustainabil- the busload of resort patrons engaged in a
ity and environmental awareness to the half-day excursion to a local wildlife inter-
mainstream sector, thus assisting its move- pretation centre (soft ecotourism).
ment in the direction of sustainability
Without doubt, this association between
mass tourism and ecotourism is controver-
sial, and is a linkage not likely to be
universally embraced by ecotourism stake-
holders. One counter-argument holds that
the disparity in power between the two
sectors will mean that the influence of
mass tourism over ecotourism is likely to

• Imparts sustainability/environmental ethos to mainstream
• Provides diversification opportunities for mass tourism
• Attractive to an increasingly ‘green’ tourist market

Ecotourism Mass tourism

• Provides sufficient market and revenue flows to position ecotourism as a

major resource stakeholder, with significant lobbying clout

• Introduction of effective environmental management systems

Fig. 5.6. Converging and symbiotic relationship between ecotourism and mass tourism.

80 D.B. Weaver

Alternative tourism was and still is broadly conceived
tourism as tourism that does not threaten the eco-
nomic, social, cultural or environmental
Mass tourism integrity of the tourist destination over the
long term (Butler, 1993). Since no one is
Ecotourism likely to disagree in principle with this
goal, it is not surprising that sustainable
Fig. 5.7. Alternative tourism, mass tourism and tourism has emerged as the ‘great impera-
ecotourism: emergent approach. tive’ of the global tourism sector.

be much greater than the reverse situation, In its initial conception, sustainable
and that mass tourism will therefore effec- tourism was commonly perceived as being
tively appropriate ecotourism for its own synonymous with alternative tourism, in
purposes. This, however, assumes a cau- keeping with the philosophy of the cau-
tionary platform model of large-scale tionary and adaptancy platforms (Clarke,
tourism as a sector guided by sinister 1997). Accordingly, ecotourism, as a subset
intentions and essentially unaffected by of alternative tourism, was also regarded as
the positive dimensions of the sustainabil- a subset of sustainable tourism. However,
ity paradigm. It would follow from this how is this set of relationships affected
assumption that the outcomes of such an once ecotourism is extended into the realm
annexation would be unsustainable, and of large-scale or mass tourism, as depicted
therefore ecotourism could not become in Fig. 5.7? Under the cautionary and adap-
established on the mass tourism side of the tancy perspectives, such an extension is a
tourism spectrum. contradiction, as such activity would cease
to meet the criterion of sustainability. The
Sustainable Tourism knowledge-based platform, in contrast, de-
emphasizes the relationship between scale
The concept of ‘sustainable tourism’ has and sustainability; small-scale operations
proven to be just as or even more con- can be bad or good, depending on the way
tentious than ecotourism or alternative that they are managed, while the same can
tourism since its introduction in the late be said for large-scale operations (Weaver
1980s. While the idea of sustainability had and Lawton, 1999). The core criterion of
been alluded to much earlier in the tourism sustainability can therefore be retained
literature, the appearance of the term ‘sus- when ecotourism is extended into the mass
tainable tourism’ itself followed the release tourism arena, and ecotourism remains a
of the so-called ‘Brundtland Report’ in subset of sustainable tourism (Fig. 5.8),
1987, which popularized the concept of since sustainability is one of the core eco-
‘sustainable development’ (WCED, 1987). tourism criteria. The actual positioning of
In emulation of its namesake, sustainable the sustainable tourism circle in this figure,
however, concedes that alternative tourism
is at present more likely than mass tourism
to be sustainable, with the qualification
that the entire issue of sustainability is
fraught with uncertainty.

Consumptive and Non-consumptive
Tourism

The distinction between ‘consumptive’ and
‘non-consumptive’ activity has long been
recognized in the tourism and outdoor
recreation literature. Non-consumptive activi-

Ecotourism in the Context of Other Tourism Types 81

Alternative food and other products for the duration
tourism of the ecotourism experience;
• the purchase of material souvenirs,
Ecotourism Mass which require at least some degree of
tourism resource consumption;
• the gradual and imperceptible deteriora-
Sustainable tion of the environment through ero-
tourism sion, trampling of vegetation and other
stresses incurred during the process of
Fig. 5.8. Sustainable tourism and ecotourism. wildlife observation or in the establish-
ment of facilities; these can be described
ties are commonly perceived as those that as a form of unintended resource con-
offer experiences to the market, while con- sumption;
sumptive activities offer tangible products • the keeping of checklists of wildlife
(Applegate and Clark, 1987). Activities species as a type of score-keeping or
such as hunting and fishing (except per- consumption; that is, once a species has
haps for ‘catch and release’ fishing) are been sighted, it is checked off and is no
commonly identified as being consump- longer sought, and is thus ‘consumed’.
tive, while ecotourism-related activities
such as birdwatching are usually perceived On the other hand, Duffus and Dearden
as experiential, and hence non-consump- (1990) suggest that the consumptive–non-
tive. consumptive distinction is useful, since
there is a fundamental difference between
Vaske et al. (1982), among others, have activities that deliberately seek to destroy
questioned the merit of this dichotomous and remove an organism and those that do
approach, and have suggested instead that not. In this view, it would still be legiti-
activities fall along a consumptive–non- mate to describe ecotourism as an essen-
consumptive continuum, and that all activ- tially non-consumptive activity, despite the
ities actually incorporate elements of both. four facets of ‘consumption’ bulleted
This is illustrated by the observation that above. Figure 5.9 positions ecotourism in a
most hunting excursions actually end with-
out any kills being achieved, and that the Consumptive Non-consumptive
aesthetic experiences of being in a rural or
semi-wild environment are rated just as Ecotourism
highly by many hunters as the hunting/
killing element itself. Conversely, eco- Fig. 5.9. Consumptive/non-consumptive tourism
tourism ‘experiences’ potentially involve and ecotourism.
several forms of ‘consumption’, as follows:

• the consumption of fossil fuels in the
process of transit, and when using vehi-
cles or boats in the process of wildlife
observation; also the consumption of

82 D.B. Weaver

way that takes into account both of these a different conception of ecotourism, such
perspectives. The larger circle represents as more of an emphasis on its ‘hard’ com-
all tourism, and incorporates the contin- ponent or more accommodation of cultural
uum by positioning consumptive and non- attractions, would yield a different mea-
consumptive tourism at either side. sure of overlap in the relevant case.
Ecotourism, which is only a relatively
small proportion of all tourism, is primar- For the value-based terms, the relation-
ily non-consumptive, but is extended over ships are more complex. During the era
into the consumptive side to recognize when the cautionary and adaptancy plat-
these consumptive aspects as well. forms were dominant, ecotourism was
However, it does not extend as far into this unambiguously affiliated with alternative
side as the same territory occupied by and non-consumptive tourism. These affili-
hunting or fishing. ations survive under the knowledge-based
platform. However, it is argued here that
Conclusions ecotourism can now also straddle the
boundary with mass tourism and consump-
This chapter has attempted to clarify the tive tourism, respectively, while still
relationship between ecotourism and other retaining its core defining characteristics.
types of tourism that are commonly associ- This is because of the new platform’s ten-
ated or disassociated with ecotourism. In dency to position tourism activities along
summing up these relationships, two dis- continuums rather than into dichotomies,
tinct patterns are apparent. With all of the and to remove the negative connotations
descriptive terms (i.e. ‘nature-based’, from mass tourism in particular. The only
‘adventure’, ‘trekking’ and ‘3S’), the associ- situation in which ecotourism is still con-
ation with ecotourism as depicted in the sidered to be subsumed entirely under
Venn diagrams is one of overlap. The over- another term is with respect to sustainable
laps allowed for in this chapter depend tourism. Coherent with the disassociation
upon the specific way in which each term, between scale and value, both the alterna-
including ecotourism, is defined. Obviously, tive and mass tourism components of eco-
tourism fall under the sustainable tourism
umbrella.

References

Applegate, J. and Clark, K. (1987) Satisfaction levels of birdwatchers: an observation on the con-
sumptive–nonconsumptive continuum. Leisure Sciences 9, 129–134.

Ayala, H. (1996) Resort ecotourism: a paradigm for the 21st century. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 37(5), 46–51.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls, Vol. 1. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.
Butler, R.W. (1993) Tourism – an evolutionary perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R.W. and Wall, G.

(eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Department of
Geography Publication Series 37, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, pp. 29–43.
Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) Adventure Travel and Ecotourism: the Challenge Ahead.
Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa, Canada.
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1998) Introduction. In: Lindberg, K., Epler Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds)
Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2. Ecotourism Society, North Bennington,
Vermont, pp. 7–10.
Cohen, E. (1989) ‘Primitive and remote’ hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research
16, 30–61.
Clarke, J. (1997) A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
5, 224–233.
Davis, D., Banks, S. and Davey, G. (1996) Aspects of recreational scuba diving in Australia. In:
Prosser, G. (ed.) Tourism and Hospitality Research: Australian and International Perspectives.